Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind). (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin). (Mr. SANDLIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington made a misstatement. I do not think that it was intentional on his part. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats on the Committee on Rules made it very clear to the Republicans on the Committee on Rules that we had a large package of amendments. It was not a substitute because everybody agreed from the beginning that there would be separate votes on ANWR and separate votes on CAFE. So we never were going to offer a substitute. We were going to offer a major package of amendments put forward by the Blue Dogs with pay-fors in it. The Republicans never intended to give the Blue Dogs their package of amendments. They knew there would not be a total substitute because there had to be a separate vote on CAFE and ANWR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute 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 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are 51 billion reasons to be against this rule. That is how much the Treasury has announced it is borrowing to finance the tax rebate passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The President and this Congress are now party to borrowing from Peter to pay Paul because we just cannot afford to pay for those $300 and $600 checks that are now in the mail out of the money we have in the bank. In fact, there are an additional 33 billion reasons to defeat this rule. That is because this rule makes in order $33 billion in energy tax cuts that are not paid for. The Republican majority has, by recommending this rule, begun a head-long rush into a raid on the Medicare Trust Fund. The Republican leadership simply refuses to pay for their policies up front and in cash. Instead, the Republican majority wants to put everything on the national credit card. Mr. Speaker, this is a world turned upside down, because it seems the Republican Party has now become addicted to deficit spending, and it is Democrats who are now the party of fiscal responsibility. Case in point. Two of the leading conservative Democrats in the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), joined with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to ask the Committee on Rules to make in order an amendment to this bill which would pay for those $33 billion in tax cuts. Liberals and conservatives alike understand that if we are to have meaningful energy tax policy, we have to pay for it. We believe the benefits will far outweigh the costs. So, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) proposed that the recently passed tax cuts which we are already having trouble paying for, be adjusted to allow for those energy tax incentives to fit into a fiscally responsible framework. They also reformatted the tax incentives to divide them equally between production incentives and conservation initiatives that will benefit consumers rather than tilting the entire tax package towards production and special interest provisions. But early this morning, again, under the cover of darkness at about 12:30 a.m., the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule that denied the House the right to decide if we should act responsibly when it comes to energy tax policy. At about 1 o'clock this morning, the Committee on Rules reported a rule that specifically denied the Markey- Sandlin-Stenholm amendment the right to be considered on the floor. Thus, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules and the Republican leadership in the House have chosen to raid the Medicare Trust Fund instead of acting in a fiscally responsible and prudent manner that would allow these tax breaks to be paid for. Mr. Speaker, the administration of George W. Bush, ably assisted by the Republican majority in this House, is making the exact same mistakes as those made by the first Bush administration. The current Bush administration, just like the last one, is hopelessly addicted to deficit spending. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of conscientious conservatives on the Republican side of the aisle who do not like deficit spending any more than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) and a host of other Democratic Members. Let us hope that today the real fiscal conservatives on the Republican side of this Chamber will stand up to their credit card-wielding leadership and vote to reject this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Will the gentleman from Washington yield?

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 218) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 207) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Inner-City Games, a nationwide program dedicated to providing opportunities for inner-city youth to participate in sports, educational, cultural, and community enrichment programs. In recent years, the program has expanded its education efforts by focusing on educational technology and the digital divide. The Inner-City Games was formed in response to the growing number of children across the nation living in poverty and facing the negative influences surrounding them in inner-city neighborhoods. Involving young people in sports clinics and competitions teaches valuable life lessons, brings young people from different cultures together on an equal playing field and teaches kids about teamwork, discipline, setting goals, working hard, and the valuable lessons of winning and losing. At the Inner-City Games, young people are taught that participation and learning are more important than winning and losing. Inner-City Games brings together local community leaders, creating an alliance between the private and public sectors to achieve their mission. Mayors, Police Chiefs, Public Schools, Parks and Recreation Departments, Public Housing and other youth service providers are working together to create a truly meaningful opportunity for thousands of young people across the country. Mr. Speaker, the Inner-City Games are due to launch in Dallas, Texas this week. This makes Dallas the 15th city to join this remarkable program. I commend the efforts of the city of Dallas and the tremendous number of people and organizations that came together to make the Games possible. Today, I especially want to thank Mr. Todd Wagner, National Board Member and Dallas Chairman for the Games. Mr. Wagner was instrumental in bringing the Inner-City Games to Dallas, and he deserves recognition for his outstanding efforts. Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the Inner-City Games and the opportunities it creates for thousands of young people across America. I know my colleagues will join me in congratulating the City of Dallas as they launch the first annual Dallas Inner-City Games this week, as well as Inner-City Games across America.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in this bill, I think it is appropriate to paraphrase the promise of the President and the Vice President to our military and say that some help is on the way. Mr. Speaker, this is a good conference agreement as far as it goes, since it provides $5.6 billion for the urgent needs of our Armed Forces. But frankly, Mr. Speaker, the administration is remiss for not requesting even more funds early in its term so that the Congress might truly ensure that help is on the way. I do have to take just a moment to point out that this conference agreement provides $735 million to address the Pentagon's rising energy costs. This allocation is critical, but it also points to the fact that rising energy costs hit home all over the country, and can in fact endanger our national security. That is true even here in Washington, D.C. It is so true that part of the help that is on the way in this bill is most likely going to the Vice President to help him pay his own rising energy bills at his residence. This conference agreement contains a desperately needed additional $300 million for LIHEAP for the remainder of the fiscal year to help those consumers who are facing power cutoffs because they have been unable to pay for soaring energy costs. I am very happy to support that additional funding, since I have cosponsored legislation to increase the funding available for this most valuable program. But it seems strange to me that the Vice President, who has been telling Californians to bite the bullet when it comes to their own soaring energy electricity costs, has to go begging to the United States Navy to bail him out of his own $186,000 electrical bill. So some help is indeed on the way. It is on the way in the form of additional funds for readiness and operations requirements for the military, to improve substandard housing, and to avoid disruptions in military health care. It is also on the way for thousands of Americans who need help paying their energy bills. I am also encouraged that some help may be on the way to the people of Houston, who suffered enormous losses after Allison hit in June. When the House first considered this supplemental, the Committee on Appropriations had included rescissions in FEMA's budget, an action many in this body simply could not understand. I am happy to report the conference committee has eliminated those rescissions so there will be some funding available in the near term to help families and businesses get back on their feet. But, of course, this bill does not include the money that was being sought on an emergency basis specifically for Houston, and we will deal with that in a later appropriation bill in the next week or two. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference agreement, but it is high time that this body faces up to the fact that there are pressing needs that must be addressed in this country, and we have squandered the resources we need to do it. I believe it is time we provide real help to the military, so that our dedicated personnel do not have to live in substandard housing and they do not have to cannibalize equipment in order to make something work. But we cannot do that if this Congress does not own up to what we have done by passing a $1.3 trillion tax cut. That tax cut has already cost either the military, our education programs, our energy assistance, or whatever program we want to name, $116 million. And for what? That is what it costs to send out the letters saying that the check is in the mail, and then to send the check in the mail. There is money in this bill to cover those costs. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule and to support this supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2001. We do need to send help, but we could have done more. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I believe that I had the floor. I do not believe the other gentleman is recognized.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I would ask the gentleman, is this discussion about changes in the rule only occurring on his side of the aisle or are there any Members on our side of the aisle who are being consulted about potential changes in the rule?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, I would ask the gentleman why he is making this request. This is a very unusual request. I have been in the House for 23 years. I do not recall the time being extended on a rule at any time during the 23 years that I have served in the House of Representatives.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve my right to object, I would ask a question, if I may, and I see that the chairman of the Committee on Rules is on his feet. I would ask the chairman, is it the intention of the majority side to seek a change in the rule at this point to amend the rule at this point?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. This is kind of an extraordinary situation we now find ourselves in on the floor. I would like to reiterate something I said at the beginning of this debate. This is a very peculiar result. The Republican leadership has crafted such an unfair and unusual rule that it may have the exact opposite effect of what the Republican leadership intended. They are trying to defeat Shays-Meehan, but they have written such a terrible rule that they may in fact drive some of the opponents of Shays-Meehan into the Shays-Meehan camp. It is a very interesting result. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would ask if the gentleman could please restate his unanimous consent request.

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.