Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Let us be very clear what is going on today. The Republicans are debating a press release. They are not debating a bill. Let me read their bill: Report on Diplomatic Efforts. Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this act, the President shall transmit to the Congress a report describing any diplomatic efforts undertaken in accordance with subsection A and the results achieved by those efforts. That is all we are debating today. That is it. This is a press release. Last night, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) came to the Committee on Rules and asked that an amendment be made in order to permit the President to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve after March 31. March 31, that is a week from this Friday. That is when the authority runs out under current law. The Republicans will not let that be voted on today. All they want to vote on is a press release. They do not want to vote on specific actions that could help American consumers. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), said this is an open rule; we can offer any amendment that is germane. There is not much that is germane to a press release, Mr. Speaker. That is the problem. If we want to offer something that is real, it is not germane to this press release. The previous speaker just talked about relief for stripper wells. Well, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin) came up to the Committee on Rules and offered an amendment that would address the problem dealing with production from stripper wells and these folks would not make it in order. There is nothing germane to this press release other than rhetoric. So that is why an open rule for a press release really does not amount to very much, Mr. Speaker. We have to have real solutions, and those are the real solutions that were offered last night and one by one the Republicans voted five votes against, three votes in favor, of making any of those real solutions in order on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson). (Mr. LARSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley). (Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) actually has made some very good points. I would remind him that the Republicans on the Committee on Rules did not make in order any amendments to do any of the things that he is suggesting last night either. If the gentleman from Texas wants to have a vote on those type matters, he could have come to the Committee on Rules. My guess is the Committee on Rules would have rejected his amendments just as they rejected all the other amendments that were offered. And what did the Republicans on the Committee on Rules bring forward? A press release. I wish the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) had come forward and asked for votes on some of those matters. It would have been interesting to have a debate on some of those on this floor but the Committee on Rules did not make any of his proposals in order last night, either. That is why this is a terrible, terrible rule the way it is crafted. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000. H.R. 2372 grants landowners across the country great access to Federal courts in local land use cases involving the takings clause of the fifth amendment. This bill enjoys bipartisan support and is substantially similar to a bill passed by the House in the 105th Congress by a vote of 248 to 178. H.R. 2372 is a procedural bill which clarifies how the Federal courts should deal with takings cases, and seeks to bring relief to property owners who today can spend an average of 10 years jumping through the administrative and judicial hurdles which currently prevent them from seeking remedy in Federal courts in order to be able to use their property. Property owners surely deserve the right to a speedy judicial determination of a takings case, and this legislation seeks to provide that determination to them. This rule allows for the consideration of a substitute to be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). The Boehlert substitute would eliminate local land use actions from the cases that would receive the expedited Federal court consideration provided in the bill. The Boehlert substitute is identical to the substitute offered in the last Congress, and would, as it did previously, leave intact accelerated access to Federal courts, Federal takings cases. The rule also makes in order an amendment to be offered by the Committee on the Judiciary ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watts). The Conyers-Watts amendment seeks to ensure the uniformity in litigation of all constitutional claims, including those claims involving the uses of property. I urge adoption of the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of 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 gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the members of the North Texas Congressional Delegation honor today in Washington, DC, the 1999 National Hockey League Stanley Cup Champions--the Dallas Stars. The Dallas Stars electrified all of Texas en route to winning the oldest trophy in North America and along the way these champs gave us some unforgettable performances on the ice. Whether it was the clutch play of center Mike Modano, the acrobatic saves of veteran goalie Eddie Belfour, the crushing defense of captain Derian Hatcher, the leadership of MVP Joe Nieuwendyk, or the stick handling of Brett Hull, who scored the Cup-winning goal--it seemed like every game a different Star player stepped up and inspired the team to victory. Further, we would like to commend team owner Tom Hicks, President Jim Lites, General Manager Bob Gainey, and Coach Ken Hitchcock for giving all Texans a hockey team to be proud of and showing that hard work and perseverance do pay off. Many in this Nation scoffed when the Stars announced in 1993 that they were bringing professional hockey to Dallas, Texas. And now, just seven years later, Texas is the home to Stanley Cup Champions who have inspired many of our youth to participate in this team sport. Again, on behalf of Congressmen Dick Armey, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Sam Johnson, and Pete Sessions, congratulations from the North Texas Congressional Delegation and a hearty Texas thank you to the mighty Dallas Stars, 1999 Stanley Cup Champions.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my strong support for raising the minimum wage by $1 over a sensible 2-year period. For too long now we have pleaded with the majority to simply allow us to vote on a 2-year minimum wage increase. Apparently many Republican Members still do not understand the importance of the minimum wage to millions of America's working families. Let us be clear about what we are talking about this evening: 11 million working Americans, 10 percent of our work force, toil for the minimum wage. To these working families, a minimum wage increase means a raise of $2,000 a year; that is, if we raise it $1 an hour. Today a single mother with two children who works full-time for the minimum wage does not earn enough to make ends meet. She makes just $10,700 annually. That is $3,000 below the poverty line. Mr. Speaker, this is inexcusable. We are in the midst of the longest economic expansion in American history. Surely we can afford a modest increase in salaries for working Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder. I support the Democratic alternative because working families need a raise over 2 years, not 3. Opponents of this real wage increase have again trotted out their usual arguments: ``We cannot afford a minimum wage increase. A minimum wage increase will result in massive job losses for low-income workers.'' Economic evidence has again debunked these well-circulated myths. The last minimum wage increase did not result in job loss. In reality, overall employment grew among low-income workers after the minimum wage increase, 9.9 million working Americans saw a direct increase in their salaries, and nearly 20 million workers, 18 percent of the work force, also got a boost in pay. The time has come for those who pay lip service to the value of work to put their money where their mouth is. It is time to make work pay for working families.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5, legislation that is long overdue for our Nation's seniors. In 1999, an estimated 1.2 million beneficiaries had some or all of their benefits withheld for some portion of the year under the Social Security earnings test. About 800,000 beneficiaries lost some or all of their benefits under the test as a result of their work at ages 65 to 69. Additionally, the benefits of 150,000 family members were limited or withheld due to the earnings of the primary beneficiary. Mr. Speaker, for many seniors, working after the age of 65 is not an option. Facing mounting bills for prescription drugs and the increasing cost of living, it is something they must do to continue to pay their bills. We should be doing everything we can to increase the standard of living for these valuable employees. Older women in particular face a major hardship from the earnings test. The poverty rate for women is higher than the poverty rate overall, and women have a greater reliance on their Social Security benefits for income. Widows account for 66 percent of aged women in poverty. There are 1.2 million aged widows who receive Social Security benefits and have had incomes below the poverty line. Because women live longer, have lower lifetime earnings and, therefore, for dependent on Social Security benefits, they are more likely to be working well past the traditional retirement age. We need to boost the Social Security earnings for this most vulnerable group of seniors rather than putting roadblocks in their path. Mr. Speaker, repealing the earnings limit is good for seniors and good for employers too. Older workers are exactly the type of employees that businesses want. They are dependable, experienced, and have a strong work ethic. We should be encouraging these workers to remain in the work force instead of trying to force them out. As the number of older workers grows, and the need for quality employees becomes more acute, we need to take advantage of the experience and skills that older workers provide. Eliminating the earnings test is not only the fair thing to do for working seniors but it will improve the quality and efficiency of the Social Security program as well.

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today the United States leads the world in information- technology, and, because of our global dominance in this field, we continue to lead in the fields of science and engineering, our economy is stronger and growing faster than any other, working Americans are more productive than ever, and our future is bright with promise. But if we are to maintain this dominance, we cannot sit back and rest on our laurels. For, just as the Federal Government has been responsible for much of the basic and follow-on research that has made this technology revolution possible, it is necessary that the Federal Government now refocus its efforts on long-term fundamental research, while continuing its spectacularly successful partnership with private industry and academia. It is also critically important that we find ways to continue to encourage students to enter the fields of science and information- technology in order that we can be assured in the future we will have the highly skilled workers we need to continue our dominance in these fields. H.R. 2086, Mr. Speaker, seeks to address those questions in a comprehensive manner by authorizing nearly $4.8 billion available over 4 years for a variety of research and development projects, as well as for grants to colleges and universities for the creation of for-credit internship programs at IT companies and grants to 2-year colleges to improve programs in education related to IT. This Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act is an important legislative proposal for what surely is a national, not a partisan, priority. Mr. Speaker, the fact that this bill was reported from the Committee on Science on a vote of 41 to 0 certainly demonstrates that the promotion of research and information-technology is not a partisan issue. The rule providing for the consideration of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act is an open rule which will allow any Member to offer germane amendments to this important bill. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the bill so that the House may act quickly on this proposal that will reap benefits for every American for years to come. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, more than 6 months ago, the Republicans passed the crown jewel of the Republican agenda, tax breaks for the wealthiest, costing nearly $1 trillion of the surplus. As Yogi Berra once said, it is deja vu all over again, because today Republicans are once again pushing a plan that risks Social Security and Medicare by squandering the surplus on a massive tax break. True, they have tried to disguise it this year, but to quote The Washington Post, the Republican tax package, quote, ``has little, if anything, to do with marriage. The label is a gloss for a generalized tax cut mainly for the better-off.'' Indeed, today Republicans try to take the first $200 billion step toward their goal of spending the surplus. Next they will take another couple of hundred billion for more tax breaks for the wealthiest and then another couple hundred billion dollars and then another couple hundred billion dollars. Mr. Speaker, to paraphrase a distinguished former Member of Congress, $200 billion here, $200 billion there and pretty soon we are talking about real money. Pretty soon, Mr. Speaker, Republicans will have squandered the entire surplus and, with it, our historic opportunity to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Mr. Speaker, I support the Democratic substitute because I want to provide honest marriage penalty relief to the 61,197 married couples in my district. I also want to protect the Social Security and Medicare benefits enjoyed by 72,240 of my constituents, and to reduce my constituents' $8.4 billion share of the Federal debt. I am proud today to support a Democratic plan that provides more tax relief for married couples who suffer under the current system and that also protects Social Security, Medicare, and our other national priorities. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting the Republican plan and supporting the responsible Democratic alternative.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 411) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at 3:20 a.m. this morning the Committee on Rules was convened to report this rule. The chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), said at that time that he would like to take the time to explain to the committee what was in this conference agreement, but that to do so might take 4 days. While I know he was engaging in a little hyperbole, I cannot think he was too terribly off the mark. Mr. Speaker, this rule rolls five appropriation bills, agriculture disaster assistance funding, and $576 million for Hurricane Floyd disaster assistance, all into one bill. The conference agreement also contains a much-needed Medicare reimbursement fix for hospitals and nursing homes, the authorization for the Department of State, which contains terms and conditions that must be met in order for U.S. arrearages to be paid, as well as other matters that were not made clear to the Committee on Rules early this morning. I am perfectly aware that Members are anxious to end the session of the 106th Congress, but could we not wait an extra hour or 2 to give Members an opportunity to find out what is really in this bill? I am also concerned that this enormous bill is only going to get 1 hour of debate when in fact each one of these bills in it should be considered separately. Evidently, the Republican leadership does not think that it is necessary for Members to know what they are voting on. This is a very bad way to do business, Mr. Speaker. And no one should be surprised if Members raise objections to considering this rule at this time. While the contents of this omnibus appropriations bill might be known to negotiators from Congress, the White House, and a few select others, most of the Members of this body know what is in the bill only through news reports and summaries. This is not the first time this has happened, nor will it be the last; but, Mr. Speaker, how hard would it be to give Members of this body a few extra hours to ask questions? The Republican leadership is obviously making contingent plans in case the other body does not act quickly on this conference agreement. The Committee on Rules reported a rule making in order two additional continuing resolutions that will carry us through November 23 and December 2. A few hours more today is not an extraordinary request, Mr. Speaker. So what is in this bill? There are currently some significant improvements over the earlier appropriations vetoed by the President, and these represent a victory for Democrats and for the people of this country. The Commerce, Justice, State appropriation contains increased funding for the COPS program, increases for the Office of Civil Rights, the EEOC, and for Legal Services. The Foreign Operations appropriation fully fund the Wye Agreement, allowing the United States to meet its obligations in the Middle East. The Interior appropriation contains increases in funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and for Indian schools and tribal community colleges, provides funding for the Lands Legacy program, and deletes the most objectionable riders that have been added to the bill in the Senate. The Labor-HHS, Education appropriation provides $35.7 billion in funding for one of the top Democratic priorities, class size reduction. This is a major victory for the President and for Democrats in Congress; but even more so, it is a victory for parents and their children and for quality public school education. This conference agreement also includes funding for the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant, for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, and for the Older Americans Act programs. This bill represents a lot of hard work and many hard-won compromises. However, there is one provision that is problematic for many Members of this House. While the bill funds the arrearages owed to the United Nations, these funds have been won at an extraordinarily high cost, a cost that for some Members may be too high. The fact that this bill trades off payment to the U.N. for family planning around the world is tragic. Women's lives and health are being held hostage, Mr. Speaker; and for many of us in this body, such a situation is deplorable. No one should be surprised if Members vote against this conference agreement because of that issue alone. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill does contain an across-the-board cut. Granted, it is far smaller than originally proposed by the Republican majority, but the symbolism is hard to miss. Because this bill has only been whole for a matter of hours, it is doubtful that the Congressional Budget Office has had an opportunity to cost it out. But this across- the-board cut is a fig leaf designed to conceal the fact that gimmicks and bells and whistles have been used to mask the fact that this bill most likely does cut into the Social Security surplus. The White House may have bought into this charade, but this is one Member who understands that in this case the emperor and all his men have no clothes. Mr. Speaker, this agreement is a mixed bag; and Members should really be given the time to look at it so they can intelligently make a decision about how they want to vote. There is a lot at stake here, and surely it is worth a little more time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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 ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 329.