Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 188) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, while I support the Senate amendments to H.R. 4, I rise in opposition to the rule. I oppose the rule because of the process or the lack thereof. The Democratic members of the House Committee on Armed Services were totally bypassed on this bill; and that, Mr. Speaker, is reason enough to oppose the rule. The process is really incomprehensible, Mr. Speaker, since the Senate amendment to the House-passed version of the bill states very simply that it is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective national defense missile system that will protect the territory of the United States from missile attack. That simple statement of policy is the distillation of what has been acrimonious public debate for over 15 years. What has changed, Mr. Speaker? I think most of the Members of this body can agree that what this bill calls for is not the Reagan Star Wars of the 1980s. Indeed, the Senate amendment wisely adds language that subjects any missile defense system to the annual appropriations process which, in this era of fiscal restraint, places real constraints on any proposed missile defense system. In addition, H.R. 4 does not mandate one system over another, nor does it mandate a date for deployment. In its simplicity, this bill acknowledges that the United States might well find itself subject to an attack that we should be prepared to defend against, but that we should do so within the context of the technological and financial realities of 1999. Mr. Speaker, few of us in this body can deny that the world has become, since the end of the Cold War, an even more dangerous place than we might have imagined. There are rogue nations and factions that seek to harm, if not destroy, the United States. This bill is an attempt to move forward the debate on the issue of the national missile defense without the acrimony that has accompanied the discussions on this subject in the past. H.R. 4 provides us with a good start, and I am hopeful that it will help us move to a resolution to a thorny, but incredibly important, issue. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow 1 hour of debate on the Senate amendments, a time limit that might have, given the importance of this matter, been extended to allow all Members who are interested in this matter an opportunity to speak. In spite of the fact that the House has conducted very little business in the past few weeks, the Republican majority continually fails to give matters of great importance adequate time to be fully aired on the floor. I would hope that when we return from the Memorial Day recess, one that has now been extended through an entire week, the Republican leadership will consider a schedule that gives important legislation more time to be debated by the elected Members of this body. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act. This issue is one of great concern to a number of my constituents who are Medicare beneficiaries who use one third of all prescription drugs in the United States. On average, seniors pay nearly twice as much as the drug companies' favored customers, such as the federal government and large HMOs and 37% of our nation's seniors do not have prescription drug coverage. In my district in Texas alone, many seniors are forced to pay up to 109% or more for the most commonly used prescription drugs. It is time to show our nation's seniors that their health is more important than drug company profits. I have had a great number of constituents contact me personally to share their concerns for those seniors that are literally having to choose between buying food and buying their prescriptions. An even greater number of individuals endanger their lives every day by not taking the required dosage or only filling some of their prescription medications since they can not afford to meet all of their medical needs. It is high time that the U.S. Congress address the issue of a Medicare benefit for prescription drugs. How much longer are we going to allow the pharmaceutical industry, which is currently enjoying record profits, to dictate the health care choices of our senior citizens? I support H.R. 664, the Prescription Drug Fairness for Seniors Act because it allows pharmacies to purchase drugs for Medicare beneficiaries at the best price charged to the federal government though programs such as the VA or Medicaid. This legislation would reduce prescription drug prices for seniors by more than 40%, and without imposing price controls, but putting an end to price discrimination. It is time to show our nation's seniors that their health is more important than drug company profits.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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 the rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1555, the Intelligence Authorization for fiscal year 2000. I would, however, like to make the House aware of the concerns raised by the ranking member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence with respect to the timing of the consideration of this bill and the preprinting requirement for amendments. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon) does not oppose the preprinting of amendments for this bill. And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is generally supportive of such a requirement because of the sensitive nature of much of the bill and the need to protect its classified contents. And, in fact, Mr. Speaker, the House has considered intelligence authorizations under this kind of rule for the past 6 years. What concerns the gentleman from California, as well as the Democrats on the Committee on Rules, is the timing of the consideration of this important legislation. Since the House conducted no business on Monday, few Members were here to read the classified portions of the bill in order that they might determine if any amendments might be appropriate. Mr. Speaker, we do not object to this rule, only to the timing of the consideration of the bill and would, as has the gentleman from California, ask that the leadership consider giving Members ample time in the future to examine this legislation prior to its consideration on the floor. Mr. Speaker, the bill itself is not controversial and was, in fact, reported by a unanimous vote. The funding levels in the bill are approximately 1 percent above the administration request for the activities of the intelligence community, but the committee bill focuses on the future needs of our intelligence capabilities and the priorities associated with those needs in a rapidly changing but increasingly dangerous world. Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from Florida (Mr. Goss) for his work on this important matter. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from New York about next week's schedule.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman one other question. During the last several weeks we have been here fairly late at night on a regular basis. I would ask the gentleman whether he expects any late- night sessions next week.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have several questions for the gentleman. First, will we definitely be here voting next Friday, in view of the rather light work schedule that the gentleman has just announced?

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party has again demonstrated its willingness to try to have things both ways. In some circles, it might be said that railing against a military action and then doubling the money to fight it should be called hypocrisy. Mr. Speaker, I am at a loss to explain how a political party can, on one hand, demonstrate its visceral hostility towards the President, and then, on the other hand, turn around and double his request for money for what they call Clinton's war. All I can do is shake my head in disbelief. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time for political gamesmanship. Today, right now, our military stands in harm's way. Today is the time for Congress to stand up and support them, and not play games with their lives in order to advance a political agenda. Democrats have, in spite of the divergence of views within our Caucus, gone to great lengths to keep politics out of the debate about Kosovo. How I wish I could say the same thing about the other party. Mr. Speaker, in all likelihood I will vote for the supplemental made in order by this rule. The rule itself is irresponsible and unfair. It allocates some of the money voted in the original supplemental for agricultural assistance, but it denies a separate vote on the disaster assistance for Central America, and it denies a vote to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) on supplemental food assistance for the refugees in Albania. Mr. Speaker, Republicans are fond of chanting their mantra that the President has underfunded the Armed Forces, but I would like to offer an alternative, and more accurate, perspective. Last year the President asked for $2.9 billion more for defense spending than either the Senate or the House Republican budget resolutions provided. Two years ago the President asked for $12.3 billion more. This year the President asked for $104 billion more in budget authority and $198 billion more in outlays for the next decade than did the Republican budget. I may not have agreed with all the President's priorities, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is that his budget requests have been significantly higher than what the Republican Congress has agreed to in their budget resolutions. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Caucus is divided about the amount of extra military spending in this supplemental, but I would be hard- pressed to find a member of our caucus who does not think that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) was treated unfairly last night by the Republican leadership and the Republican members of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, no one in the House, no one, speaks with more moral authority about the issue of hunger than does my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall). Each and every Member of this House knows full well that the actions of Milosevic in Kosovo have created a humanitarian catastrophe that has sent Kosovar Albanians streaming out of their homeland seeking safety in their neighboring countries of Albania and Montenegro. Mr. Speaker, sadly, no one in the administration anticipated this level of disaster. The Committee on Rules last night had, in the words of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), the opportunity to do the right thing, but the Republican majority took a pass. Does the hostility of the Republican Party toward the President reach so deep that hungry children are going to be made to suffer? Pardon the pun, but that should be food for thought for all of us. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, passage of this defense spending supplemental is so important to the Republican majority that this rule also makes in order an amendment designed to appease the most conservative wing of their party. That amendment, sponsored by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), would in essence cut domestic non-defense discretionary spending across the board by 5 percent. So not only will the Republican majority not allow an additional $150 million in spending for food assistance for Kosovar Albanian refugees, the Republicans are willing to cut other domestic programs to fund supplemental military spending. All I can do, Mr. Speaker, is shake my head in disbelief.