Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the Democratic Members of the House to object to this rule. We do, however, object to the continued use of the suspension calendar on days that are under the rules of the House supposed to be used for the consideration of bills on the Union Calendar. Obviously, little business has been reported to the House from its committees, other than matters from the Committee on Ways and Means. Thus, it seems the majority has come to rely on minor bills to fill the time in between the consideration of tax bills. Mr. Speaker, there are any number of important issues facing the country today. Education, Social Security, Medicare, national defense, crime and energy are just a few of them; yet we have not seen any signs of any of these issues heading to the floor. It is time for this Congress to buckle down and get to work; and, Mr. Speaker, we should do our work under regular order. So, in order to give the House something to do today, Democrats will not object to this rule. But that being said, we cannot be counted on to continue to stand aside as the Republican majority continues to shirk its responsibilities. Mr. 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. 88) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, this House and the Congress rushed headlong into the promised land of supply-side economics. This institution bought this medicine-show magic of cutting taxes along with rosy economic forecasts that within a year left us soaring deficits and a staggering public debt. It was a classic case of, if it is too good to be true, it probably is. Mr. Speaker, we are right back there today. We have spent the last 18 years struggling to bring deficits and debt under control and have only now begun to see the fruits of our labor. My Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten that the promises of 20 years ago were fool's gold. So today they are again rushing pell- mell toward yet another promised land that may turn out to be only a mirage. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake, Democrats support tax relief for the American taxpayer. But Democrats do not support this bill. We do not support considering this bill or any other tax bill without having first put into place a budget that will give us a more realistic understanding of what we can and what we cannot afford. Democrats cannot support a tax package that will once against trigger deficit spending and will set back our efforts to pay down the national debt. Democrats cannot support a tax package that is so heavily weighed toward the most well-off of this country that low- and moderate-income working families will necessarily have to be shortchanged. Democrats cannot support a package that is built on a foundation of rhetoric and not on reality. Once one gets past the Republican rhetoric, it is clear that this package provides no tax relief for millions of Americans, including nationwide the families of 24 million children. In Texas, the President's home State, 1.2 million families with 2.3 million children will receive no benefits at all. Over 85 percent of American households will receive a tax cut far less than the $1,600 President Bush has promised. At the same time, the Republican tax plan gives 43 percent of its benefits to the richest 1 percent of Americans and in so doing, will force this Congress to cut funds for national priorities ranging from education and defense to law enforcement and health care. This tax bill will ensure that any surpluses that do materialize in the Treasury will be spent and is, therefore, nothing more than a promise to raid the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds; and Democrats cannot and will not support that. It is an amazing turn of events. The Democrats are now seen as the party of fiscal responsibility, the party that wants to protect the American taxpayers' money, now and in the future. The Republican Party today is relinquishing any claim to that title. They have relinquished any claim to responsible law-making. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this proposition is the height of fiscal irresponsibility. The consideration of this proposition, without having first put into place a budget, is, quite frankly, a dereliction of duty. This is a shameful subversion of the process that no Member of this body should support. Mr. Speaker, we were all elected to serve the people of our individual Districts and the people of the United States as a whole. That is a proud and noble responsibility. But, today we are doing them a disservice. Instead of doing the right thing, we are replaying the actions of 20 years ago that were neither proud nor noble.

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have no objection to this rule, which will allow the consideration of three bills under suspension today. Those bills include a concurrent resolution honoring the 21 members of the Virginia National Guard who were killed in a plane crash on March 3. I know firsthand how important the National Guard is to our national defense, and the tragic and untimely death of these fine Americans is tribute to the dedication and selfless service so many Americans make each year through their service in the National Guard. The rule also permits the consideration of measures designed to promote organ donation, something Democrats on the Committee on Rules know about through the brave testimony of our ranking member, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley). However, Mr. Speaker, I must take a moment to express our grave concerns about what may happen in the Committee on Rules some time later today. I am referring to the rule the Committee on Rules may report on the tax bill and how whether the majority will deny Democrats of all stripes the opportunity to offer alternatives to the Republican tax bill. Mr. Speaker, we must object in the strongest possible terms to any plans the majority may have to cut off the ability of Members to offer one or more substitutes to this bill. Mr. Speaker, not only are we going to consider a tax bill of huge proportion and consequences without the ability to offer alternatives, we are going to consider it without the benefit of having debated a budget which would place this tax cut in context with the other matters this government funds. We are going to consider a tax cut without fully understanding what its implications are on the rest of the Federal budget. So not only have we not received a budget from the new President, we have no congressional guidelines in place to help the Members of this body determine which priorities are more important. Is it cutting taxes a lot, some or not at all? Is it paying down the national debt, which, I remind my colleagues, is a debt that is collectively owed by all the people of our great Nation? Is it funding education, improving our schools, reducing class size or funding new teachers? Is it providing a real Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors, shoring up Social Security and Medicare or improving our national defense forces? No one knows the answer to those questions, Mr. Speaker. Democrats in this House are very concerned that the Republican majority seems to not be concerned in the least that we are blindly proceeding down a path we have been on once before. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues, most of whom were not Members when we last considered a tax cut of these proportions, of the old adage, the definition of insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results. There are many of us here who fear we will see the same results as we saw after the passage of the 1981 tax bill. Mr. Speaker, I support this rule, but Democrats on the Committee on Rules and in the Caucus at large want to go on notice right now that we believe it is imperative, if we are not to proceed in regular order in this body, that our Members be given a chance to be heard. All this talk of bipartisanship is meaningless, Mr. Speaker, if there are no actions behind the words. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 77) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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 yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have long been a supporter of bankruptcy reform, and I support the bill before us today. I am, however, concerned that the Committee on Rules majority has started the year by denying Democratic Members the opportunity to offer amendments to this significant legislative proposal. Granted, the bill before us is identical to the bill vetoed by the President last year; but at the same time, we do have a deliberate process in this body that is being stifled by the majority. Just as the majority is intent on considering massive tax cuts before we even have received a real budget from the President, much less before we have a budget debate on the Hill, the majority has once again subverted the process. Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am a supporter of this bill, but there are issues that deserve to be heard and debated. This rule makes in order six amendments. Democrats are grateful the Republican majority has at least seen fit to give us a substitute, but other significant amendments offered in the Committee on Rules yesterday are not included in this list of six. For example, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the committee, offered an amendment, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), who is a member of the Committee on Rules. This amendment relates to the issue of payment of child support and alimony by debtors, which has long been an issue that has given many Members pause when considering whether or not to support reform of the bankruptcy system. Mr. Speaker, many believe the provisions in the bill adequately address these concerns. However, it is an issue that deserves to be heard and the Conyers-Slaughter amendment should have been made in order. Mr. Speaker, it is not as if we have been extraordinarily busy in the weeks since the 107th Congress convened. Perhaps giving us an extra hour or two of debate time might be too taxing, considering the schedule we have kept so far this year, and that is the reason we will not be able to debate the Conyers- Slaughter amendment or other amendments submitted by Democratic Members; but if we are to have the change of tone in Washington the President is seeking, it seems to me that there should be a little more collegiality on the part of the Republican leadership when it comes time to parcel out amendments to bills the House is to debate. Mr. Speaker, Democrats are not here to subvert the process. We have constituencies to represent and real problems to address. We can only hope in the coming months that we will be allowed to do that as we consider legislation that is vital to our country and to the people we represent. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as President Bush said last night, ``We will be judged not by what we say or how we say it, but by what we are able to accomplish.'' But despite the President's best assumptions and intentions, here is what his tax plan would actually accomplish: raiding the Medicare Trust Fund, shortchanging education, defense and prescription drugs, and leaving America still with a trillion dollar debt. That is like squandering your kids' college savings on a personal vacation. It is not responsible, and it is just plain wrong. The truth is, beneath President Bush's skilled sales pitch, his fuzzy math, that just does not add up. His tax plan is not fiscally responsible and shortchanges middle-class working families. Democrats are committed to an honest, fair and fiscally responsible budget that includes all of America's priorities, from education and defense to health care and tax relief for all taxpayers. The sooner the Republicans abandon their budgetary smoke and mirrors and join us, the sooner we can get to work on the accomplishments President Bush promised.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution naming the Federal courthouse in Boston in honor of my colleague, Joe Moakley. No Member of Congress deserves this honor more than the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend Joe. I have had the honor of serving on the Committee on Rules with Joe for more than 22 years. No person better epitomizes what is good about public service in this country. Joe has served with distinction, with good humor and with class. Years ago, he personally and courageously took on the death squads in El Salvador following the murder of four nuns in his district as well as six Jesuit priests. It was his dogged determination and hard work that brought an end in that sad chapter in El Salvador's history. Joe's district in Boston did not reap great rewards from his courageous fight, but all of mankind did. Joe Moakley, as we have heard earlier, enlisted in the Navy in World War II at the age of 15, lying about his age so he could fight the enemies of our Nation. I guess he was big for his age at the time, but no one in Congress today has a bigger heart than Joe Moakley. Joe served as chairman of the Committee on Rules for 5 years and has served as ranking Democrat for the past 6 years. Whether in the majority or in the minority, Joe has served with class. He has never been mean to his adversaries, but he has always been firm in his convictions and vigorous in his pursuit of the values and ideals of the Democratic Party. Joe has made the decision to step down after this term in Congress after having fought valiantly in recent years against a series of ailments and will continue to fight against his ailments as he has done with courage, grace, and dignity. We look forward to his continued service in this body in the months ahead. Boston and all America can be proud of this great Congressman. He is one of the last of the great Boston pols, a man who is proud to represent his district and to serve his country. Naming the beautiful Federal courthouse overlooking Boston Harbor in his honor is the very least we can do. Joe Moakley is a great Congressman. He is and always will be a shining example to the entire country about what is good in public life today.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Lonnell Cooper, a retired sergeant with the Fort Worth Police Department and tremendous public servant who has served our community for half a century. Throughout his life and career, Sgt. Cooper has been a stellar law enforcement officer and a trailblazer. He was a leader in breaking down the color barrier as one of the first six African Americans accepted to the Fort Worth Police Department. He also organized the department's first Explorer post. Among the many honors bestowed on Sgt. Cooper throughout his distinguished career are Fort Worth Officer of the Year of the department's Service Division, he was designated an Outstanding Law Enforcement Officer by the State of Texas and a Pioneer in Criminal Justice by the U.S. Congress. The Mayor of Fort Worth even designated a ``Sgt. Lonnell E. Cooper Day'' in the city. This Sunday, February 18, the New Rising Star Baptist Church is paying much deserved tribute to Sgt. Cooper for his lifetime of service to our community. I want to join with his family and many friends in thanking Sgt. Lonnell E. Cooper for all that he has done to make our community safer and a better place to live.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 37) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 33) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 25) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 22) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 7) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Democratic Caucus, I have been directed to report to the House that the Democratic Members have selected as minority leader the gentleman from Missouri, the Honorable Richard A. Gephardt.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the resolution, but before offering the amendment, I request that there be a division of the question on the resolution so that we may have a separate vote on the Chaplain.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the remainder of the resolution.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Democratic Caucus, I have been directed to report to the House that the Democratic Members have selected as minority whip the gentleman from Michigan, the Honorable David E. Bonior.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 8) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.