Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise to submit a remarkable poem written by Anastasia Hayes-Stoker, a young student at Shakelford Junior High School in Arlington, Texas. Anastasia's poem was the overall winner of the ``Do the Write Thing'' Challenge. This contest, sponsored by the National Campaign to Stop Violence and partnered with the Arlington Jaycees, challenges middle school students to write an essay about the negative impact of violence in their lives and offer possible solutions to the problems they face today. Anastasia's poem speaks to the truths of the challenges our youth face in coping with violence. In my role as Co-Chair of the Bipartisan Working Group on Youth Violence, I listened to teachers, law enforcement, counselors, parents, and students. Over and over again, I heard about the need to mentor our youth and provide a safe haven for them to go. However, it is often only when we hear our children's voice, that our attention is grabbed. Anastasia has managed to convey, in a beautiful way, how she, and others in her generation, feel about the violence in her school, her appreciation for community involvement, and a child's need for family and love. Drug dealing, students stealing All around the campus Tempers flaring, kids are swearing All around the campus Fist to cuff, fights are a must All around the campus Backed to the wall, who do you call? All around the campus Punches thrown, lives are blown All around the campus Guns and knives, someone dies All around the campus Families shrinking, parents drinking Children are abandoned Marriage ending, no time for spending Children are abandoned Domestic violence, kept in silence Children are abandoned Learned aggression, whose oppression? Children are abandoned Repeat behavior, where's your savior? Children are abandoned Fight or flight, who sleeps at night Children are abandoned Crime prevention, good intention Community united Neighborhoods watched, gang fights botched Community united Security in the hall, protects us all Community united Mentors handy, hope feels dandy Community united Cops on the street, don't miss a beat Community united My home, safety zone Strong parental influence Curfews made, allowance paid Strong parental influence Loving brother, like no other Strong parental influence Self-respect, family honor to protect Strong parental influence Lead by example, self worth is ample Strong parental influence Loving silence, no need for violence Strong parental influence

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the previous speaker was confused. Perhaps he did not realize that this supplemental bill has money in it for this fiscal year. We are talking about the fiscal year that is currently in process, fiscal year 2001, and it is the money that the Republicans sought to strip from this bill. They now have a bizarre scheme to back the money back in, but are taking it out of other domestic programs, like Head Start and community policing. We are just saying, do the right thing, the rational thing: just permit the money to be restored. It is an emergency. Do not take it out of other programs.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge the defeat of the previous question. There is an amendment to the rule that would have been offered if the previous question is defeated. The amendment would allow for the consideration of two very important amendments to the supplemental. The first is the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). The Skelton amendment would add $2.7 million to the Department of Defense so in the last 3 months of the fiscal year the Armed Forces are not forced to cut back on training and operations and maintenance because of the shortfall in funds. The second is the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). This amendment would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose cost-of-service-based rates on electricity in the West.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friend from North Carolina that the peculiar amendment that the Committee on Rules made in order to restore the FEMA money takes it out of Head Start and takes it out of Community Policing. We are saying that is a legitimate emergency. There is no reason to do that in the bizarre and peculiar way in which they have put the money back in. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to one of the most unfair, bizarre, and partisan rules reported by the Committee on Rules in a very long time. If the issues were not so serious, this rule would be laughable. Let us start with the unfair part. Repeatedly during the Presidential campaign last year, then-candidate President Bush told the American public, and especially every man and woman in uniform, ``help is on the way'' for our military. Many who serve in our armed services as well as many others concerned about our national defense believed what candidate Bush promised. Many other Republicans ran last fall making the same kind of promises. This rule proves those campaign promises were made with a wink. Last night on a straight party-line vote, the Committee on Rules refused to give our colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, the opportunity to offer an amendment that would increase supplemental funding for the Department of Defense by $2.7 billion. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is a strong advocate for our military but he is especially an advocate for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who serve their Nation and each and every one of us. The $2.7 billion he included in his amendment is some but certainly not all that the Department of Defense desperately needs for readiness and quality of life issues. If we do not appropriate the funds the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) is seeking, our armed services will not have the resources they need for training for the rest of the year, nor will there be funds to move forward on improving housing or making other quality of life improvements for our troops. Mr. Speaker, every single Republican on the Committee on Rules voted against the President's promise that help is on the way. Every single Democrat on the committee voted in favor of the men and women who serve our Nation and to provide them with the help they need to ensure our national defense is second to none. Now let us examine the bizarre part of the rule. Everyone in this country knows what tropical storm Allison did in Houston, in parts of Texas and Louisiana and now in Pennsylvania. This storm has left a major disaster in its wake. What did the Keystone Cops on the other side of the aisle do on this bill and rule? First, the Committee on Appropriations cut the money for the Federal Emergency Management Administration just after this disaster hit the Gulf Coast and at the very beginning of the hurricane and tornado system. They cut the money for FEMA. The committee cut $389 million out of the money available for the rest of the fiscal year, money that had already been appropriated by this Congress just when the extent of the disaster in Houston has been preliminarily estimated to total $2 billion and will very likely continue to rise. And that figure, Mr. Speaker, does not even take into account the damage in Louisiana, other areas affected along the Gulf Coast, and what will be needed to clean up in Pennsylvania. So the committee cut $389 million from FEMA. What did the Committee on Rules do? Their solution is even more bizarre than the action taken by the Committee on Appropriations. Last night the Republicans on the Committee on Rules made in order an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) which would restore the cuts in FEMA funding, but that comes at a very steep price. The House is being offered the chance to restore the $389 million in FEMA, only if we are willing to make over $1 billion in cuts in nondefense discretionary programs in the current year. To translate this, that means that we can restore FEMA emergency money only if we are willing to cut Head Start, cut funds for education, $70 million from the Veterans' Administration medical program, cut public safety officers for our schools and neighborhood health centers. What have these people been smoking, Mr. Speaker? All the Republicans on the Committee on Rules had to do was make in order a bipartisan amendment by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a Republican; by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), a Democrat; and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), a Democrat. Their amendment would simply have restored these funds to FEMA, funds which have previously been appropriated by this Congress. Just ask the constituents of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) or the constituents of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen) in Houston or the people outside of Philadelphia represented by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel). They know firsthand how important the Federal Government can be, especially when disaster strikes close to home. It is beyond me, and many Members of this body as well, why it is necessary to cut 2\1/2\ times more out of the budget already approved by the Congress in order to restore funds already appropriated by this Congress that helps thousands of Americans who have been affected by this storm. I cannot find a good reason to justify cutting $70 million out of the medical services for the Veterans' Administration in order to not make cuts in disaster assistance. This move on the part of the Republicans on the Committee on Rules is truly one of the most bizarre and mean- spirited things they have done in a very long time. Let me be very clear what we are talking about. The Congress appropriated this money for FEMA. That was last year. Appropriated this money. And then the Congress, the Committee on Appropriations, came in and said we want to cut this money that was already appropriated last year, we want to take it away from FEMA so they do not have enough money to help the people down in Houston and Louisiana and Pennsylvania. The Committee on Rules said we should not cut this money, we should not take away the money from FEMA that Congress already appropriated, so let us give it back to FEMA but let us take it out of Head Start and community police officers and veterans' medical care. What a crazy result, Mr. Speaker. Finally, let us talk about the partisan nature of this rule. West Coast Democrats appeared before the committee to seek permission to offer the Inslee-Pelosi amendment that would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose cost-based pricing for electricity in the Western power market. Now on Monday FERC did order some relief for electricity customers on the West Coast. But even though their order is an improvement over the current pricing mechanism, there are many who believe this action will not offer enough relief to consumers and businesses on the West Coast as we move into the hottest summer months. Our colleagues, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), and many, many others asked for the opportunity for the House to at least debate this issue. This supplemental is the only train leaving the station, and it represents the only real opportunity the House will have to debate equitable, just, and reasonable pricing for electricity. This bill represents the only opportunity to debate the issue of refunds for overcharges FERC admits were made but for which it will not provide a remedy. With the most partisan of intent, the Republicans on the Committee on Rules rejected these requests made by west coast Democrats seeking to find some relief for their constituents. For example, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) also requested that an amendment be made in order that could help local school districts who in the coming months may be forced to lay off teachers, cancel purchases of new books or computers, shut down after-school programs or cancel arts, music or technology classes in order to pay for the rising cost of heating and cooling schools. But instead of putting children first, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules refused to make this important amendment in order. This is partisan politics at its worst, Mr. Speaker. For that reason, I will oppose the previous question on this rule. It is my intention to oppose the previous question in order to be able to offer an amendment to this rule that would make it less partisan, less unfair, and certainly a lot less bizarre. The House should have the opportunity to debate adding funds for the Department of Defense to meet its highest priorities in the remaining month of the fiscal year; the House should have an opportunity to restore funds to FEMA without cutting Head Start and veterans' medical care; and the House should debate the energy issues that are so disastrous to so many communities on the west coast. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and oppose the passage of this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), has actually made some very interesting points, points that ought to be debated on the floor. What the Committee on Rules is doing is saying, no, we are not going to let the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) speak at length about his points, or people that believe the way he does; and we are not going to let people from California, the west coast, speak on the other side. They will not even permit this debate to occur; and that is why we object to this rule, and that is why we are going to fight the previous question. I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) ought to have lots of time to make his arguments, and I think people on the other side ought to have an equal amount of time. Their rule would prevent that from happening. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

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. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Democrat Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 169) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 170) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman for her kind remarks. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 155 is a modified open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1699, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2001. While Democratic members of the Committee on Rules question the need to require preprinting of amendments, we will not object to this rule since it otherwise allows for the consideration of any germane amendments. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1699 authorizes $5.4 billion for Coast Guard programs and operations in fiscal year 2002, which is, according to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, about $300 million short of its needs for operating expenses for the coming fiscal year. Considering the important maritime safety, marine environmental protection, and law enforcement operations performed by the Coast Guard, this deficiency should be remedied either in this bill or in the appropriations which will follow in the coming weeks. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, Joe Moakley was a great Member of this body, and I rise in support of this resolution with a heavy heart. Joe's passing has left a very large hole in the fabric of this institution, a hole that will be difficult to mend. Joe Moakley and I were colleagues for 23 years on the Committee on Rules. In that time, I was privileged to serve alongside a man whose heart was pure and who never ever forgot where he came from. Last Friday, I traveled to Boston to Joe's funeral mass. That mass was in reality a celebration of Joe's life and the values he brought to service in this institution on behalf of the people of South Boston, of Massachusetts, and the entire country. Joe was a man who embodied Tip O'Neill's maxim that all politics is local, but Joe was also a man whose ideals transcended borders. Joe believed in the intrinsic decency of all humankind and in the ideal that every man, every woman, and every child in this country and around the world deserves basic human rights and freedoms no matter their station in life or political affiliation. His work to bring justice to the cowardly killers of priests and women and children in El Salvador was truly a noble fight. His courage, his determination and his dedication to doing what is right, no matter the danger, no matter the cost, should be taken to heart by every Member of this body. His ability to work with all Members of this body, to treat every Member fairly and to always have a good word for even his political foes should also be what every one of us should strive for each and every day we are privileged to work in this institution. Mr. Speaker, I was so deeply moved by the words spoken at Joe's memorial last Friday. It was plainly obvious how beloved he was by his community. But for this House, we should all hope that our own actions we take as Members will be as celebrated as were the actions, words and deeds of my very good friend Joe Moakley.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).