Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity not to comment on this legislation but to comment on the Republican leadership's unwillingness to recognize reality in the scheduling of the House of Representatives. As people may be aware, there is a hurricane headed toward this area, and yet the Republican leadership refuses to adjourn the House at the end of proceedings today, thereby forcing Members to attend a hurricane party here in Washington, D.C. in the capitol tomorrow. It is very likely that the Washington, D.C. airports will be closed tomorrow if the hurricane does, in fact, continue on its path, thereby preventing Members from the southeast who may want to be with their constituents at the time of this national emergency from doing so, and preventing Members from other parts of the country who may actually want to be able to go home this weekend and spend time with their constituents from doing so. I find it extraordinarily shortsighted on the part of the Republican leadership to recognize that there is a hurricane headed straight toward Washington, D.C. The House should be adjourned at the end of today so that Members will not be trapped in Washington and be unable to be with their constituents in the next 5 days. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. I am just appalled by the fact that they seem to have taken the position of, what hurricane? I mean, everybody in the country knows that the hurricane is heading up the East Coast, and by refusing to adjourn the House at the end of business today they are forcing the staff to try and get into work tomorrow. They are trapping Members in the Nation's capital who want to be home with their constituents. This is an extraordinary development.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Sanchez).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me state at the outset that it is my intention to support this conference report. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 contains a number of provisions that are critical to the maintenance of our national defense forces. Most important among them is a 4.8 percent basic military pay raise and additional pay raises targeted to mid-grade officers and NCOs to improve retention and hopefully stem the loss of some of the best and brightest and most valuable members of our armed services. The quality-of-life issues addressed in this package are, in a word, essential to the men and women who serve in uniform and to their families. As Members of this body point out repeatedly, it is unconscionable that service men and women should be paid at rates so low that they depend upon food stamps to feed their families, or the military housing is oft times decrepit or substandard. This bill may not resolve all of those issues, but at least it puts us on the road to fixing a problem that cannot and should not be tolerated. This conference report is not without controversy, however. The ranking member of the Committee on Commerce has raised some serious concerns about the provisions in the conference report, which establish a new National Nuclear Security Administration to manage DOE's weapons programs. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is especially concerned that this provision was added in conference over the objections of the Committee on Commerce and Committee on Science who have jurisdiction over this matter; and he has indicated that it is his intention to offer a motion to recommit to strike language from the conference report. Members should listen very carefully to his arguments against these provisions which are opposed by the Secretary of Energy, the National Governors Association, and the National Association of Attorneys General. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will also voice strong objections to the process by which these provisions were included in this conference report. His views deserve the attention of the House, and I urge Members to pay close attention. There will, of course, be Members who will oppose his motion to recommit because they do not want to put any barriers in the path of the passage of this very good bill. His objections do not, however, lie against the remainder of the bill, and those provisions deserve the strong support of the House. This conference report authorizes $8.5 billion for military construction and military family housing programs. It authorizes full funding for a proposed program to construct or renovate over 6,200 units of military family housing, and the construction or renovation of 43 barracks, dormitories and BEQs for the single enlisted. The conference report also increases authorization amounts for procurement accounts to provide for a total of $55.7 billion as well as for research and development to provide for a total of $36.3 billion. This increased funding will provide $171.7 million for further development of the B-2 fleet, $252.6 million to procure F-16C aircraft and $319.9 million for F-16 modifications. In addition, the conference report commits to funding an acquisition of the critical next- generation air dominance fighter. It authorizes $1.2 billion for research and development on the F-22 Raptor, $1.6 billion for six low- rate initial production aircraft, and $277.1 million for advanced procurement for 10 LRIP aircraft in fiscal year 2001. The conferees are to be congratulated for their support for this critical program. I am also pleased that the conferees have included $990.4 million for procurement of 12 V-22s and $182.9 million for V-22 research and development and $25 million to accelerate development of the CV-22 special operations variant. Mr. Speaker, this is a very good conference report. The conferees have brought us a bill which enhances quality of life for our men and women in uniform, a bill which protects core readiness and a bill which wisely and aggressively addresses the need to replace aging equipment and to find ways to keep our weapons systems second to none in the world. I commend this conference report to my colleagues. 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 would only point out to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), that I am not trying to be overly critical of the Republican leadership.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the author of the legislation.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on the road to a vote on real campaign finance reform, our friends in the Republican Party have set up an ambush. In this Congress, the Republican leadership has accommodated supporters of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance proposal by scheduling the bill for consideration, but appearances can be deceiving. First, the rule reported by the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules gives opponents of campaign finance reform the opportunity to wound the bill by taking pot shots at Shays-Meehan. Then, when the bill is down and bleeding, the rule allows opponents to bring out the heavy artillery to try and finish it off. This rule may not give Shays-Meehan a clean vote. And, Mr. Speaker, unless Members of the House stand up and vote against the amendments designed to wound and weaken and eventually kill real and meaningful campaign finance reform, the Republican majority will once again, through a cynical exploitation of the process, stymie the efforts of those Members who are dedicated to reforming how Federal campaigns in this country are financed. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 283 makes in order a series of 10 amendments to Shays-Meehan. This series includes amendments that would, in essence, take away the ability of labor unions in this country to represent the views of their members in the political process, while others would allow individuals to increase their contributions to candidates from $1,000 to $3,000. There is even an amendment in this mix that puts limits on the campaign of the First Lady in the State of New York. These amendments are, by design, intended to seriously maim and wound Shays-Meehan. The rule then provides for the consideration of three substitutes. These substitutes are intended to inflict mortal wounds. Should any one of them be adopted, Shays-Meehan will be declared DOA. While we can speculate that the first two substitutes, those offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), will not pass, the third substitute, which is a proverbial sheep in wolf's clothing, stands a good chance of passing the House and killing Shays-Meehan. That substitute, to be offered by the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, embodies a number of reforms to the operations of the FEC but does not affect the financing of campaigns. The Thomas amendment is indeed campaign reform. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that it is not campaign finance reform. The intent here is quite clear and very obvious. This rule is designed to ensure that the House will never get a straight up-or-down vote on Shays-Meehan. All that being said, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are not going to oppose this rule, for we know full well if this rule is defeated, that means the end of any discussion on the subject of campaign finance for the remainder of this Congress. In the last Congress, Shays-Meehan passed this body by a vote of 237-186 after the Republican leadership set up a series of roadblocks designed to keep the House from getting a vote on that bill. We can only hope that a majority in the House remains committed to campaign finance reform and will find a way to foil this ambush of the only proposal that fits that description. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendments made in order in this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader. (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. FROST. Not at this point, Mr. Speaker, because there are Members who are in transit. There are Members who are coming to the floor who would like to speak.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have requests for that time, but the Members are not currently on the floor. It is our anticipation that we would use the time. We had planned to.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend from California by saying that we have additional speakers; however, they are not currently on the floor. We have Members who have requested the opportunity to speak.

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

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

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

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Forbes). (Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).