Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. To my friend, the gentlewoman from Washington, I would only point out that while the estate tax is repealed in 2010 and 2011, it is back. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I believe the other side is a little embarrassed about this product and they do not have too many speakers. We have a lot of speakers and we are going to take our full time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin). (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I really wish that I had three little shells to put up here on my podium with a pea under one of the shells, because that is what you need to follow this tax bill. They have done something extraordinarily ridiculous just for starters, and I would like to kind of talk about that before I go into my full statement. Now, let us say you are a person that wants the estate tax repealed. I have gotten a lot of calls like that from people in my district. They repeal the estate tax for 1 year. 1 year. Let me say this again. You have to die in the year 2010 to be able to pay no estate tax. If you die in 2011, you have to pay the estate tax just the way it is today. They sunsetted their repeal of the estate tax in the year 2010. So you have got a 12-month window to die if you want to avoid the estate tax. Between now and then, of course, they gradually raise the exemption, so if you die between now and 2009 you do not have to pay quite as much in the estate tax and if you die in 2010 you do not have to pay any estate tax. But if you have the good fortune to live until 2011, you pay the full estate tax exactly as it is right now. Now, let us say you were looking forward to the rate reduction. Right now you have a 39.6 percent rate, you are a wealthy taxpayer, and then over a period of the next few years that rate gradually drops down to 35 percent. But viola, in the year 2011, it goes back to 39.6 percent. That applies, of course, to the other provisions in this bill, too. A very, very strange and peculiar way to legislate. Why did they do this? They did it because they could not make the numbers work. If you extended this stuff beyond 2010 and you did not sunset it, these numbers do not work. You bust that $1.35 trillion cap. All of this has been a game to live within the $1.35 trillion cap that was set in the budget resolution. Now, you can argue as to whether the $1.35 trillion cap amount is a good amount to be cutting taxes. Everybody would like their taxes cut. I would like my taxes cut. I also would like the government to be able to preserve Social Security and Medicare and not use up the money that we need for Social Security and Medicare in order to give the richest Americans a tax cut. I also would like the government to be able to do a lot of things. I would like the government to be able to have a prescription drug plan for our seniors and I would like the government to have enough money to fund our national defense and I would like the government to be able to fund this wonderful education bill that we recently passed but which everyone on that side knows cannot be funded under the budget resolution we passed because of the size tax cut that we are being asked to vote on today. As I said, I wish I had those little shells that you have at a carnival show, because that is what this is all about. This is a game. This is a game the Republicans are playing with the American taxpayers and they are not being honest with them. Again, if we are going to cut taxes, let us have a tax cut that makes sense, that goes to middle- income taxpayers, that does not go primarily to the wealthy, and let us have a tax cut that the American people can afford so that we can do those other things that we all say we want to do. But let us not engage in a charade. This is a charade at 7:03 a.m. on Saturday morning, after the conference committee dealt with this all night and they suddenly produce something in the wee hours and then we get a little time, maybe an hour to look at it, to try to understand it and to cast one of the most momentous votes that we are going to be called to cast during this session. People have not had adequate time to study this document. But the folks on the other side are not engaged in providing adequate time. They do not want us to be able to really understand it, but I think I understand it enough and we do have a little summary that was provided, summary of provisions contained in the conference agreement for H.R. 1836, provided by the Joint Committee on Taxation. If you look at that summary on page 13, you will see what I was talking about. I want to read this to you. It says, Roman numeral IX, Sunset. I want to read it to you just so you know I am not making this up. You could not make this up, Mr. Speaker. ``To ensure compliance with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the conference agreement provides that all provisions of the bill generally do not apply for taxable plan or limitation years beginning after December 31, 2010.'' In other words, now you see it, now you don't. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this body for a while. The American people need to be dealt with on the level. I do not always agree with the things that the other side wants to do. That is what politics is all about. But I believe we should be honest with the American people. I do not think we ought to be telling them we have given you this wonderful tax cut but King's X, it all goes away in 2010, and you better die in the year 2010 if you want to avoid the estate tax because if you happen to plan foolishly enough and happen to hang around until 2011, you are going to pay the full estate tax. Mr. Speaker, I have a fairly lengthy statement that I want to submit for the record which details all of this. But the hour is early, or late, depending upon your perspective and a lot of my colleagues would like to talk about this particular conference report. And so, Mr. Speaker, at this time, I urge my colleagues to try and understand what we are being asked to do today and to understand how ridiculous and ludicrous this approach is and how shortsighted it is for the American taxpayer, because we are denying the American taxpayer the needed resources for our government to preserve Social Security and Medicare, to provide education funding, to provide for our national defense, and to do the other things we all agree should be done so that we can provide a very large tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans during the next 10 years and then change it all at that time. 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to offer this important school safety amendment with the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn), my friend and fellow cochair of the Bipartisan Task Force on Youth Violence. After the Columbine school shootings, our Youth Violence Task Force heard from parents, teachers, police, counselors, and other experts about what Congress could do to combat growing youth violence. We all agreed that school safety officers are a crucial piece of any real approach to youth violence. So the Dunn-Frost amendment empowers schools by lifting the 20 percent cap on Federal funds under title V that local educational agencies may use for security activities, including the hiring of school safety officers. I have heard directly from school officials throughout my district about the sense of comfort and security these officers have given students traumatized by reports of school shootings. By placing school resource officers in schools, we enable officers to teach crime and violence prevention, to facilitate substance abuse education, to monitor troubled students, and to build respect for law enforcement. This amendment directly reflects requests that have been brought to our attention by school administrators, teachers, parents, and students. It is our obligation to listen to our communities. It is time to stop only discussing the problem of our troubled youth and to start to be a part of the solution to this national crisis. Passing the Dunn-Frost amendment will give schools the freedom to hire the officers they need to make the students safe, an important step towards helping troubled youth and stemming the tragic tide of youth violence. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, although I do not oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment demonstrates that Democrats and Republicans can work together. We had an excellent youth violence task force, made a number of recommendations. I can tell my colleagues that I consulted students, teachers, administrators throughout my congressional district in Texas. We have a program that has been in place in a number of our school districts, in Grand Prairie, Arlington, and other parts of the areas that I represent. This program works. This is a program that must be adequately funded. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congresswoman Maxine Waters and the Members of the Democratic Caucus Special Committee on Election Reform for their hard work in organizing election reform hearings across America, and developing Democratic proposals on election reform. Ensuring every American's vote is counted is the cornerstone to rebuilding faith in our democracy. That's why Democrats have made clear our commitment to finding bipartisan solutions to the ills that plague America's electoral process. Real election reform is a top priority for the American people and is the civil rights issue of the new millennium. Unfortunately, I know the Election Reform Committee has heard a great deal about attempts to intimidate minority voters around the country during this past election. Having attended two of the Special Committee's field hearings, I know how important they are to uncovering the truth about voter suppression, and to ensuring we stop efforts to disenfranchise African American and Hispanic voters in the future. It is clear that what happened in Florida to intimidate and suppress African American turnout was not an isolated incident. In fact, significant efforts to suppress the African American vote occurred in my district in Fort Worth this fall. I personally witnessed a systematic campaign by local Republicans to harass, intimidate and suppress African American voters--especially senior citizens. With so many sad examples of voter intimidation and voting irregularities, the need for real action on election reform could not be clearer. After the field hearings are completed, Democrats will propose to the House real steps to make it easier for people to vote, expand participation in our democracy, and fix a broken system that has disenfranchised too many Americans for too long. The importance of election reform to preserving the integrity of our democracy is so great that we must not allow partisan politics to keep Congress from addressing it. I thank Congressman Waters for her strong leadership and for organizing this special order, and I desperately hope Republicans will join us in passing meaningful election reform to ensure every American's vote is counted.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a longtime personal friend and colleague, Congressman John Dingell, the dean of the House of Representatives, and his wife, Debbie Dingell, on the occasion of their 20th wedding anniversary. As all of us know, John Dingell's hard work and dedication to public service has improved the lives of all Americans. What many people do not know, is that he has had an unrecognized partner in those good works, his wife Debbie. Together they have done a tremendous amount of good for the American people, both with charity work, the work they do with our party and the support that they give to this institution. Debbie and John met during their constant travels together between Michigan and Washington, DC. Mrs. Dingell was working for the General Motors Corporation, while John Dingell had already been a Congressman for 20 years. Debbie Dingell is a nationally recognized advocate for women and children around the country. She has been involved in countless charitable organizations, including the Susan B. Koman Foundation and the Children's Inn at the National Institutes of Health. With both of them working as a strong team, John Dingell has worked to protect the environment, improve health care, and defend the consumer from unsafe products and unfair practices. In fact, John has authored some of America's most important environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. It has been an honor and a privilege to serve in the House of Representatives with John Dingell. I congratulate him and Debbie for their 20 year wedding anniversary, and wish them every happiness.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). (Mr. ABERCROMBIE 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, we are here today to debate the President's energy policy. That is right, you heard me correctly. We are debating President Bush's energy plan for America, a tax cut for the wealthy. Just last week President Bush told the American people that the best answer to rising gasoline prices is the immediate passage of his $1.35 trillion tax cut. In other words, he has said, let us go back to the old-time religion of trickle-down economics. We do not have to do anything to reduce gasoline prices at the pump, we will just cut taxes and wait for something to trickle down to the middle class to help them pay for $2- and $3-a-gallon gasoline. Mr. Speaker, the problem with this logic, and calling it logic is being charitable, is if you are a hard-working middle class American, you may not feel the trickle. The President's tax cut, as advanced by the Republican majority, once again today is heavily oriented towards upper-income taxpayers, the very folks who can afford to pay for high gasoline prices. The approach to our current energy problems would be laughable if it were not coming from the highest elected official in the land. So here we are once again voting to give a big break to the wealthiest Americans, and we are not even touching what the President says he wants to do, end the marriage penalty, or reform our estate tax laws so family farmers and small business owners can pass down their property to their families free of estate tax. All of that is for another day, maybe. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, the wealthy get their tax cut and the rest of us are left holding the bag on taxes and soaring energy prices. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Today, Mr. Speaker, the budgets of the President and the Republican Congress are perpetuating a fraud on the American people, one that threatens the economy and Medicare and Social Security, and one that sacrifices priorities like education, prescription drugs, and paying down the debt. Republicans are spinning the ridiculous notion that this budget conference report represents some sort of compromise. What kind of compromise, Mr. Speaker, guts education like this, sacrificing priorities like smaller classes and more qualified teachers? This so- called compromise takes a giant step backward in education, eliminating the $294 billion the Senate added to the House bill, and even cutting education below what the President requested. What kind of compromise guts conservation and renewable energy programs at a time when the American people are crying out for relief from skyrocketing gas prices and an electricity crisis across the West? What kind of compromise, Mr. Speaker, ignores vital defense needs? What kind of compromise, Mr. Speaker, ignores skyrocketing prescription prices and raids the Social Security and Medicare trust funds? Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. Let us understand what is happening here. This is not a real document. Later in the year the Republicans will be back before this House seeking greater tax cuts, more money for defense, and more money for education; and when they do that, as they inevitably will, that money will come from the Social Security Trust Fund and the Medicare Trust Fund, because there is no other place to get it. This is a fraudulent document set up to fail. The Republicans know it, and they are doing a disservice to the American public.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise my statement made on the consideration of the rule today to make it in compliance with the precedents of the House.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, H.R. 581, the Wildland Fire Management Act, is a worthy legislative proposal which will facilitate Federal interagency cooperation in the control and abatement of wildland fires and fuel load reduction. The Committee on Rules has reported an open rule and Democratic members of the committee have no objections. We would like to point out, however, this noncontroversial bill could have been considered under suspension but is being brought to the floor today to serve as filler in order to give the House some business to conduct. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H.R. 129) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Rules for his fine statement. We are in agreement that the majority should rule in this country, not two-thirds. Madam Speaker, I oppose this constitutional amendment for the same reason that the chairman of the Committee on Rules will oppose it. We should never be fearful of the majority. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, almost every year since my Republican colleagues took control of this body, Democrats on the Committee on Rules have had to come to the floor to speak against consideration of this proposal to amend the Constitution of the United States. Our feelings about the misguided intentions of this proposal have not changed, Madam Speaker. It appears that the Republicans in this body fear the will of the majority, and, therefore, they have to impose a supermajority, because they fear a simple majority. Accordingly, I rise to oppose this rule. I also rise to oppose this joint resolution which seeks to amend the Constitution to require a two-thirds vote of Congress in order to pass a revenue increase. Madam Speaker, this House has considered and defeated this ill- conceived measure five times in the past 6 years. The idea that the Constitution should be changed to accommodate this blatantly political scheme to defund the Federal Government was not only a bad idea in the 104th Congress, it was also a bad idea in the 105th and the 106th Congress when this body failed to pass this very same constitutional amendment another four times. The House should reject it again today, because this proposal is still a very bad idea. Madam Speaker, over the past few months, this body has merrily gone about passing tax reductions that will, in all likelihood, squeeze the Federal Treasury dry. By doing so, those tax cuts will take away the ability of the Federal Government to live up to its basic responsibilities. If this resolution were to become a part of the Constitution, it would nail the coffin shut. While some on the other side of the aisle may cheer at that prospect, there are many in this body who recognize the importance of the government's ability to pay for such things like Social Security, Medicare, education, and our military defense. Madam Speaker, any Member who voted for those tax cuts should vote against this joint resolution. Every Member who has voted to drain the Federal Treasury dry should be required to stand up and take responsibility for his or her actions when the future of Social Security and Medicare are endangered, or when there is no money to make the educational reforms the President has promised to the country, or when there is no money for farm programs or improving our military or providing real and meaningful prescription drug coverage for seniors. This resolution should be rejected by every Member who takes seriously his or her responsibility as a representative of the people of his congressional district and as a Member of the United States House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, our Constitution has been amended only 27 times in the 212 years since it was adopted. Amending our Constitution is very serious business and should be done only when absolutely necessary to promote the well-being of our country and its citizens. Over the past 6 years, the Republican majority has used the Constitution as a political plaything and that is, quite frankly, a shameful record for Republicans to stand on. What we have before us today is no different. Our Nation's Founding Fathers carefully designed and drafted our Constitution, not to meet their own personal political agendas, but to ensure the foundation of our republic could endure and meet the needs of its citizens for centuries to come. The actions of the Republican majority in the past few months, combined with the proposal now before us, make a mockery of the intentions of our Founding Fathers. I find it ironic that my Republican colleagues continue to contemplate the imposition of a two-thirds supermajority requirement in order to pass revenue bills. If my colleagues will recall, at the beginning of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority changed the Rules of the House to impose a three-fifths majority requirement for any tax increase. Well, guess what? A funny thing happened on the way to idealogical purity. Whenever a bill containing a tax increase came along, the Republican majority conveniently used the Committee on Rules to waive that three-fifths requirement. The Republican majority waived this rule for the Contract with America, for the Medicare Preservation Act, the Balanced Budget Reconciliation Act, the Health Insurance Reform Act and, finally, the Welfare Reform conference report. In short, Madam Speaker, during the first Congress they were in the majority, Republicans waived their three-fifths requirement every single time it applied. In fact, the Republican majority found this rule change to be so unworkable and unenforceable that it had to be fixed in the 105th Congress rules package. If the Republican majority could not make that provision work in the House rules, how can they possibly make a tougher requirement work if it is embodied in the Constitution. The Committee on Rules will not be there to bail them out. I certainly hope my Republican friends understand that one cannot waive or rewrite a constitutional amendment if it is not ``convenient.'' Furthermore, I wonder if Republicans need a lesson in basic civics. It is an easily understood principle that when one requires a supermajority vote for passage of a measure, control is effectively turned over to a small minority and that will be the case even when an idea is supported by the majority in Congress, and a majority of the American people. Some, Madam Speaker, might call that flirting with tyranny. James Madison in The Federalist Papers wisely argued against supermajority, stating ``the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed. It would be no longer the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' This proposed constitutional amendment will seriously undermine Congress' ability to pass major budgetary initiatives. It will allow a small minority in either the House or the Senate to stop widely- supported, meaningful legislation containing any revenue measure. It would also lead to cuts and benefits in Social Security and Medicare, an increase in the retirement age, and will close the door on any possibility that a real and meaningful prescription drug benefit would be made available to seniors in this country. This proposal will sharply limit Congress' ability to close tax loopholes or enact tax reform measures. It is pure and simply a bad idea with no merit. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule and this ill-served, ill-advised constitutional amendment. We do not need gimmicks, we need resolve. We do not need political grandstanding, we need the Congress to face up to its responsibilities as guardians of the people's trust. If the Republican majority really wants to dismantle the Federal Government, then let us do it honestly and aboveboard. I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and this most ill-advised amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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