Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, we signed a discharge petition. That is the only way to get the attention of the majority. They have to be hit right between the eyes. It happens all the time around here. When we were in the majority, they signed discharge petitions. We are in the minority. We sign discharge petitions, and that was a successful effort which forced them to bring a bill to the floor they did not otherwise want to bring to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

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 am pleased to support S. 559, a resolution naming the federal building in Austin, Texas after my fellow Texan and friend, retired Congressman J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle. From his election to the House of Representatives in 1962 to his retirement in 1995, Congressman Pickle was the ideal public servant. I know firsthand how hard Congressman Pickle worked on behalf of his constituency in Central Texas. For over thirty years, Congressman Pickle had pivotal roles in legislation from civil rights to the protection of the environment. Naming the federal building in Austin after Congressman Pickle is an appropriate symbol of our admiration, our respect, and our appreciation for his true public service to us all. It's an honor to take this opportunity recognize a man of great integrity and valor, Congressman J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, there is no more appropriate person to name a Federal building after than Jake Pickle. Jake has a long and distinguished connection with the city of Austin where this building will be located. Jake was president of the student body at the University of Texas. He went on to work many years in Austin in politics before coming to this Congress. Jake was, in fact, one of the most distinguished Members from our State in the last 30 years. No person worked harder on making sure that the Social Security system would be strong and would survive well into the next century than Jake Pickle. No person worked harder on behalf of the high-tech industry of Austin authoring and fathering the semi-tech legislation that really created the new Silicon Valley in Texas. No person served with greater humility, greater humor, and greater distinction than my friend Jake Pickle. I look forward to being with Jake and seeing the name go up on the building.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our 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 reserve the balance of my time.

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 consideration of crop insurance reform. Mr. Speaker, farmers across this country are facing a disaster. The bill, as far as it goes, makes improvements in crop insurance that will probably provide some relief. But, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill misses an opportunity to make substantial changes in the crop insurance program that could yield long-term relief and provide a real safety net to the agricultural sector. However, this bill can be improved, and the rule allows for the consideration of amendments that seek to accomplish that end. While Democratic members of the Committee on Rules might ordinarily object to a rule that requires preprinting of amendments, in this case, because of the tactical nature of agriculture programs, we will not do so. Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), will offer a significant amendment that seeks to provide assistance to those producers who are the most in need and which addresses the long-term problems of the cyclical nature of agriculture. That assistance would come in the form of a supplemental income payment program, which squarely addresses the issue of price disasters. His amendment deserves serious consideration and support of the House. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the consideration of amendments which can improve this legislation, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, like my other colleagues who have spoken, I have spent a great deal of time visiting with the farmers and ranchers in my district down through central Texas in recent months. Clearly there needs to be a long-term solution to the crop insurance situation. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) has an amendment which he may or may not offer today, it has been made in order by the Committee on Rules, but the gentleman from Texas as the ranking member on the Committee on Agriculture will be offering a long-term approach to this situation in the months ahead. While today's bill will offer some short-term relief to farmers, there will need to be a more comprehensive approach down the road which the gentleman from Texas will offer at the appropriate time. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule so that we may proceed to consideration of this legislation today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, later today the House will vote on the Conference Report on Foreign Operations Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2000. I will vote against the conference report, marking the first time in 21 years that I have opposed a foreign aid appropriations bill. I am taking this action for one very good reason. The Republican leadership of Congress has refused to include money requested by the administration to fund the Wye River Accords between Israel and the Palestinians. This is one of the most irresponsible acts taken by the Congress in a very long time. In August, two delegations of Members of the House traveled to Israel and met with Prime Minister Barak and Palestinian Leader Arafat. I headed the Democratic delegation and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) headed the Republican delegation. Both delegations told Prime Minister Barak and Yassir Arafat that we would support funding for the Wye River Accords. The Democrats intend to honor our word. Apparently the Republican leadership does not intend to allow those Republican Members to keep theirs. This is indeed a sad day. The Wye River Accords and the subsequent agreement entered into by Israel and the Palestinians earlier this month to implement Wye mark a dramatic turning point in the history of the Middle East. President Clinton has said he will veto this bill if it is passed by the Congress. I urge a no vote today and a vote to sustain the President's veto when the bill is returned to the House.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, after discussions with the White House, it is my and Congressman Gene Green's understanding that H.J. Res. 68 continues the moratorium placed on the Department of Interior from implementing final rulemaking regarding the valuation of crude oil for royalty purposes. Section 101(a) of H.J. Res. 68 states: ``Such amounts as may be necessary under the authority and conditions provided in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999 for continuing projects or activities including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees (not otherwise specifically provided for in this joint resolution) which were conducted in the fiscal year 1999 and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority would be available in the following appropriations acts: (7) the Department of Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000;'' I appreciate this clarification from the White House.

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, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the time. This is an open rule which will allow consideration of H.R. 1487, a bill to clarify the requirement for public involvement in the designation of national monuments under the Antiquities Act. As my colleague from Washington explained, this rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. Under this rule germane amendments will be allowed under the 5-minute rule, the normal amending process in the House. All Members on both sides of the aisle will have the opportunity to offer amendments. The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits the President to protect a historic or scientific landmark by designating it as a national monument. This bill requires that the President seek public participation and consult with the affected Governor and congressional delegation before making such a designation. Although the bill was reported out of the Committee on Resources on a voice vote with bipartisan support, some changes are needed in the bill to clarify congressional intent. Since this is an open rule, Members will have the opportunity to offer amendments improving the bill. The rule was adopted by a voice vote of the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento). (Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill. H.R. 1875 has an innocuous title, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act, but its content is destructive. Mr. Speaker, this bill makes it harder for the little guy to have his day in court. It seriously limits the ability of Americans to seek redress for injuries caused by large corporations. This legislation also represents an unwarranted incursion into State court prerogatives and by doing so will further clog the already backlogged and overloaded Federal court system. This legislation does nothing to curb abuses of the class action system, but it will ensure that legitimate claims will be harder to pursue, will be more expensive to pursue, and will take far longer in the courts than they already are. In short, Mr. Speaker, this is a very bad bill, and it deserves to be defeated. H.R. 1875 flies directly in the face of the notion of States' rights that my Republican colleagues are so often heard to extol. The bill removes every class action from State court, unless all of the primary defendants are incorporated, or have their principal place of business in the State where the case is filed, or unless virtually all of the plaintiffs are citizens of that State. The Attorneys General of New York and Oklahoma have written to the Speaker raising objections to this bill based on the very notion of States' rights. They write, ``Such a radical transfer of jurisdiction in cases that most commonly raise questions of State law would undercut State courts' ability to manage their own court systems and consistently interpret State laws.'' The President of the Conference of Chief Justices wrote to the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to say, and again I quote, ``We believe that H.R. 1875 in its present form is an unwarranted incursion on the principles of Federalism underlying our system of government.'' Mr. Speaker, some proponents of this legislation say that it is a simple procedural fix. Others contend that it was designed to fix abuses of the class action system. But Mr. Speaker, there are those of us who ask, how could an unwarranted incursion on the principles of judicial Federalism represent a simple procedural fix? There are others of us who ask why, if the intent is to address abuse, are there no specific remedies for specific problems embodied in this bill? Mr. Speaker, this bill faces a certain veto. It is opposed by the Justice Department, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the Conference of Chief Justices, the Attorneys General of New York, Oklahoma, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Tennessee, and West Virginia. It is opposed by a wide range of consumer groups, health groups, social justice groups, and the trial lawyers. They are all rightly concerned that H.R. 1875 will remove class actions from forums which are most convenient for victims of wrongdoing. They are all rightly concerned that passage of this legislation would deny class action relief which could remedy fraudulent behavior, discriminatory practices, or negligence. I share these concerns, Mr. Speaker, and urge the defeat of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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, that is exactly the case. As I indicated, this same Congress has been adding jurisdiction to the Federal courts on the criminal side so that more and more time is taken up with hearing criminal cases. Now they want to increase the civil jurisdiction of the Federal court system and, as the gentleman has pointed out, not fill those judgeships so that all those matters can be handled in a prompt way. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to yield back in just a moment. I would urge that the rule be defeated. I would urge that the bill be defeated. This is a bad piece of legislation that is going to substantially harm the Federal judiciary and substantially harm the rights of litigants in this country. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond. In fact, I very much am. There is an article in today's Washington Post describing that exact situation about how slow the current Congress, the members of the other body have been to fill Federal vacancies during the last several years.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this legislation ignores a fundamental fact about the way the judiciary is organized in the United States. In the Federal court system, the same Federal judges hear both civil and criminal cases. In the State court system, as in my State of Texas, there is a complete separate set of judges that hear civil cases and a separate set of judges that hear criminal cases. What the Republican majority has done during the last 5 years is vastly increase the number of crimes that are now heard in Federal court, so that they have overburdened the Federal court system by adding additional cases that must be heard by Federal judges, and now they want to further overburden the Federal court system by bucking almost all class actions to the Federal court level. They ignore the fact that our State courts are structured with two separate types of courts, one for civil jurisdiction and one for criminal jurisdiction, and our Federal judiciary must hear both civil and criminal cases before the exact same judges. They are putting an inexcusably difficult burden on the Federal judiciary. I had the opportunity as a very young man right out of law school to clerk for a Federal judge. I do have some understanding of the way the Federal judiciary in this country operates. We are now piling so many cases on the backs of Federal judges that we are going to make it impossible for real justice to be achieved through the Federal system.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2558.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to close for our side. We do not have any other speakers at this point.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good piece of legislation. This is legislation supported by a Democratic President, a Democratic administration, supported by the vast majority of Democrats in the House of Representatives. We all are pleased to stand for a strong national defense, to stand for efforts to help our troops, to increase morale, to make sure that we retain soldiers that we need and that we are able to recruit soldiers that our forces need for the future. This is a good conference report. As a Democrat, I am pleased to support it, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote yes on final passage on this very important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. I have not yielded. I am sorry. I have not yielded. The Republican leadership seems to be the only ones in the country that do not recognize the fact that a hurricane is moving up the East Coast, and that it is projected that it is going to come very close to Washington, D.C. tomorrow, and that we may have 5 inches of rain here tomorrow. I do not understand. All I want them to do is to turn on their television sets and to listen to the news and to deal with reality so that Members can be treated in a fair way and so that the staff can be treated in a fair way. It is unrealistic and unfair to say we are going to be here tomorrow and everybody come on in, no matter what is happening. They ought to face reality. They ought to adjourn the House at the end of today so that Members and staff will not be forced through the hardship of dealing with the hurricane in Washington, D.C. tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.