Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule is the standard rule for consideration of a conference report in the House and is of no controversy. This conference report for the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 has been a matter of little controversy over the past few days, as the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has sought assurances from his leadership that funding for additional environmental infrastructure spending would be included in the Labor, HHS appropriations conference report. I am supposing, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that we are now considering this rule, that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) has received these assurances and whenever the Congress actually considers the Labor, HHS conference report, next week, Thanksgiving, Christmas, whenever that might be, the funding he has sought will be provided for in it. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good bill in large part because of the funding in it for the restoration of the Florida Everglades. This project is one that has long been sought by environmentalists and Floridians of all stripes, Republicans and Democrats alike. This project is not a partisan project and no one should assume that it has come about because of the influence of any one Member of Congress. Rather, this is a project that has been a long time in the making on a bipartisan basis and should receive bipartisan support here today. Mr. Speaker, I support this conference report; and I support the efforts of the Chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I only hope he enjoys the same kind of support from the Republican leadership and the assurances he has received will be fulfilled when we return after the election. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, could I ask an additional question to my distinguished colleague from Texas?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman stood up, of course, without much notice and so not everyone was on the floor and was able to hear. Could the gentleman repeat the schedule day by day just so everyone is clear? And then I do have a question or two.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, does the majority have any plans to schedule any veto overrides for consideration of the House? Does the majority have any plans to schedule any veto override votes within the next few days?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, may I ask the gentleman, if I understood him correctly, he was saying that it was his opinion that there would only be one vote tomorrow when the House convenes at 9 a.m. Is the gentleman aware that there are possibilities of additional procedural votes that could occur tomorrow?

Mr. FROST. If I could continue, and then I believe the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip, has a question. Is the gentleman from Texas aware that it is possible to bring up motions to instruct conferees tomorrow? That those would be in order?

Mr. FROST. I believe that the Democratic whip has some information on that specific subject.

Mr. FROST. Should any vetoes occur within the next few days, would the majority schedule a veto override vote?

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall).

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

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 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the fact that this resolution is being considered this morning, or this afternoon now, is proof positive the Republican majority has no plans to adjourn the 106th Congress any time this week, this weekend, or perhaps even next week. This rule provides for the consideration of an appropriations conference report which has little chance of being signed by the President of the United States and, if vetoed, most likely will not be able to muster the votes to override that veto. Mr. Speaker, it is a mystery to me why my Republican colleagues persist in prolonging this session of Congress, but prolonging it they are, and quite unnecessarily. Mr. Speaker, the Commerce, Justice, State conference language has been attached to the conference language on the District of Columbia. It is bad enough the D.C. appropriations bill has been saddled with the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations, but what is in the Commerce, Justice, State conference language is especially egregious. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority had an opportunity to bring fairness to immigrant families and individuals who have made the United States their home but who have been living here in legal limbo for many years. Earlier this morning, my Republican colleagues on the Committee on Rules said this language makes significant progress in reforming immigration law inequities; but, frankly Mr. Speaker, it is not fair, and it does not go far enough. Democrats in the House and the Senate, as well as the President, handed our Republican counterparts a golden opportunity to fix a problem affecting thousands of Latino families, but the Republicans have fumbled the ball. Mr. Speaker, the immigration language in this bill is a pieced together proposal which sounds good, but will do little to help families. It perpetuates the current patchwork of contradictory and discriminatory immigration policies enacted by the Republican Congress and leaves countless immigrants in legal limbo. This conference report does nothing to resolve injustices that affect the vast majority of Latino immigrants now in this country. Mr. Speaker, this conference report ignores the need to stabilize the immigrant status of people who have lived, worked, and paid taxes in the United States for years. This proposal is inadequate and unjust and needs to be sent back to conference rather than to the White House. Mr. Speaker, the President has called for these injustices to be rectified and Democrats in the House and the Senate have joined together in support of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act which would truly help to reunite immigrants who are already guaranteed permanent residency status with their families. Democrats want to correct the inequity and legislation passed in 1997 which helped some Central American war refugees while excluding others and which specifically excluded immigrants from Haiti. The Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act corrects a mean-spirited law passed by the Republican Congress which vacated Federal lawsuits on behalf of those immigrants who were wrongfully denied legalization in the 1980s. Mr. Speaker, the Republicans had a chance to fix these injustices by including the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act in the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, but they took a pass. The Republican leadership has chosen to include an immigration proposal in this conference report which, again, picks winners and losers among immigrants. I am particularly concerned that the so-called Hatch proposal does not fix a specific problem in the 1996 immigration bill which has affected a number of legal permanent residents who find themselves subject to deportation because they pled guilty to offenses which are not deportable offenses prior to the 1996 law. Yet, in spite of the fact that they have paid their debt for these infractions, they have become subject to deportation. The House passed legislation correcting this problem by voice vote, yet this sensible and significant reform of the 1996 law, which would keep many families together, has not been included in this Republican bill. Mr. Speaker, this is a question of fairness and justice for Latino and other immigrant families around the country. The Republican majority has passed up an easy chance to right a wrong. The President will be exactly right to veto this conference agreement. I can only hope whenever we see the next version of this conference report, the Republican majority will include the language of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act which will keep families together and bring about real reform of the misguided legislation passed by earlier Republican Congresses. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other problems with this conference, and I will not take a lot of time to go into them. But there is another particularly troubling provision in the conference agreement which relates to the expansion of cable and satellite television service in rural areas. It is my understanding that, as late as yesterday, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Commerce, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have been negotiating an agreement on the language to ensure that loan guarantees for rural television were used to enhance new competition and services including satellites, wireless, and cable in rural areas, and not just to stabilize existing cable companies. Yet, when the Committee on Rules met this morning, a completely different version of the rural cable language was included in the bill. The Democratic Members who have been working with their Republican counterparts had thought they were negotiating on a proposal which would bring competition to underserved areas around the country. What is in the bill seems to be quite different from what they had been led to believe would be included. I am sure they, along with other Members from rural areas, might have legitimate concerns about this provision. Mr. Speaker, this conference report also contains provisions in the District of Columbia appropriations that, again, as a Republican majority has done in the past 6 years, infringe on the rights of the citizens who live here, to make decisions about how their own government is run. The provisions in the conference agreement are significant improvements on the House-passed appropriation. It is my understanding that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) supports this language. However, Mr. Speaker, the residents of the District are, again, being held hostage by virtue of the fact that a bill that is nothing more than veto bait has been attached to it. It is high time the taxpayers and American citizens who live in this city be treated with more respect by the Republican majority and that a clean D.C. appropriations bill be sent to the President. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report because the Republican majority has, again, failed to address the real needs of real people. It is well past time for this Congress to have finished its business. I can only hope that the President will veto this conference report quickly, that the Republican majority will substitute real immigration reform for the meaningless provisions now in this report, and that we can end this Congress knowing we have done something fair and just. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 605, which recognizes the importance of the Amber Plan to families across the country, and encourages other communities to implement the plan. I want to thank Mrs. Wilson and Nick Lampson for their efforts in bringing this resolution to the floor. Mr. Speaker, the Amber Plan was created in memory of Amber Hagerman, a nine-year-old girl from Arlington, Texas who was tragically abducted and murdered in 1996. Amber was bright and pretty and was riding her bike on January 13 when someone came along and took her away. This case occurred in my congressional district, but I am sure that events like this have happened--sadly--in every corner of our country, in our cities and in the heartlands. This case caused the police and broadcasters in the North Texas area to look at how they could better protect our community's children. Now once police have received a report of child abduction, they fax information to area media outlets. Broadcast stations then sound an emergency tone during broadcasts--similar to a weather alert--which is followed by the information from police. It gives a description of the children who are missing, the vehicle that they were kidnapped in, and a description of the kidnappers. It also gives a number that people can call to report information. The Amber Plan treats a child abduction like the entire community's emergency, and enlists their help to find the kidnappers. The success of the Amber Plan in North Texas has led several other communities to implement the plan. Just recently, I spoke with a radio station in Oklahoma, where the state's first use of the Amber Alert led to the successful recovery of two children during a car theft. The State of Florida just recently implemented the system statewide. And the National Center of Missing and Exploited Children is working on implementing the system in a number of other major metropolitan areas. Last year, I hosted members of the Amber Plan Task Force at a meeting in the Capitol. They addressed Members of Congress about the effectiveness of the Amber Plan in North Texas, and how it can be expanded to their own congressional districts. The group also met with officials from the National Association of Broadcasters and encouraged them to inform their members about expanding the Amber Plan throughout the country. Along with Mr. Lampson, Mr. Franks, and several other Members, I am one of the founding members of the Missing and Exploited Children's Caucus. Members of the Caucus know that each year hundred of thousands of American families are confronted with the tragedy of a missing child. This resolution helps remind us that we must constantly work to increase the awareness of these tragic occurrences and to introduce legislation to combat these heinous crimes. Whoever took Amber didn't know and didn't care that she was an honor student who made all As and Bs. They didn't care that she was a Brownie who had lots of friends and who loved her little brother dearly. They didn't care that her whole life was ahead of her and that their parents wanted to watch her grow into the lovely young woman she promised to be. Mr. Speaker, we all need to get involved--parents, relatives, politicians, police and other enforcement agencies--to direct attention to the problem of missing children. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that someday we will not need the Amber Plan to combat the growing epidemic of missing and exploited children. It is my hope that someday every child in America will feel safe. It is my hope that someday every child will feel secure while riding his or her bicycle in the neighborhood. It is my hope that someday no parent will ever have to face the tragedy that Amber Hagerman's parents had to face. But until that day comes, we need to support this resolution and work together to protect this country's greatest asset--our children.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sadness today to honor the memory of Information Systems Technician Seaman Timothy Gauna, a constituent of mine from Rice, Texas, who is among the missing sailors from the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. Tim Gauna was 21 years old and a 1997 graduate of Ennis High School. He was one of five children in a close family. Teachers said he was a quiet student who excelled in baseball and art. He joined the Navy 18 months ago with a dream shared by many recruits, to earn financial assistance to attend college. He wanted to learn about computers, then use the knowledge while attending the University of Texas at Austin. He would have been the first in his family to go to college. Before sailing into harm's way, Tim let his mom know that he was headed into dangerous waters, but that he would be okay. Like all the sailors aboard the U.S.S. Cole, Tim Gauna was serving his country bravely and honorably when this vicious attack took place. I join the Gauna family, and all the families of the missing sailors, in hoping that they will soon be accounted for. After the attack, I flew down to North Texas to visit Seaman Gauna's family. There, I spoke with a mother who is proud of her son's courage and patriotism. She described her son as having an open and friendly nature, and sharing the family's strong belief in their faith. And I talked to various family members who admire Tim's dedication to America. I do not know all the sailors on the U.S.S. Cole, Mr. Speaker, but I know the family of Seaman Gauna. They--like all of the U.S.S. Cole's sailors and their families--have America's gratitude, and our prayers.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this weekend in Fort Worth, Texas, it will be my honor and privilege to attend and participate in events which promote racial and religious unity and peace. On October 21, 2000, the Masjid Hassan of Al-Islam in Fort Worth, under the leadership of Imam Nasir Ahmed, will host a Southwest Regional Pioneer Banquet honoring those it considers to be pioneers in the causes of diversity, religious interaction, Islam, economic development, political awareness and education. I am humbled to be among a group of honorees which includes religious radio broadcaster and journalist, Robert Ashley; American Jewish Congress Southwest Region executive director, Joel Brooks; community relations consultant, writer and member of the Thanks-Giving Square Interfaith Council, Rose Marie Stromberg; 97-year old founder of the Tarrant County Black Historical and Genealogical Society, Lenora Rolla; long-time Muslim, 95 year old Dave Hassan; and the organizer of Brooks of Baaziga, a Muslim girls' group, Ruby b. Muhammad. The work of the Masjid Hassan of Al-Islam is, by itself, noteworthy. Yet, the Masjid's efforts are heightened and broadened by the fact that this celebration will include the personage and the teachings of The Honorable Imam Warith Deen Mohammed, leader of the Muslim American Society. Throughout this country and around the world Imam Mohammed is known, respected and admired for his work towards peace, religious freedom and diversity, and liberty for all people. On October 22, 2000, the Fort Worth-Dallas area will have the pleasure of receiving his message on ``Dealing With Racism From Religion''. It is my great pleasure, therefore, to join with the Masjid Hassan of Al-Islam, my longtime friend Marzuq Jaami and his brothers and sisters in the Dallas Masjid of Al-Islam, and the larger Fort Worth-Dallas community in heartily welcoming Imam Mohammed to our community.