Martin Frost

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.

Mr. FROST

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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the District of Columbia finds itself last, but certainly not least, in the appropriations lineup for fiscal year 2001. This is the last of 13 appropriations bills, but it is the bill which accords the least amount of respect to the residents of this city. Year after year, the Republican majority has gone out of its way to turn what should be an easy task into an unnecessarily difficult one. This year is no different; and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to the bill. Mr. Speaker, last year the D.C. appropriations was considered six times before finally becoming the engine that drove the omnibus appropriations bill. I must ask, is there a good reason the Republican majority seems to want to repeat that exercise again this year? The bill is loaded with the usual social riders the Republican majority seems willing to impose on the residents of the District, but not on their own constituents. Again the bill contains veto bait such as barring the District from using its own local funds to provide abortion services to low-income residents, or implementing its own domestic partnership law. But to add insult to injury, this rule makes in order two amendments that the delegate from the District of Columbia specifically asked the Committee on Rules to deny. These two amendments, one relating to the issue of needle exchange and one relating to the sale of tobacco to minors, are perennial Republican favorites on this bill. But, Mr. Speaker, these are the amendments the elected government of the District of Columbia, as well as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), oppose. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Rules has pointedly through the consideration of 12 appropriation bills denied Members the right to offer amendments that required a waiver of clause 2 of Rule XXI; but when it comes to the District, the chairman and the Republican majority of the committee send out an engraved invitation to any Member who has a particular legislative ax to grind. Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder the District Government has proposed license plates for its residents that proclaim ``Taxation Without Representation''? Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule for the simple reason that the Republican majority has again set up this appropriation for an unnecessary protracted legislative debate. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule and on the bill. Let us put some common sense and some respect into this process. Mr. Speaker, I reserve 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 urge a no vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the conference report to accompany fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations. This important appropriations bill provides the funding for the security and defense of the United States and ensures that our military strength remain second to none. This conference agreement will provide $288 billion for the programs of the Defense Department, and includes a 3.7 percent pay raise for our military personnel, an increase of nearly $1 billion over fiscal year 2000 for military health care. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill and deserves the support of this House. This rule is the standard rule for the consideration of conference reports in the House, and it waives all points of order against the consideration of the conference report. This rule is noncontroversial, and I urge Members to support it. I also urge Members to support this conference report. The pay raise provided to our Armed Forces is of great importance, especially for younger military members with families, and for those mid-career personnel who are considering abandoning the military for the civilian world. The bill also addresses an important need for those who have served and are now retired by funding the Expanded Pharmacy Access Program that was part of the National Defense Authorization Act. These are important benefits for active duty and retired personnel, and I urge Members to support them. I am particularly pleased that the conference agreement contains $3.9 billion for overseas contingency operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and southwest Asia. While many Members may disagree with these operations, it would be irresponsible for the Congress to withhold the funds necessary to maintain them, unless and until the Congress decides to end them in an orderly fashion. The conference report also provides $1.1 billion for the acquisition of 16 V-22 tiltrotor aircraft and $122 million for the acquisition of four F-16s. These are important procurements for the Marine Corps and the Air Force. In addition, the conference report fully funds the F-22 Raptor jet fighter program with $2.1 billion for 10 aircraft, $396 million for advanced procurement, and $1.4 billion for research and development. Fully funding this stage of the procurement of this important addition to our Nation's arsenal is key to ensuring our continued air superiority well into this new century. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference agreement, and I urge Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Does the gentleman still wish that we proceed?

Mr. FROST. I would inquire of the Chair of the time remaining on each side.

Mr. FROST. The gentleman has more time available at this time.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to whether the gentleman on the other side has a speaker on the floor at this point.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in our small little meeting room on the third floor of the Capitol last night, long after the evening television news and safely passed newspaper deadlines, at approximately 2:30 a.m., Republican Congressional leaders moved to kill the momentum for prescription medicine help for seniors. That is why there will be no vote in the House of Representatives today on a guaranteed Medicare prescription coverage plan for all seniors who want it, which Democrats offered in the Committee on Rules last night and which we are being prevented by this rule being debated right now from offering on the floor today. Instead, this Republican Congress would do its best today to place an attractive shroud on the coffin of Medicare prescription coverage. The Republican plan provides seniors with nothing but an empty promise, one guaranteed by nothing more than their faith in the Republican party and their allies among the HMOs and insurance companies. Until recently, Republicans made little secret of their indifference to skyrocketing prescription costs or their hostility toward Medicare itself. Over the past few years, we have all become aware of how poorly Americans have been treated by HMOs and insurance companies. Under the Republican plan, though, their HMO or insurance company will decide which prescription medicines they get as well as which doctors they see. That is why Democrats earlier today took the dramatic step of walking off the House floor, because Republicans know that only in the dark of night can they hope to get away with denying seniors guaranteed Medicare prescription coverage and because guaranteed Medicare prescription coverage will remain a top Democratic priority until we get it done in a Republican Congress this year or in a Democratic Congress next year.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, not only has there been a failure of leadership on the part of the Republican majority when it comes to energy independence, there has been a concerted effort to undercut the efforts of the administration to address energy issues. In fact, members of the Republican leadership have jeopardized our abilities to address our energy needs by attempting to abolish the Department of Energy, slashing energy efficiency programs, and selling off the strategic petroleum reserve. In the past few weeks, as the price of gasoline has soared, the Republican majority has offered not one solution to America's consumers. Instead, where American families see an energy crisis that jeopardizes their summer vacations, Republican leaders see an opportunity to score political points and cover up their 6-year record of negligence on energy independence. The Republicans have cut crucial energy supply programs by 23 percent below the President's request, including $106 million less than requested for solar and renewable energy programs. They have even cut these programs by $61 million below the current appropriation. The Republican bill also cuts research by $320 million, or 10 percent below the President's request. Mr. Speaker, today the Congress is rightly taking action to reauthorize the President's ability to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, establish a Northeast Home Heating Reserve, and authorize the Department of Energy to purchase oil from stripper wells when the price drops below $15 a barrel, all measures Democrats have long been advocating, as indicated by the previous speaker, the ranking member on the subcommittee. But the Republican budget continues to ignore many of the crucial long-term investments that are vital to America's future energy independence. I call on the Republican leadership to call a halt to the photo ops and press releases and stop attempting to abolish the Department of Energy, and finally work with Democrats to make investments in research and renewable energy sources that are vital to America's energy independence.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule as well as to the Legislative Branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001. This rule is unfair and the bill is a prima facie case of penny wise and pound foolish. By grossly underfunding the operations of the Congress and its related agencies in order to live up to the terms of the Republican budget resolution, the reported bill endangers the safety of every Member, staff person and visitor to this building and our office buildings. As reported, the bill could lead to layoffs in our own offices as well as in all the support agencies of Congress and would deny cost of living adjustments to those staff who still had a job. The cuts in the reported bill would have eliminated funding for maintenance and safety improvements for this magnificent building that we are so privileged to work in as Members of Congress. In short, Mr. Speaker, this bill would hamper the ability of the Congress to do its job. I am frankly amazed that the Republican majority has so little regard for this institution and the people who work in it. The subcommittee chairman told the Committee on Rules that the Republican majority has saved the American taxpayer $1.5 billion in legislative branch funding since taking control of the Congress in 1995, but I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, at what cost have these savings been made. I can certainly see the costs in the staff who work for us and by extension, for our constituents. Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly difficult to attract or keep experienced staff, especially in this tight labor market, and especially when the Senate can pay staff considerably higher salaries. I have the greatest admiration for the hundreds of young men and women who work in our offices and on the committees of this body, but we cannot hope to keep the best and the brightest of them if we cannot pay competitive salaries. Paying the staff who work for us is not a waste of the taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker, and losing staff with the expertise and the complicated subjects we must address certainly will not help us do our job better. Fortunately, the manager's amendment restores some essential funding for the operation of the House, including the fiscal year 2001 COLA for staff and funds that will avert large-scale layoffs. But this restoration of funds for the House operations, as well as the operations of the support agencies of the Congress, only came after the Republican leadership was embarrassed publicly. The manager's amendment adds $95.8 million to the bill, but, Mr. Speaker, even with this additional funding, we still face a cut from current services, and the bill makes no investment for the future of this institution. As a case in point, I would like to point to the Congressional Research Service, an organization that is critically important to all of our personal offices as well as to every committee. Some of the most valuable assets the House has at its disposal are the senior analysts at CRS whose institutional memory, extensive knowledge and proven abilities are at our disposal. Yet, Mr. Speaker, many of these senior analysts are approaching retirement and in an effort to properly train their replacements CRS has undertaken a ``succession initiative.'' This initiative is designed to hire junior employees to work alongside of the senior analysts they will eventually replace in order to benefit from the years of experience and knowledge of those analysts. This is a wise investment in the future, Mr. Speaker, yet, this bill and the manager's amendment do not fund the initiative. I have to ask the Republican leadership if investing in the information resources this Congress depends on is a waste of the taxpayers' money or if it helps us do our job better? Even with the addition of the funds in the manager's amendment, the Government Accounting Office and the Government Printing Office are still underfunded if we want them to serve the Congress in the manner we have come to expect. I cannot see how shortchanging these organizations ultimately saves the taxpayer one red cent. Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this bill. This bill cuts the legislative branch to the quick in order to pay for an irresponsible Republican tax cut. This bill is merely a symptom of the Republican majority's refusal to address the real needs of this country, saving Social Security and Medicare, investing in education, and providing a prescription drug benefit for senior Americans. I also cannot support this rule, Mr. Speaker. The Republican majority on the Committee on Rules needlessly denied Democratic Members the right to offer amendments to this bill, while at the same time making an unnecessary political point making Republican amendment in order. For example, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) sought the right to offer an amendment which would have stricken a provision in the bill which would allow the Library of Congress to circumvent the terms of a negotiated settlement in Cook v. Billington, a class-action suit brought by African-American employees of the Library. Why the Republican majority could not allow the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) to offer this amendment is a question for the ages, Mr. Speaker, but because of the Republican majority refusal to allow this matter to be debated, I must oppose this rule. Mr. Speaker, this is an unfair rule for a very bad bill. I urge Members to oppose the rule and oppose the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Pastor).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge a no vote on the rule. 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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It will pass with a very significant bipartisan vote of both Democrats and Republicans. I would only like to underscore one point that I made earlier in the debate, and I would hope that the leadership on the other side of the aisle in this body will impress upon the leadership on their side of the aisle in the other body how important it is to move the defense supplemental for Kosovo and Bosnia right now. Because while there is significant money in this bill for 2001, our troops face a crisis in the fourth quarter for fiscal year 2000, beginning in about a month, because of the inability of this Congress to fund what has already happened in Bosnia and Kosovo, and because of the fact that this requires our military to take money away from training and to take money away from the vital things that need to be done right now in the remainder of this fiscal year. So while it is laudable that we are going to pass by a significant bipartisan vote a good piece of legislation for the fiscal year that starts October 1, we need to move the money in the supplemental for the remainder of this fiscal year, or we are going to face a real crisis situation starting about August 1. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.