Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. I would further ask the gentleman from Texas, does he expect the tax conference report to be on the floor next week?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for the majority leader at this point. Will we complete action on the Juvenile Justice bill next week?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas to inquire about next week's schedule.

Mr. FROST. I would respond to my friend from Texas, that based on my 21 years of experience in the House of Representatives, I never book a flight on the day that we are scheduled to leave. I always book my flight for the following day.

Mr. FROST. I would further ask my friend from Texas, I do not see the Patients' Bill of Rights on the schedule. Is there any possibility that that will come up next week or when can we expect it to be brought to the floor?

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick). (Ms. KILPATRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the Committee on Rules has done it to the District of Columbia again. The Republican majority has deliberately stuck a finger in the eyes of the residents of the District of Columbia. Accordingly, I rise in opposition to this rule which specifically makes in order four Republican amendments which seek to micromanage the District, all to advance an agenda which may or may not be shared by the citizens of this city. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia made an eloquent plea to the Committee on Rules yesterday asking that the committee not make in order amendments which affect social policy in the city she represents. The committee totally ignored her, Madam Speaker, and in fact the committee did exactly what she asked it not to do. Madam Speaker, I am not here to advocate one social policy over another. I am not here to advocate the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, or needle exchange programs, or the sale of tobacco to teenagers, but I do think that the Mayor and the Council of this city ought to be given an opportunity to govern and make the kind of decisions that city councils, county governments and State legislatures in the rest of the country are allowed to make without interference and micromanagement by the U.S. House of Representatives. The Committee on Rules apparently does not think that Mayor Williams and the City Council should be given that kind of responsibility. Instead, they have made in order in this rule amendments which would prohibit the city from counting ballots cast in an election last year, which would prohibit the city from using its own money to allow adoptions by unmarried couples, and which would prohibit the city from contributing its own funds to a needle exchange program specifically designed to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in this city. Madam Speaker, the Mayor and all 13 members of the City Council have asked that these riders, among others, not be included in this appropriations bill. But the Committee on Rules seems to know what is best for this city. This paternalism is insulting and patronizing, Madam Speaker, and for that reason I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FROST

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, pursuant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a vote on agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on July 23 the Nation lost a great American when Judge Frank M. Johnson died at his home in Montgomery, Alabama. Judge Johnson was truly an American hero, a man of decency and courage, and whose dedication to the principles of the Constitution ensured that all Americans might enjoy the rights and privileges accorded to the citizens of this Nation by that great document. His most celebrated decisions came in the early years of the civil rights movement in this country. After Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus, Judge Johnson ruled that the regulation that required her to stand in order that a white passenger might sit was in violation of the 14th Amendment. Following the savage beating of civil rights marchers, who included our own colleague the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis) by Alabama state troopers as they attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery, Judge Johnson moved that those marchers should be allowed to express their grievances through a peaceful demonstration. In his ruling, he said that those marchers were doing nothing more than exercising their Constitutional right to assemble peaceably to seek redress of grievances. He struck down laws that prohibited African-Americans from serving on juries, signed the order to force the integration of the University of Alabama, took part in the case that led to the one man, one vote ruling by the Supreme Court and had a hand in scores of other cases that led to desegregation of public facilities throughout the South. Mr. Speaker, I believe this great man did indeed yield true justice. The country has lost a great man.

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 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). (Mr. DICKS 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, I rise in support of the Department of Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000 and in support of the men and women in uniform who serve this country. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker. In the challenging world in which we live, this bill begins to bring military spending to levels that can ensure that our Armed Forces can meet and exceed the missions they are assigned. But, that being said, I am concerned that the Committee on Appropriations has chosen to delete funding for the procurement of the first six F-22 fighter aircraft. I fear, Mr. Speaker, that this pause in the program effectively kills the development of a fighter aircraft that is the key to the long-term defense of our Nation and our allies. The Air Force and the President are also extremely concerned about the action taken by the Committee on Appropriations. In a statement of administration policy delivered to the Committee on Rules yesterday afternoon, the administration made clear its opposition to the reduction in funding for the F-22. I would like to quote from the statement of administration policy: ``The F-22 is optimized to perform a crucial role, achieving air superiority early in any future conflict, even against adversaries equipped with the advanced weapons that will be developed in the first part of the next century. No other aircraft, including the F-15 or the proposed Joint Strike Fighter, will be able to fulfill that role.'' Mr. Speaker, this weapons program is a critical component in our military arsenal. It will serve as an effective deterrent and will ensure our dominance in the skies. I encourage the Committee on Appropriations to reconsider its position and hope that when the bill comes back from conference that the F-22 will be part of the total package of national defense funding for the first fiscal year in the new century. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the committee for its dedication to ensuring that the issues relating to quality of life, benefits, and training for the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines we depend upon for our national security are squarely addressed. Certainly this bill does not go far enough, especially when we are facing critical shortfalls in filling the ranks and retaining our skilled personnel. But under the budgetary constraints that currently exist, the committee has taken at least the beginning steps to address these enormous problems. This bill provides a 4.8 percent pay raise for all military personnel and contains increases in funds for the Aviation Continuation Pay bonus and supports the request for the Career Enlisted Flyer Incentive Pay program, all in an effort to address the major retention problems our Armed Forces are facing, especially in the Air Force. Given the monumental demands that have been placed on our military in the past decade, addressing quality of life issues should be of paramount importance. Our military is being stretched too thin, operations are spread around the globe, and the expectations of future threats will certainly not diminish. The Congress must meet our part of the bargain. We must increase incentives for military men and women to continue to serve their country by ensuring that they are paid at levels that are greater than subsistence living and that their benefits are competitive to the civilian sector. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we must provide the best equipment to get the job done. While we can be assured that today our equipment and technology and the training to go with it are superior to any other fighting force in the world, we must look forward to be sure that we continue to enjoy that advantage. This bill, in many respects, sets us on that path. Again, I am deeply concerned about the zero funding for the acquisition of the first six of the F-22 Raptor fighter aircraft, but I do support the inclusion of $351 million for the acquisition of 15 F-16C fighter aircraft as well as $296 million for modifications and upgrades for F-16s currently in service. The bill also provides $344 million for upgrades for the bomber fleet which includes the B-52, the B-1 and the B-2 which all proved their mettle during the recent air campaign over Kosovo and Serbia. The committee has provided $856 million for the acquisition of 11 V- 22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, the vehicle which will carry the assault troops of the Marine Corps into battle if and when we are forced to send them there. The bill provides $2.2 billion for ammunition for all four services and, most importantly, provides $93.7 billion to operate and maintain the four branches of the armed services. This money will help replenish aircraft spare parts stores depleted from the prolonged operations in Iraq and Yugoslavia. It will address shortfalls in rotational training centers and depot maintenance. Operations and maintenance is the lifeblood of the machinery of the military and is an account that we cannot afford to ignore. But, Mr. Speaker, as the needs of our military continue to grow, as our obligations around the world continue to expand, we must find a way to fund the programs and weapons systems that will be required to meet these responsibilities. If this year's budget dilemma is any guide to what we will be facing in the next few years, I cannot understand how my Republican colleagues can in good conscience endorse a tax cut plan that will, in essence, eviscerate the military. That plan guarantees that there will be no money in the new century to adequately fund our military. I cannot support a fiscal policy that will expand military spending through deficit financing, and quite frankly there is no need to do so. The Republican majority is endangering our national security just when we have begun to restore the infrastructure, both human and machine, of our military. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and I support this rule which will allow the House to consider this important bill. But I cannot support the policy of the Republican majority that endangers the national security of this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders spent yesterday twisting the arms of their moderate and fiscally responsible Members to get them to vote for a tax bill that they have derided all week for its fiscal irresponsibility. The papers today report that the House leadership may well have forced them to risk Social Security, Medicare, and our economy on fiscally irresponsible, budget-busting tax breaks for the wealthiest that will cost us more than $3 trillion over the next 20 years. To do so, Republican leaders seemed to have taken the principle of budgetary smoke and mirrors to a height unseen since David Stockman invented the ``magic asterisk'' nearly 20 years ago. And in so doing, Republican leaders are not just risking Social Security, Medicare, and our economy, they are mounting an assault on the common sense of the American people. Mr. Speaker, in the dead of night yesterday and this morning, Republicans may have succeeded in fooling themselves, but the American people are smarter than that. Americans know perfectly well that if this risky Republican package of more than $3 trillion in tax breaks for the wealthiest becomes law, Republicans will be making it fiscally impossible to save Social Security and Medicare. Republicans will be making it fiscally impossible to pay down the debt and keep interest rates low and our economy growing and creating jobs. Republicans will be making it fiscally impossible to help America's senior citizens afford the high cost of prescription drugs. As one of our moderate Republican colleagues said of this tax bill a few days ago, ``The numbers just don't add up, and the projections don't have credibility.'' Well, we all know and the American people know that they are no more credible today. Why would Republican leaders force through a package that takes such risks with our future? What does it say about the priorities of the Republican party? Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, it says the Republican leaders are willing to risk Social Security, Medicare, and our Nation's economy in order to provide red meat for their right wing extremists. Vote down this bill.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding me this time. I would like to talk a little bit about procedure and a little bit about substance. First of all, I would like to observe that the incompetence on the other side of the aisle is appalling. Time after time this year, in this Congress, the Republicans have had to amend rules after bringing them out of the Committee on Rules, amend them on the floor, and even withdraw rules. They simply cannot run this House in an orderly manner. Mr. Speaker, tonight Americans have the opportunity to see revealed in crisp, bright colors the contrasting priorities, the very different fundamental values that separate the Democratic and Republican parties. Democrats have a fiscally responsible plan that uses the surplus to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, to pay down the debt and keep interest rates low and the economy growing, to allow us to fund America's priorities like a prescription drug benefit, and to provide targeted tax relief for middle-class families. On the other hand, Republican leaders want to risk Social Security, Medicare, and our economy on a fiscally irresponsible budget-busting tax break for the wealthiest that will cost us more than $3 trillion over the next 20 years. What, Mr. Speaker, does this say about the priorities of the Republican Party? Well, it reminds me of another very revealing debate we had on the floor a few months ago. Then the Republican whip, my colleague from Texas (Mr. DeLay), gave us his party's answer to the epidemic of school violence: stop sending kids to day care and start teaching creationism in our schools. That was the answer of the gentleman from Texas. Today, yet again, it is clear that Republican leaders believe the only function of this House is providing red meat for their right wing extremists. In so doing today, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are asking Members to overlook the dangerous, long-term costs of this irresponsible tax bill. It fails to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, the twin pillars of retirement security for Americans by even a single day; it will blow a hole in the deficit and risk driving up interest rates and endangering our economy; and it squanders resources we should be using to address America's families' priorities, like helping seniors pay the high cost of prescription drugs. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, the majority could have worked with Democrats to pass responsible tax relief on a bipartisan basis, but as they have done so many times in this year, Republican leaders have chosen political rhetoric over problem solving. For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and support the Democratic alternative.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise in opposition to this rule. I do so, Mr. Speaker, in spite of my efforts to work with the Republican majority to pass a meaningful and bipartisan financial services modernization bill. Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this rule because the Republican majority has deliberately given short shrift to redlining, an issue fundamental to Democrats and has denied us even the right to bring this subject up on the floor today. Democratic opposition to this rule because of this move on the part of the Republican leadership should come as no surprise. I would like to review how we reached this situation. Several weeks ago, I was encouraged by the Republican leadership on the Committee on Rules to work on a bipartisan solution to the issue of financial privacy. I along with ranking Democrats on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Vento) worked closely with my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) to develop a reasonable compromise on what has become a very contentious issue. We believed we had come up with just such a compromise. While our amendment gained support of a number of members of the Democratic Caucus, a significant number of our caucus oppose it because they believe it does not go far enough. While my Democratic colleagues and I were working to fashion this compromise, it came to my attention that the leadership of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee on Commerce had unilaterally dropped from H.R. 10 an important provision relating to insurance redlining against minorities and women. This provision had been part of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services bill reported by the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, and its inclusion had been instrumental in assuring the large bipartisan majority approval of the bill in the Committee on Banking and Financial Services. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) had been told by his ranking member that this provision had to stay in the text of the bill in order for Democrats to continue to support the bill. Yet when the Committee on Banking and Financial Services and the Committee on Commerce Republicans met to reconcile the two differing versions of the bill, the antiredlining language was dropped. Let us talk about what was dropped. This is a provision that seeks to prevent a financial holding company from engaging in the new activities allowed by H.R. 10 if an affiliated insurance company engages in discriminatory insurance redlining. Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental issue for Democrats. This is an issue of fairness and equity. It is an issue that divides right from wrong. I told the Republicans on the Committee on Rules in no uncertain terms that it would be unlikely that a single Democrat would vote for this rule if this language were not restored to the bill either by incorporating it into the base text or allowing an amendment to restore it on the floor. Let there be no mistake. I made this very clear long before last night's meeting. This was no surprise. Yet, Mr. Speaker, last night the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules cavalierly ignored my advice. By doing so they have created a situation in which it is impossible to consider this bill on a bipartisan basis. They have thrown away the bipartisan goodwill and the hard work and dedication to the issue of financial services modernization as well as the hard work that went into what could have been a true bipartisan compromise on the most contentious issue of the bill, that of financial privacy. It is clear that the Republican leadership has decided to try to pass this rule without Democrat support. In doing so they have made a decision to jeopardize essential and critical legislation if even a few members of their own party desert them. Stated more simply: The Republican leadership runs the very real risk of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. This is a tragedy for our country. It is high time that we pass financial modernization legislation, that we leave behind the depression era laws that hamstring the financial services industry and prevent them from becoming truly competitive in the global marketplace. With the hard work of a number of Members of good will on both sides of the aisle, that objective was in sight, yet, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules majority last night denied the one amendment that could have guaranteed passage of the rule and perhaps the bill. I cannot understand how the Republican leadership could let this happen. But their decision has been made, and now all of us must live with the consequences.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1300.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Oxley amendment.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) a few questions. I would ask the majority leader, next Friday has become a tremendous problem for families, trying to get home for the July 4th weekend. There are literally no flights available. Is the gentleman going to keep votes on Friday?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise to inquire about next week's schedule. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).