Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which provides for the consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1654, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 2000. It is especially fitting that we should consider this conference report today since our shuttle astronauts have been this week working in space to outfit and activate the International Space Station in preparation for the first full-time crew's arrival in early November. NASA has scheduled a long list of flights to the space station to install modules which will aid in the long-term mission of research that has been designed specifically for this weightlessness scientific laboratory. To fulfill these important missions of the space agency, this conference agreement authorizes a total of $14.2 billion for NASA in fiscal year 2001 and $14.6 billion in fiscal year 2002. Mr. Speaker, this is the usual rule providing for the consideration of conference reports, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 4678, the Child Support Distribution Act of 2000. This rule makes in order one amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and provides that a further amendment, which has been developed by both the majority and the minority of the Committee on Ways and Means, shall be considered as adopted upon passage of the rule. While the Democratic members of the Committee on Rules normally do not support rules which limit the amendments which may be offered to legislation, in this instance, we will not object to the rule reported by the majority. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4678 is an important proposal developed on a bipartisan basis by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). This bill makes important changes in the distribution of child support payments collected by the States on behalf of current and former welfare recipients. This change would allow families to keep all arrears collected by the State that accrued before and after a family went on welfare rather than the 50 percent allowed by current law. The bill also establishes a fatherhood grant program that would fund public and private fatherhood programs that seek to promote marriage, successful parenting, and better jobs for poor fathers. The rule makes in order an amendment that will be offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) which has been included in previous legislation to make clear that any eligible entity cannot subject a participant to sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization, clarifies that eligible recipients of these funds are in receipt of Federal financial assistance, and, finally, closes the loophole in welfare reform that allows discrimination against beneficiaries when another standing law permits it. Mr. Speaker, this is worthy legislation that deserves consideration by the House, and I urge my colleagues to adopt this rule so that we may proceed to the debate on H.R. 4678. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. FROST. Perhaps the gentleman from Georgia would like to proceed.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I am unclear about what the gentleman just said. Is the gentleman suggesting that the Republican leadership in the Senate is not competent to bring a bill to the floor for a vote because this is the crux of the argument? The Treasury Postal bill was never voted on in the Senate on the floor. What they did was to short-circuit the normal legislative process, reach out from the conference committee on another bill and pick up a bill that had never been passed on the floor of the Senate. So I do not quite understand what the gentleman was saying. Was he saying that his own leadership on the other side of the Capitol was not capable of bringing a bill to a vote on the floor of the Senate? I am curious as to why they chose to pick this bill up and put it into conference when it had never been voted on by the full Senate.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise not only in opposition to this rule but to the heavy-handed manner in which the Republican leadership has chosen to conduct business in the hours before we adjourn for the August summer recess. Mr. Speaker, I must protest in the strongest possible terms the fact that the Republican leadership has, in the dark hours of night, cobbled together what they are calling a conference report on legislative branch appropriations. The majority must be snickering behind their hands, Mr. Speaker, because this so-called conference report is constructed of one bill which has actually passed both houses, the Legislative Branch Appropriations, as well as one that has only seen action on this side of the Capitol, Treasury Postal Appropriations. But there is something else. This appropriations conference report also contains a tax bill, the repeal of the telephone tax passed earlier by the House. This action was taken without any consultation with Democratic Members of the Committee on Appropriations, or with the Democratic leadership. Accordingly, no Democratic member of the Legislative Branch Conference Committee signed this report. Mr. Speaker, while I have a photocopy of the conference report, I am at a loss to try to explain to my colleagues exactly what is in it. The report was assembled literally in the dark of night, sometime between 11:00 p.m. last night and 7:01 a.m. this morning, when it was filed. Democrats were led to believe last night this conference agreement was going to contain a minimum wage increase, as well as several tax provisions. I have been assured that this document does not now contain the minimum wage but since the Committee on Rules did not provide us a single sheet of explanatory materials when we met at 8:30 a.m. this morning, I can only vouch for that by having quickly skimmed through this document. In addition, Mr. Speaker, in order to accommodate the rush to get out of town, the Republican leadership kept the Committee on Rules waiting until 11:00 p.m. last night and the House in session until 11:30 p.m. Once it was determined that more work was needed to be done on this so- called conference report, the Committee on Rules was sent home but the House was not adjourned. It was instead recessed until 7:00 a.m. this morning so that the Committee on Rules could meet and file a rule this morning on the same legislative day and, thus, avoid the necessity of sending a martial law rule to the floor this morning. Mr. Speaker, I must protest what I consider to be a disrespectful abuse of this institution and its Members, as well as the many employees who are required to hurry up and wait while the Republican leadership tries to figure out exactly how to run this body. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rush to consider this matter is all the more peculiar since it seems that the Senate has absolutely no intention of considering this conference report until after the recess in September. This process makes no sense, Mr. Speaker, but it is a perfect example of the disregard the Republican leadership has demonstrated time and again for this institution, its practices, and precedents and the Members who serve here. I urge every Member of the House to oppose this rule if for no other reason than to stand up for regular order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time we have remaining.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Treasury, Postal Service and General Government. (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I inquire of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) whether he has additional speakers.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is leaving the floor, but I had trouble following his logic. He would not yield time to me, he is leaving the floor now, but I noticed that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) was pointing in one direction; he was saying that, well, the Senate couldn't take this up because there were holds on just additional nominations, presumably by Republicans; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was pointing the other direction; and he was saying, no, they could not take this up because the Democrats, who are in the minority of course, were blocking consideration. Now, which is it? Is it because Republicans have holds on judicial nominations or is it because the minority Democrats prevented this from coming up? I do not quite understand. The gentlemen cannot have it both ways, and I would ask if the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) could respond to that?

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

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate Candace Guyton and Byron C. Smith, two Arlington, TX, teenagers whose artistic achievements earned them medals in a scholastic competition held at the NAACP national convention earlier this month. Byron won a second-place silver medal and $750 in scholarship money for his entry in the film making-video category at the NAACP-sponsored Afro-Academic, Cultural, Technological and Scientific Olympics (ACT SO) competition. Byron beat out more than 20 other students from across the country with his three-minute documentary cartoon about Bill Pickett, a Texas cowboy who pioneered the process of ``bulldogging.'' Candace won a $500 scholarship and a third-place bronze medal in the vocal contemporary music category. Not only did Candace demonstrate her tremendous vocal skills, but she performed an original song, ``A Thing Called Love.'' Congratulations again to Byron Smith and Candace Guyton and the proud parents of these wonderfully talented teenagers. Your tremendous achievements in Baltimore have made our North Texas community proud. Your success in the ACT SO competition is proof that you can succeed in anything you choose.

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.