Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 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 such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule marks the end of a sad chapter in a year-long budgetary charade played out by the Republican majority. This is the last of the 13 appropriations bills to be considered for fiscal year 2000. And what has the Republican majority done with the 2000 budget? Let us take a moment to examine this closely. They have done nothing to strengthen Social Security. They have done nothing to strengthen Medicare. And they are following budgetary policies that hurt every American family. And to make matters worse, according to the Congressional Budget Office, their budget actually spent $17 billion of the Social Security surplus in spite of the fact that they troop out here every morning claiming they are not touching a penny of it. Let us not forget for a moment what the Republican majority tried to do earlier this year with the surplus. The Republicans passed a $780 billion tax cut that was wisely rejected by the President and by the American people because it squandered the surplus instead of using it to pay down the national debt and to strengthen Medicare and Social Security. And so we move on to the latest chapter in this sad story of the budgetary games being played out by the Republican majority. In this chapter, they are proposing a .97 percent across-the-board cut for all Federal programs in order to make up for the fact that they cannot get their job done. In essence, what they are saying is, stop me before I sin again. Stop me before I raid even more from the Social Security Trust Fund. So what does this .97 percent mean? Let us listen to General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in Congressional testimony earlier this week. ``This across-the-board cut would strip away the gains that we have made or what we've just done to start readiness moving back in the right direction. In other words, if applied to this program, it would be devastating. If it went into the personnel accounts, it would be disastrous.'' According to the Comptrollers Office at the Department of Defense, this mindless across-the-board cut would mean a reduction of anywhere between 27,800 and 50,000 active-duty personnel. At the low end, this would represent a reduction of 9,600 troops for the Army; 7,500 for the Navy; 3,400 for the Marines; and 7,300 for the Air Force. This is the equivalent of three-fourths of an Army airborne division, one aircraft carrier, two attack submarines, two Burke-class destroyers, 1\1/2\ Marine Expeditionary Units, and two Air Force fighter wings. All this at a time when our armed forces are stretched thin across the globe. This, Mr. Speaker, is nonsense. Last night during the Committee on Rules hearing, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) tried to tell me that these cuts would come from waste, fraud, and abuse and from the classic expensive Pentagon toilet seat. He tried to tell me that because the Pentagon budget signed by the President was $4.5 billion more than the President requested, the nearly $3 billion in cuts mandated by the across-the-board cut in this conference report would not really represent a cut in the Defense Department. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) said last night that these are not cuts, they are merely adjustments. I beg to differ with his analysis. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier this week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that these so-called adjustments would be devastating to military readiness. Readiness, in my book, does not represent waste, fraud, and abuse. Let me tell my colleagues what these adjustments in readiness will represent. A cut in $720 million in military personnel, which leaves that account $600 million below the President's request, and the so- called adjustment will also represent a $1.1 billion cut in operations and maintenance, bringing that account down $1.1 billion below the President's request. Last night the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) said that because of the obstinacy of the members of the Clinton cabinet, it would be hard to make any projections about what these adjustments might mean until they ``get out of denial.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, it is hard for General Shelton and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be in denial about $2.7 billion worth of cuts in the Defense Department when the bill signed by the President and passed by the majority in the other side contains projects they did not ask for. That includes $375 million as a down payment on a $1.5 million helicopter carrier to be built in Mississippi, the State of the Senate majority leader, or $320 million for a ship to be built in San Diego, or $15 million for a study of the aurora borealis, things that were added by the Members of the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, this is mindless budgeting and a clumsy attempt to appear to be living up to the Republican mantra of saving Social Security. The Republicans are not saving Social Security. They are not doing anything about ensuring its solvency, nor are they protecting Medicare. They are trying desperately to save their thin majority in this House. They are looking out for number one and letting the American people down in the process. They are cutting vital defense programs, ignoring Social Security, and denying senior Americans prescription drug coverage. This is a shameful exercise, Mr. Speaker. I urge every Member of this House, every Member who cares about the honest budgeting and living up to our responsibility as elected representatives, to vote against this farce and to work in the next week to come up with real solutions for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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 speakers on the other side, several of them have engaged in what I have referred to as triple-speak, not double-speak but triple-speak. They said, oh, well, the President only requested X for defense, and Congress voted more than the President requested for defense. Now they are cutting back across-the-board 1 percent, and the figure is still more than the President requested for defense. Therefore, defense is just hunky-dory. What the gentlemen on the other side really did was to appropriate more than the President requested for weapons systems, for pet weapons systems for particular Members of Congress, money that was not even requested by the President. Now they want to cut below what the President requested for operations and maintenance and for personnel. This is not double-speak, this is triple-speak. In fact, the Defense Department, under their 1 percent cut, will now get less than what the President asked for to be able to deploy people around the world, less for operations and maintenance, and will in fact have to reduce the size of the armed forces. They should not be permitted to get away with this kind of charade. The American people deserve to be spoken to honestly and directly when we are talking about what we are doing with their money. Mr. Speaker, this is a charade. We will vote ``no'' against the rule. If the rule is passed, we will vote no against the conference report. If the conference report should be passed, the President will veto it. They do not have the votes to override the veto, they know that, and we will then, finally, be in negotiations with all the parties at the table, unless the other side stubbornly refuses to negotiate with the President. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Mrs. Christiansen.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to participate in an extraordinary event in my Congressional District. The Ex-Students Association of Blooming Grove High School in Blooming Grove, Texas, recently dedicated a World War II memorial listing the names of all area residents who had served in our armed forces in World War II. What made this event so extraordinary is that the memorial contains the names of 324 men and women, and two German Shepherds. These 324 men and women served in the military from a town of less than 1,000 in population. I can't imagine that any community of comparable size anywhere in America contributed as many of its sons and daughters to the war effort between 1941 and 1945. Of the 324 from this remarkable Navarro County community, a total of 15 lost their lives. Additionally, a tremendously high number of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen from Blooming Grove were officers, with 37 holding officer rank. One of these 37, Ray Morris, rose to the rank of Admiral. Two dogs, ``Snitch'' Lane and ``Jack'' Garrison were pressed into duty as sentries. Bruce Lane, one of the driving forces behind the creation of the memorial, was only eight years old when his German Shepherd, ``Snitch,'' was drafted by the Army. Bruce remembers how the dog's handler wrote letters home on a regular basis, letting him know that ``Snitch'' was OK. The memorial, which was dedicated on October 16th, consists of five pieces of Georgia gray granite inscribed with the names, rank, and branch of Blooming Grove residents who served during World War II. Members of the committee that raised money to construct the monument included Jean Hinkle, Alice Bell, Bob Lane, Bruce Lane, Jack McGraw, Ralph and Reba Ferrell, Shelby Thedford, Brad Butler, and Earl Smith. The committee overseeing construction included Bob Lane, Dana Stub, Loyd and Mary Gowd, and Helen Farrish. The beautification committee for the memorial included Terry Golden, Jean Hinkle, Bruce Lane, Elaine Campbell, and Alyne McCormick. They are all to be commended for their efforts in erecting this memorial. Every community that contributed to the war effort should have a memorial to those who served, but few towns are as deserving of a memorial as Blooming Grove. Communities like Blooming Grove won the war and helped save the world for democracy. It is highly appropriate that Blooming Grove residents' service has been recognized with a very special memorial.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Hank Smetak. Mr. Smetak worked 50 years in the defense industry, helping keep America free, during times of war and peace. Mr. Smetak's career in the aerospace defense industry has spanned over five decades, through conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf, and outlasting a Cold War that had an impact on almost every part of the world. Mr. Smetak started his career at Vogt, now Lockheed Martin, from 1949 to 59, from 1959 through 1968 he was employed by Rohr Industries. Then he returned to Lockheed serving from 1968 to the present. From Rohr to LTV to Loral to Lockheed Martin, Mr. Smetak has been a constant through many changes, and he had helped make North Texas home to the cutting edge of America's defense industry. Mr. Smetak, thank you for 50 years of loyalty to North Texas' defense industry. For 50 years, your work has contributed to defending America's freedom and our values, and has helped make us the world's only Superpower.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to oppose this rule, since it merely enables the House to send the District of Columbia appropriations bill to conference. We are well into the fiscal year, and it is time to get on with funding the District. However, I do want to express my concern that there might be a plan to attach the Labor- HHS appropriations to the D.C. bill in conference. I want to state unequivocally that the Democratic Members of this House will oppose such a move. The District has been held hostage on other issues; and now, just as we are getting to the point where there might be a bill the President can sign, the Republican majority may be increasing the ransom demand. That is unacceptable, Mr. Speaker, as well as grossly unfair to the residents of this city. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am distressed to read in the papers that the chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations has said that the conference on his bill is all but finished. I have to ask how can the conference be all but finished when the House has never even considered the bill? I appreciate the fact that the subcommittee chairman is attempting to move his bill, but might I suggest that regular order might be preferable, albeit far more difficult, than this back-room wheeling and dealing now taking place. It is time to get on with a real appropriations process, Mr. Speaker, and to stop playing games. I support moving the District appropriations bill to conference, but I will not support any attempt to hold it hostage with an appropriations bill the Republican majority will not even try to pass on its own in this body. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority is going to spend a lot of time today talking about marijuana and needles and drug addicts. I want to make it very clear that I am not in favor of the legalization of marijuana or needle exchange or doing anything that will further the use of illegal drugs in the District of Columbia or anywhere else in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, I also want my Republican colleagues to understand why many Democrats are going to oppose this rule and oppose this bill. We are going to oppose the bill and the rule because the Republican majority does not want to talk about anything else except what they want to talk about. No one else can get a word in edge-wise. We are going to oppose the bill because the Republican majority refuses to sit at the table with the administration, with the delegate from the District of Columbia, or with the Democratic members of the Committee on Appropriations to negotiate on this bill. Mr. Speaker, we are now way beyond any one rider in this bill. The administration, the District, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) have all indicated that they are willing to be flexible on these issues. We oppose this rule and this bill because the Republican majority has closed the process and will not even give the people of the District of Columbia the simple courtesy of listening to their concerns. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in recent weeks to point out to my Republican colleagues that it seems they support local control only when it suits their purpose. Round two of the District of Columbia appropriations for fiscal year 2000 is another case in point. This bill is no improvement over the last because the Republican majority seems intent on adopting an attitude of Father Knows Best. Following the President's veto of the first D.C. appropriations bill, the Republican majority refused to sit down and talk about what should be done to move this bill. Instead, the Republican majority has chosen to use the D.C. appropriations bill as a political paint brush in an attempt to unfairly paint the administration and congressional Democrats as being soft on drugs. I want to reiterate that I am not endorsing the legalization of marijuana or making needles available to IV drug users. No, Mr. Speaker, I am endorsing the idea of allowing the District the right that every other jurisdiction in this country now enjoys, the right of self-determination. The Republican majority has denied over a half million people that right by refusing to engage in any discussion about how best to settle this matter. As a consequence, I will join the delegate from the District of Columbia in opposing this bill. To add insult to injury, the Republican majority is bringing this bill to the floor under a completely closed rule. I think it is a forgone conclusion what the outcome of any vote on any of these issues might be. But the fact that the Republican majority does not want to give the delegate this opportunity to represent her constituents is really unconscionable. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

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, how much time is remaining?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some very interesting debate on this bill. It is unfortunate that we cannot reach a compromise. It is clear the other side is unwilling to pursue a compromise at this point. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. So the answer to my question is no.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would only ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), the manager of the rule, whether he is willing to entertain the suggestion by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) that the rule be temporarily withdrawn from the floor so that the possibility of compromise can be pursued. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

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 this conference report; but, first and foremost, I rise in support of the men and women who serve the Nation faithfully, as well as members of our armed services. They are the ones who, when called upon, will be required to sacrifice their lives so that we may continue to live in freedom; and this conference report, Mr. Speaker, fulfills a commitment to them which I am proud to support. Mr. Speaker, this conference report contains a package of pay and retirement improvements which keeps faith with our men and women in uniform. This conference report contains the largest military pay raise in 18 years, as well as funding for a change in pay scales and a series of pay and bonus incentives. These pay increases, bonuses, and other incentives prove our commitment to a better quality of life for our military personnel and their families. As an editorial in the Fort Worth Star Telegram noted on Monday, when the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act last week, he said the excellence of our military is the direct product of the excellence of our men and women in uniform. This bill invests in that excellence. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the same holds true for this conference report. The conferees are to be commended for ensuring that quality of life, benefits and training for the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines, upon whom we depend for our national security, are squarely addressed. There is much left to do, but I believe the provision of the 4.8 percent pay increase is a solid beginning. Incentives to retain our most skilled military personnel are also in the bill; but, again, there is still much to do to ensure that we not continue to lose men and women who have the skills and experience that are so critical to maintaining a fighting force that can quickly and effectively respond to any emergency or who can sustain a long-term effort. The ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), early this year called 1999 the Year of the Troops. This bill lives up to the commitments we as a body made earlier this year; but this is not the end of the story, Mr. Speaker, because there is still much to be done. In spite of the constraints on our budget, we must all make a commitment to continue to improve the quality of life for our military personnel and their families. Considering how much we ask of them, this is the least that we can do. The conference agreement also provides for those weapons systems that our military men and women will man and operate, and in particular this bill reflects a workable compromise on the future of the F-22 stealth fighter. While I would certainly have preferred that full funding for production of the first six F-22 fighters be included in this bill, the agreement does provide $750 million for the development of a test aircraft which will be subjected to rigorous tests prior to going forward with full scale acquisition. Also included is $277 million for the purchase of components for advanced procurement of ten F-22s if the test aircraft meets the test thresholds established in the conference agreement and provides the $1.2 billion requested by the President for further research and development of the aircraft. Mr. Speaker, production of this aircraft is the number one modernization priority of the Air Force. This program has received the unqualified endorsement of the entire Joint Chiefs, as well as all 10 war fighting commanders in chief. The Secretary of Defense has called the F-22 the cornerstone of our Nation's global air power in the 21st Century. Mr. Speaker, no other aircraft in our current arsenal will be able to fulfill the role that the F-22 is designed to fill in the next century, and the conference agreement is a vast improvement over the zero funding that was in the House-passed bill. The conference agreement also provides for $246 million to build ten F-16-C fighters, as well as $283 million for F-16 modifications and upgrades. The bill also provides $302 million for upgrades for the B-2 bomber fleet and $856 million for the acquisition of 12 V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft and $183 million for additional research and development on the V-22. The conference agreement provides for a total of $267.8 billion for the Department of Defense in the first fiscal year of the new century. The conferees have done the best with the funds available to them but, Mr. Speaker, we have found ourselves in the unenviable position of making trade-offs and delaying the funding for needed modernization programs while at the same time the needs of our military continue to grow as our obligations as the world's only superpower continue to expand. This bill is a good bill as far as it goes, but I believe that in future years the Congress must make every effort to continue to fund the needed programs that will ensure our national security. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to adopt this rule and to adopt the conference report. This bill is good for our country and deserves our support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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