Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order two amendments. The first amendment would be the Nadler/Jackson-Lee amendment, that addresses treatment of child support payments in bankruptcy. The second amendment would be the Delahunt/LaFalce/Watt/Roybal-Allard amendment, which would disallow bankruptcy claims for consumer credit card debt if, at the time of solicitation to open an account, the debtor was not informed in writing of certain disclosure factors. These amendments were offered in the Committee on Rules last night and, unfortunately, were defeated on a party-line vote. Madam Speaker, these are important amendments and deserve to be considered by the entire House. Madam Speaker, this vote, the vote on whether to order the previous question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be debating. Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or control the consideration of the subject before the House being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first recognition.'' Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of amendment.'' Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.'' The vote on the previous question on a rule does have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only available tools for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the text of the amendment and extraneous materials.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 833, I am pleased that this legislation has come to the floor in a timely manner. However, given the fact that this bill as well as the Defense Supplemental are the only major pieces of business this week, I do think that the Republican leadership should have afforded more Members the opportunity to offer amendments to this important and far-reaching legislation. Madam Speaker, reform of the bankruptcy system in this country is indeed a major initiative. In this decade, the number of personal bankruptcy filings has skyrocketed, more than doubling in the past 8 years and increasing by an astonishing 400 percent since 1980. Last year, more than 1.43 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy. This is indeed an alarming trend, and it is especially alarming in light of the fact that the U.S. economy is booming and personal incomes are rising. While there are certainly more individuals among these numbers who are seeking Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief as a last resort, there are also many in this number who are using the bankruptcy system to escape debts they are capable of paying. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said yesterday in the Committee on Rules, this bill is an attempt to achieve an appropriate balance between debtor and creditor rights. By establishing needs-based bankruptcy standards, this legislation seeks to ensure that those who need a fresh start will be given one but that those consumers who can afford to repay their debts from future income must do so. While similar legislation was passed overwhelmingly by the House last year, there is still controversy surrounding this bill. The Committee on the Judiciary held 5 days of hearings and markup on this bill and took 28 recorded votes on amendments. In addition, 37 amendments were filed with the Committee on Rules. Yet, this rule only makes in order 11 amendments, including a manager's amendment and an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). The Nadler substitute retains much of the work of the committee but differs significantly from H.R. 833 by granting local judicial discretion in the determination about whether a debtor appropriately belongs in Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The Nadler substitute eliminates the provisions in the committee bill which establish new grounds for making credit card debt non-dischargeable and offers significantly different child support and alimony payment provisions. Now, before my Republican colleagues jump in and say that this rule provide for 4 and \1/2\ hours of debate on amendments, including 1 hour on the Nadler substitute, as well as 1 hour of general debate in addition to this hour on the rule, let me note for the record two of the amendments which the Republican majority voted to exclude from consideration: first, an amendment offered by the subcommittee ranking member which would have significantly altered the bill's treatment of child support payments; and, second, an amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, relating to claims on credit card debt in those cases where the debtor had not been informed of the terms of the account agreement. These are not insignificant amendments, Madam Speaker, and I believe the House should have the opportunity to discuss these issues. As such, I would urge Members to vote no on the previous question so that these two amendments might be added to the list of amendments that the House will consider today. I cannot buy the argument that just because the House will have 6 hours and some odd minutes of debate on this bill, we do not have time to consider additional amendments. Madam Speaker, my colleague from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has noted that the bill does contain a provision which would allow States to opt out of the homestead exemption cap imposed by the bill. I realize this is a matter of some controversy; but, for the State of Texas, this is an issue of major and fundamental importance. This matter is far from resolved, but I am pleased that two amendments relating to the effective date of the cap, which were imposed by my colleague from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), were included in the manager's amendment. Madam Speaker, while it is important that the House proceed to the consideration of this important legislative proposal early in the session, it is still early enough for the House to have a complete debate on this matter. I am a strong supporter of this bill, as are many of my colleagues here in this body. Consideration of a few additional amendments would have only added time to this debate, time which would have given the House the opportunity to fully air the issues that affect consumers across the country. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen). (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I am supporting this rule, in spite of the fact that the rule is not open and it does limit amendments to those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. While I am perfectly aware that every amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules was made in order, the committee's ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) did point out at the Committee on Rules hearing last night that water resources bills are nearly always considered under open rules, or, in some cases, under suspension of the rules. The Democratic members of the Committee on Rules would not ordinarily support closing down a rule on legislation as important as this water resources development bill. In this case, however, we will not oppose the rule. This is because the majority and minority on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure have worked diligently to reach a number of compromises on controversial positions in the committee reported bill, and because every amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules has been made in order either in the manager's amendment or as a freestanding amendment. The major controversy in the committee reported bill has been resolved in an amendment which will be self-executed into the text of the bill by virtue of adoption of the rule. The rule self-executes an amendment which removes language that would have allowed one Member to further development in his district at the expense of his neighbors along the Sacramento and American Rivers. I would like to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher) for their willingness to work out an agreement on this thorny issue. In spite of this compromise, the bill does not satisfactorily resolve the issue of flood control for the city of Sacramento, California. Flood control has been and remains a serious and potentially deadly issue for Sacramento. Quite frankly, the flood protection provided in the bill is inadequate, but an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) seeks to improve those flood protection provisions and deserves the support of the House. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that there are many provisions in this legislation that are strongly supported by communities across the country. In particular, the committee has responded to the request of a community in my congressional district to alter the original flood control plans of the Corps of Engineers. The city of Arlington, Texas, had requested that the committee include a locally preferred plan for flood control for Johnson Creek, a tributary of the Trinity River which flows through the cities of Arlington and Grand Prairie, in lieu of the original Corps plan. This locally preferred plan, which will have a total cost of $20 million and a Federal share of $12 million, would allow the city of Arlington to include recreational facilities and environmental restoration along Johnson Creek, which will benefit the residents of that city on an ongoing basis, while assuring that adequate flood control will protect life and property in the surrounding area. I am particularly pleased that this amendment to the plan and the funding for it have been included in H.R. 1480. Madam Speaker, I know that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) are eager to move their legislation, especially now that the controversy on the Sacramento and American Rivers has been resolved. However, I must again point out that a bill like water resources really should be considered under an open rule. Madam Speaker, that being said, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Borski).

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this is a fatally flawed rule which should be defeated for a variety of reasons, and I want to touch on those as briefly as possible. First, it denies the opportunity for any Member of this House during the next 18 months to bring up anything else under the War Powers Act, no matter what happens. We tried to eliminate that in the Committee on Rules, but the majority insisted on that provision.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) said yesterday, giving the preferred position, the status of a privileged resolution to go to the floor, is everything, so you have denied everything by precluding this to come as privileged resolution for the next 18 months. Secondly, only 5 hours of debate time were permitted. When we did the Persian Gulf resolution, we debated that virtually all night, as you remember. Third, and most importantly, this rule puts in a preferred position the Goodling resolution, which is enormously and dangerously flawed. I want to read from the Goodling resolution: ``None of the funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the deployment of ground elements of the United States Armed Forces in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia unless such deployment is specifically authorized by law enacted after the enactment of this act.'' Then it talks about a limited exception to rescue our personnel. I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) in the committee a series of questions. I first asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), does this preclude the use of Apache helicopters to go in and destroy tanks, with the Apaches being operated by our Army? The gentleman first said yes, it precludes it, and then he changed his mind and said no, it does not preclude it. Then I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) another question. I said, for sake of argument, let us say we have Special Forces in Kosovo right now acting as forward observers to direct our bombing attacks and who are also working with the refugees trying to rescue refugees. Would this require the immediate removal of our Special Forces in Kosovo if they are there for those purposes? The gentleman's answer was yes. Then I asked the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), how could this be? How could we have these conflicting provisions? He then said in the Committee on Rules, well, he did not draft this. I said, this has your name on it. He said yes, but I did not draft it, and I cannot fully explain it. I find this to be a very unfortunate situation. We have a resolution that was drafted by some members of the other party, handed to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), which he cannot fully defend, which will create a situation where our commander on the ground, General Clark, will have to think, do I have to go to a Federal Court, do I have to seek a ruling from a Federal judge, before I make any decision in the next few days? This will hamstring our troops in the field and hamstring our President. This rule sets up in a preferred position a resolution that should not be passed by this House, and this rule should be rejected.

Mr. FROST. Since we are amending the rule on the floor, would the gentleman also consider amending the rule to extend general debate time?

Mr. FROST. If the gentleman will continue to yield just briefly, those of us on this side raised several concerns, not just about section 6 but also about the debate time. I think it is unfortunate that the gentleman would not agree to amend the rule to also extend the debate time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate one of Arlington, Texas's most civic-minded residents. Professor Allan Saxe was honored Saturday as Meals on Wheels of Tarrant County's Volunteer of the Year. Allan has been delivering meals to the elderly for 20 years, but that is just the beginning of his charitable activities. Over the years, Allan has selflessly given away hundreds of thousands of dollars to community causes throughout Arlington. Whether it's the Saxe Museum or one of the two baseball fields that bare his name, you can't go far in the Arlington area without coming upon something honoring Allan's good works. There are so many things named after Allan in Arlington that even her says he can't keep track of them all. Allan has taught political science at the University of Texas at Arlington for many years. He has a strong attachment to the city and adds great color to our community. He is a regular columnist for the Star Telegram, and his opinionated columns often invoke intense responses from readers. Allan is also widely known for giving away much of what he has to charity, including all of a very large inheritance. This latest honor confirms Allan's status North Texas benefactor, both in terms of his time and money. Allan is simply one of those people that every community wishes they had more of. I am pleased to call him a friend, and am pleased to have him in my Congressional District. Allan, congratulations on being named Meals on Wheels of Tarrant County's Volunteer of the Year. This is another great honor in a life full of them.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).