Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman knows that just requiring Congress to vote does not mean that something will pass. Congress votes all the time and defeats legislation. The gentleman would have us vote, but he cannot guarantee that Congress would actually pass anything, and we would be faced with a situation where no Tax Code would be in place.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority has obviously decided that it is in their best interests to govern by press release rather than to actually work to pass legislation that addresses the most important needs of our great Nation. This bill, the so-called Scrap the Code Act, is a perfect case in point. Mr. Speaker, there is not a single Member of this body who is not acutely aware that this weekend marks the deadline for the annual ritual Americans hate most. In order to suitably take advantage of the possibilities for press releases that April 15 presents to my Republican friends, this week has seen a schedule jam packed with Tax Code-related legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, why is it that two of the three tax-related measures that have been on the floor this week lend themselves more rapidly to press release, and, in the case of today's bill, a bumper sticker, of course, than to actually doing something that will provide real benefit to real people? Mr. Speaker, Democrats in this body have said over and over again that the tax policies being pursued by the Republican majority serve the few at the expense of the many. It has been shown again and again that the American public agrees with our assessment. Democrats and the American public should view this latest proposal as the height of fiscal irresponsibility. This is no benign press release; it is a nightmare waiting to happen. It is a creation of uncertainty in the business world that risks further stock market destabilization, and, with it, derailing of the American economy. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, if the Republican majority in this body was truly serious about reforming the Tax Code, the past 5\1/2\ years have provided ample time to accomplish this. They could have brought a bill to the floor at any time during the last 5 years to change the Code in a sweeping way, and they have chosen not to do so. Our colleague the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) contends that H.R. 4199 is a vastly improved version of his earlier legislative attempt to scrap the Tax Code. He has provided us with a new name for his legislation, a name that implies by a date certain the current code will indeed be replaced. This is indeed good fodder for a press release or two. The gentleman from Oklahoma has also provided us with a colorful time line indicating who will act when, including the date July 4th, 2004, when Congress will approve a new Tax Code, thus setting the stage for the demise of the old code on December 31, 2004. The dates also lend themselves quite well to press releases. Of course, sometimes Congress does not act by dates, and what the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) would have us do is establish a date, and, if Congress were not able to act by that date, then there would be no Tax Code in effect at all and the business climate of this country would be substantially interrupted and jeopardized. Again, let me point out the Republicans have had 5\1/2\ years to bring a revision, a rewrite of the code to the floor, and they have not chosen to do so during that time. Mr. Speaker, I am not here to say that it is impossible for Congress to completely revamp the method by which we fund the important and necessary activities of this country by July 4, 2004. I would merely like to remind my Republican friends that with political will and a lot of hard work, this Congress can accomplish many important tasks that will make our country even better. So perhaps this might be an appropriate time to ask why there seems to be no political will on the part of the Republican majority to address matters that are also of great importance, like a Patients' Bill of Rights, prescription drug coverage for seniors, public education reform, raising the minimum wage, investing in our future by saving Social Security and Medicare, and paying down the public debt. Resolving these issues will take real solutions and hard work, Mr. Speaker. These issues cannot be resolved by issuing a press release. If the Republican leadership cannot work to find an answer to these pressing questions, how can we expect the Republican leadership to resolve the issue of creating a simple and fair, and the key word is ``fair,'' Tax Code? Mr. Speaker, this proposal sounds good on paper and in a press release, but you really have to be able to read between the lines to understand the real intent. H.R. 4199 is a classic Trojan horse, Mr. Speaker. To the Republican majority, the bill presented by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent) represents an opportunity to force the country into accepting a national sales tax, as the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) would propose, or a flat tax, or some other scheme to risk total chaos in the domestic and world markets. Let us take a moment to examine what a national sales tax as advocated by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) would mean to working Americans. In order to replace the revenue that will be lost from scrapping the current code, however unwieldy and complicated, the Congress would have to pass a national sales tax of up to 60 percent, and that sales tax would also have to apply to the Internet, something which the Republicans recently have been claiming they do not want to do. By repealing all taxes currently in place, the national sales tax scheme would become the sole funding source for Social Security, which is a big part of the reason the percentage rate would be so high. I am forced to question how fair that kind of a tax would be to American families. In fact, such a tax would be a mammoth aggressive shift of the tax burden in this country. Mr. Speaker, I have a number of requests for time on this rule, and each of these Members are prepared to detail the bad news that this Republican press release is really peddling. But let me close by saying the scheme behind the proposal of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) could result in 8 million Americans losing health insurance, a 17 percent decline in the value of the U.S. housing market, it could impose a $200 billion per year unfunded mandate on State and local governments, and would dramatically reduce the amount of charitable giving. Mr. Speaker, I doubt if these possibilities will be part of the Republican press releases this weekend. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear what is going on here. We have a group of Fidel Castros and Che Guevaras on the other side. They are revolutionaries. They want to tear down the system, but they have no plan. They do not know how to govern. They have had 5\1/2\ years to bring a revision of the Tax Code to the floor and they have not done it. What makes us think they will do it now? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

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

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The other side has used words like absurd, Byzantine, ludicrous to describe the Tax Code. There are a lot of problems with the Tax Code. I would only add one word to that, and I would apply it to the other side, that is ``timid.'' They are too timid to bring a real bill to the floor that actually changes the code. If my colleagues want a change, they control the committee, they control the process here, albeit temporarily, bring a bill to the floor that changes the code. They do not have, one of the other speakers made some reference to anatomy. I would only say they are very, very timid when it comes to actually solving the problems that face this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear what this is all about. This is a bumper sticker. That is what we are debating today. We are debating a bumper sticker and a press release. We are not debating action. We are not debating a legislative proposal that would actually help the American public. I just want to reiterate. If the people on the other side really wanted to change the Tax Code, they have had 5\1/2\ years to do it, and they have not brought a proposal to the floor of the House to do that. All they want is the opportunity to give a speech and to issue a press release. Well, they have had that, and I think the American people should understand that that is all they get out of what is going on today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Chairman, it has been almost comical to watch Republican Member after Republican Member come to the floor today and read the same talking points off the same blue chart. Well, Mr. Chairman, in politics as in life, talk is cheap. I was reminded of this fact earlier this week when I had the pleasure of speaking with a group of high school students. One of their major concerns, as we can all imagine, is the future of Social Security and Medicare. I remembered that the Republican talking points called this GOP budget ``senior friendly,'' Mr. Chairman. But these students wanted the facts, and the fact is that this Republican budget would have us spending the Social Security surplus in 4 years. The fact is that this budget does not devote a single dime to extending the life of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Mr. Chairman, under the Republican budget, the Social Security Trust Fund would be insolvent just about the time these 17 and 18 year olds that I spoke to this week reach retirement age.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I would commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who just spoke. It is very clear this legislation should have been referred to his committee so that at least we could have something real rather than this matter before us which really is an empty vessel. I wish the House leadership had acceded to the request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and referred it to the committee where it should have been in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting into the Record at this point the amendments I will offer if the previous question is defeated. Previous Question for H. Res.--H.R. 3822 Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000 At the end of the resolution add the following new sections: ``Sec. 2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, it shall be in order to consider, without intervention of any points of order, the amendments offered to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in section 3 of this resolution. Each amendment may be offered only by the proponent specified in section 3 or a designee, shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided between the proponent or an opponent. ``Sec. 3. The amendment described in section 2 are as follows:

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, I guess the preceding speaker must have missed what the Committee on Rules did last night. What the preceding speaker was asking was that a message be sent to the OPEC nations. The Committee on Rules deleted that message from this bill last night. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Baldacci.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I find this whole thing kind of baffling, quite frankly. If the Members on the other side wanted to have a press conference bashing the President, why did they not go back to a gas station or why did they not go up to the press gallery? Why are they taking the time of the House to do this, rather than voting on legislation that means something? This is an interesting waste of our time this afternoon. The Committee on Rules has been upstairs trying to fashion a rule for the budget. Why do we not spend our time dealing with the budget of the United States? Why do we not spend our time with actual legislation, rather than coming down here and giving speeches and not legislating? That is all this is. That is all we are doing today. We are not passing anything or considering anything that makes any difference at all, that has any force of law. It just makes my friends on the other side feel good so they can come down to the floor of the House and attack the President of the United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, sometimes people laugh at Congress. This is a day for laughing at Congress. We have spent the last hour debating a bill that provides a report on diplomatic efforts from the President and rejecting the opportunity to offer amendments to actually deal with the problem. No wonder people laugh.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have one remaining speaker, and then I will close. I would inquire of the Chair how much time remains.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the do-nothing Republican Congress has a plan for the run-up in gas prices: do nothing. That is right. For over 5 years, the Republican Congress has done nothing about energy. In the midst of runaway gas prices, the Republicans, apparently, do not want to do anything that might either in the short term or over the long term help American consumers or might have the effect of ensuring the national security of this great country of ours. Mr. Speaker, case in point: this rule and this bill do nothing, except perhaps allow the Republican majority to bluster and play bipartisan blame games. When the prices at the pump have reached a $1.60 and higher, the Republican leaderships rush to a gas station for a photo-op. Perhaps, my Republican colleagues think that casting aspersions on the Clinton administration in front of a gas pump will magically make the price of gasoline drop, because as far as I can see, press releases are all they are offering as a solution to the current dilemma. If the Republican majority really wanted to help American customers instead of taking partisan pot shots, the Committee on Rules would have crafted a rule that would allowed the House to consider some common sense and substantive amendments proposed by Democratic Members of this body. The Committee on Rules last night voted to deny the House the right to consider legislation which would extend the President's authority to use a Strategic Petroleum Reserve to respond to rising gasoline prices and heating oil shortages. The Committee on Rules Republicans voted to deny the House the opportunity to respond to the President's request that we create a Northeast storage facility for home heating oil. The Committee on Rules voted on a straight party line vote against an amendment that would have diverted domestic oil sales from Japan to the West Coast where gas prices are soaring to $2.50 a gallon and more. The Republicans on the Committee on Rules voted against an amendment providing for tax incentives to stabilize the domestic oil industry. Mr. Speaker, that the Committee on Rules Republican majority should vote to deny the House the right to consider amendments that might actually address the problem does not surprise me in the least. Since the Republicans took over this body 5 years ago, they have slashed funding for energy conservation programs by 62 percent. They have cut weatherization programs and have tried time and time again to eliminate the Low Income Housing Assistance Program, which is a lifeline for so many people in the Northeast in the winter months. But what is really unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, is the lack of action on legislation to reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. In the midst of rising oil prices, the Republican majority has blithely ignored a tool the President can use to help ease oil prices in this country if production limits are not increased after OPEC meets next week. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was created to protect our national security and our economy from foreign price and supply problems, but the Republican majority would rather blame the President for rising gas prices than give him the authority he needs to take remedial action. But what makes this whole exercise laughable, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that last night the Republican Members of the Committee on Rules did vote to accept an amendment to the rule. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), offered a substitute to the rule which deleted the only section of H.R. 3822 which even appeared to be decisive. That section would have allowed the President to terminate foreign assistance, both economic and military, to any country engaging in oil price-fixing. The bill would not have required the President to do so, of course, but my Republican colleagues decided it was in their best interests to defang the already nearly toothless tiger that they had tottered out of the Committee on International Relations. This bill is a joke, Mr. Speaker. The Republican response to rising gas prices is laughable; but unfortunately, I do not think many Americans are laughing. Mr. Speaker, I intend to oppose the previous question on this rule. I would hope that every Member of this body is concerned about the failure of the Republican majority to face this situation squarely and forthrightly. And I hope that all of those Members will join me in voting no on the previous question so that the House might consider another substitute rule. My rule would allow the House to consider the common sense and practical amendments that were offered last night at the Committee on Rules but which were summarily denied consideration. I urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question to allow real solutions to a real problem. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).