Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FROST. Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I will be urging Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question in order to strike from this rule a provision that the Republican leadership would rather Members did not know about. When the Committee on Rules voted to report this rule last night, they slipped in an unrelated self-executing provision that allows for an increase in the debt ceiling. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) made a motion in committee to strike this provision, but it was defeated. So Members of this House should be aware that when they vote for this rule, they will be voting to increase the statutory debt limit by almost $700 billion for the next fiscal year. It is no wonder that they do not want Members to know about this. They would rather not have a separate vote or even a debate on the inescapable fact that their budget raises our national statutory debt limit to the highest level in history, to a staggering $8 trillion, an amount that is almost incomprehensible to most of us. Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there is an honest disagreement in this House over our Nation's fiscal priorities. Many of us believe that, with record deficits and the high cost of the war on terror, we need to reevaluate our budget priorities and find a better way to match our revenues with our spending needs. It seems as though my Republican colleagues do not think there is a problem. They think it is just fine to continue on with the budgetary policies that have brought us into our current fiscal mess. They seem to think it is fine to keep driving up our national debt and let our children and grandchildren figure out how to pay for it. If that is how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to proceed, they should at least have the political courage to vote up or down on this issue instead of relying on undercover parliamentary tricks. If you truly favor the fiscal policies that are sending the national debt through the ceiling, you should be willing to stand up on the floor of the House and vote for them. I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Defense appropriations bill. I do not oppose that portion of this rule. A ``no'' vote will simply strip this self-executing smoke screen from the rule so that we do not slip the debt increase through the House with no debate and no separate vote. However, a ``yes'' vote will allow this record-breaking increase to be enacted without a separate up-or-down vote. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner). (Mr. TANNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time remaining on each side.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member of the Committee on the Budget. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the whip.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the annual Department of Defense appropriation bill is one that can truly be called bipartisan. It is developed on a bipartisan basis in the Committee on Appropriations, and it usually enjoys bipartisan support on the floor of the House. It is a bipartisan bill because it is of importance to our country. Providing for our national defense is one of our most important duties as Members of Congress. Providing funding for our troops to ensure their safety and success of the war on terror is our obligation. This year's bill is no exception. The Committee on Appropriations has put together a good bill, one that that provides vital support for our troops in times of war. This bill gives our troops a much deserved 3.5 percent pay raise. It gives the Department of Defense $25 billion for emergency supplemental funding for the war on terror. These funds directly and significantly aid our servicemen and women by providing them with the tools they need to fight the war on terror and return home safely. It will provide every soldier with body armor, allow for more armored Humvees, and increase the size of the Army to relieve the burden on our overworked soldiers. The Department of Defense appropriations bill not only aids our troops overseas, it also helps our communities here at home. The bill before us today funds several defense and weapons programs manufactured in north Texas. Lockheed Martin will receive $4.1 billion for 24 F-22 Air Force fighter aircraft, and $4.4 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter. Just over $200 million is provided for three Global Hawk High Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, a program supported by Vought Aircraft Industries in Texas. And Bell-Textron will receive over $1.1 billion for 11 V-22 aircraft. By funding the continued development of these weapons systems, we are not only providing for the long-term support and protection of our troops, we are preserving good jobs for hard working Americans in my part of the country. Mr. Speaker, I have been a Member of Congress for more than 25 years. And each and every one of these years I voted in favor of the Department of Defense appropriations bill and its rule. But this year, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has snuck a last minute provision to raise the debt limit into the bill. The so-called ``full faith and credit'' clause will allow this House to raise the debt limit by nearly $700 billion as part of the conference report on the Department of Defense appropriations bill. $700 billion is almost twice as much as we are spending on the entire Department of Defense under this bill. Some Members on the other sides of the aisle will tell you that this clause does not mean anything, it is just a procedural item. But I have been here long enough to know when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. And this House leadership is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. So this year, Mr. Speaker, although I will vote in favor of the underlying bill, I will vote against the rule. I am incensed at this underhanded move to raise the debt limit, and shortly I will attempt to defeat the previous question by offering a motion to strip this deceptive provision from this important bill. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me. The defense appropriations bill has always been a bipartisan initiative. Introducing partisanship into the war on terror is absolutely inacceptable. I resent that anyone would use this bill as a political tool to raise the national debt and threaten the possibility of its passage. Shame on all of you. A vote on the debt limit deserves a separate vote. If consideration of the defense appropriations bill is rejected or delayed because you insisted on playing petty political games, you will be held accountable by the American people and by our troops. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). (Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the life of my good friend and neighbor, Chris Semos, who died Monday morning at age 68. He was an even-tempered gentleman who provided leadership to his community and to his church. A long-time resident of the Oak Cliffs section of Dallas, Chris served eight terms as a Democratic member of the Texas legislature from 1966 to 1982. Following that, he served 12 years as a member of the Dallas County Commissioner's Court. He was a thoughtful public servant who worked cordially with members of both parties to benefit his beloved Oak Cliff, his county, and his State. Additionally, he was a nationally recognized leader of the Greek Orthodox Church. In fact, he met his wife of 37 years, Tassie, at a church conference in North Carolina. For many years, Chris operated a popular restaurant in Oak Cliff, The Torch, where we shared baklava on many occasions. The victory party for my first successful race for Congress in 1978 was in the back room of The Torch. Chris quietly made his influence felt in many ways. He introduced the current mayor of Dallas, Laura Miller, to her husband, Steve Wolens, who succeeded Chris in the State legislature. He was recently recognized by the Oak Cliff Lions Club as its Humanitarian of the Year. We will all miss a great community leader, Chris Semos.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor President Reagan's legacy to our country. I was elected in 1978, 2 years before Ronald Reagan assumed the Presidency. I served in Congress the entire 8 years of his Presidency and had the opportunity to observe him at close range. We often disagreed on domestic policy; however, we were largely in agreement on foreign policy, and Reagan, indeed, left an indelible mark in the field of foreign affairs. He correctly understood the economic vulnerability of the Soviet Union and exploited this to win the Cold War without firing a shot. He increased U.S. defense spending, an effort which I supported, and when the Soviet Union tried to keep pace, it fell apart from the economic strain. The watchword of his administration was peace through strength. President Reagan brought hope and optimism to our country at a time when it was sorely needed. Also, he demonstrated through word and deed that one could disagree with their domestic political adversaries and still be friends at the end of the day. This is an element that is sorely missing from today's highly charged partisan atmosphere in Washington. Ronald Reagan won his share of battles in Congress, but he did it without lasting rancor. That was perhaps his greatest legacy. We could use a little bit of that spirit today.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a courageous serviceman who lost his life while bravely serving our country in Iraq. Jason Ludlam made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and for the American people. In times of war, our soldiers and their families carry the gravest imaginable burden upon their shoulders. The service these brave men and women provide their country is immeasurable and will not be forgotten. I truly sympathize with the families of fallen heroes for their terrible loss. It is my hope that many good memories help bring these families comfort in their time of need. Mr. Speaker, I recognize and honor Jason Ludlam for the sacrifice he made and for the service he gave his country. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a courageous serviceman who lost his life while bravely serving our country in Iraq. Kenneth Melton made the ultimate sacrifice for his country and for the American people. In times of war, our soldiers and their families carry the gravest imaginable burden upon their shoulders. The service these brave men and women provide their country is immeasurable and will not be forgotten. I truly sympathize with the families of fallen heroes for their terrible loss. It is my hope that many good memories help bring these families comfort in their time of need. Mr. Speaker, I recognize and honor Kenneth Melton for the sacrifice he made and for the service he gave his country.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and the Democratic leader for bringing this resolution to the Floor this morning so that Members of the House may pay tribute to our friend Charles W. Johnson. Charlie is taking leave of his position as Parliamentarian of the House today, exactly 40 years after he began as a young lawyer fresh out of law school in the Parliamentarian's office. On his last day in the House it is only fitting that the Members of this body can take the floor to pay tribute to him and express our gratitude and our friendship. To say that Charlie is a creature of the House or a servant of this institution does him a disservice, for without him, many of us would never have learned the intricacies of the Rules of the House, its practices and its procedures. Without his sage advice and counsel, so many of us, as well as our staff, would be lost in the maze of legislative practice. His office, just off this floor, is more than just an office; it has served as a focal point for discussions both pointed and prosaic, political and procedural, but always, always, non-partisan. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, Charlie is the institution. During his 40 years as a Parliamentarian, he has served Democratic Speakers and Republican Speakers. He has shown fairness to all and malice to none. Not an easy task, where tempers can run high and where blame is easily cast. He has served through peace and war and through times of great national triumph and tragedy. Charlie has always risen to the challenge, and in doing so, has challenged so many of us to do so as well. Charlie took over the job as the Parliamentarian in 1994 following the retirement of his dear friend and colleague Bill Brown. Just as Bill was a voice of calm, deliberative reason, so is Charlie. Far too often we, as Members, fail to recognize the importance of those qualities in the people who ensure that the business of the House can proceed, regardless of which political party holds the majority. I know that it is often the case with regard to Charlie and the entire staff of the Office of the Parliamentarian. Charlie is so good at what he does that he makes the job look easy. But I, for one, know it is not. But his talents, his intellect and his love for this institution have made our job as legislators all the more easy, and I am grateful. When I was first elected to the House 26 years ago, I became only the second freshman Member in the 20th century to take a seat on the Committee on Rules. Had it not been for Bill and Charlie, my acclimation to that difficult post would have been far more difficult. I know because of their patient tutelage, their willingness to just sit down and talk, their careful guidance, my knowledge of the Rules and how to use them now runs both deep and wide. I want to take just a moment, Mr. Speaker, to kind of talk about my personal experience with Charlie and his office. From time to time, I, my staff, would go to see Charlie and we would ask very direct questions, questions that were vital to formulating strategy on our side of the aisle. What he would do would be to respond to every question and to answer every question truthfully. He did not go beyond that. He did not try to suggest what strategic steps we should take. He only answered what we asked. And I know he did that for the other side as well. He was truly acting in the best, non-partisan position in helping us as partisans understand what we could and could not do. But he never went beyond that. He never said, ``By the way, you know, you could do this also.'' And that is the role of a Parliamentarian, to answer truthfully the questions of both sides of the aisle, and then let those Members on both sides of the aisle figure out where they go with the information. I cannot tell you how important that is to the functioning of this body and how important it has been to me as a Member to know that I can go to someone and get an honest answer; who will answer my questions, but who will not necessarily go beyond that. And I respect that. I know we will all miss Charlie, but I also know we all wish him well. He has earned the respect of hundreds of Members and more staff than he can count. He is a man of the House and a deep and true friend of the House. He has ensured that his office will continue to serve the House by assembling a talented staff. I owe him so much, and there are not words to express my deep gratitude and affection. I can only wish you the best, Charlie. And while I know he has taken great pains to ensure the institution will go on without him, I know it will not be the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).