Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of this resolution condemning the brutal murder of Mr. James Byrd, Jr. I was outraged when I heard about the vicious and hateful crime that took place in Jasper, Texas over the weekend. It sickens me to know that in this day and age, what amounted to a lynching can still take place in America. There can be no question that this crime happened because of the hardened criminal nature of the attackers, who made vile references to the killing of both blacks and Jews during the attack. One of the men has already confessed to being part of this senseless act of violence. All three of them should be tried and quickly convicted for this heinous crime. My sympathies go out to the family of the victim, Mr. Byrd, and I hope that the penalties are swift and severe for his killers.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution, and to underscore that this act is condemned by people of all races in this country, black, white, and brown.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the time remaining on both sides, please.

Mr. FROST. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The rule we are considering today would permit a vote on an amendment to the United States Constitution dealing with the subject of school prayer. Let me begin this debate by reading these words: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. For 206 years these words in the Bill of Rights have protected religious freedom and religious liberty in our Nation. Now some in this body seek to amend the First Amendment to alter this basic and fundamental section of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, wisely crafted a very straightforward protection for religious liberty in our land. Why then do some wish to amend our Bill of Rights for the first time in our history? Thirty-six years ago, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Engel v. Vitale, interpreted the first amendment to bar a New York school board's requirement that students join in prayer composed by the State regents. A year later, in the case of Abington School District v. Schemp, the Supreme Court specifically disallowed State sponsorship of daily devotions which involved oral readings from the Bible and the unison recital of the Lord's Prayer. I attended public schools in Fort Worth, Texas, in the decade preceding the Engel and Abington decisions. While we did not have an official regents prayer in Fort Worth, we did have daily Bible readings over the public address system. Sometimes those Bible readings were from the Old Testament, and sometimes they were from the New Testament. It did not make any difference to the school that there were dozens of students there who did not follow the New Testament, or that there may have been some who adhered to the teachings of the Koran. The Bible readings blared out over the public address speaker system every single day. Mr. Speaker, we have traveled some distance since those days in the 1950s, and the most blatant religious practices are no longer followed in our schools. There is a fine line today between permitting students to observe their own faith and interfering with the observation of the faith of someone else. We should not cross that line by enacting the amendment presented to us today. The Clinton Administration has issued guidelines on religious practices in our schools that make abundantly clear where that line is. As these guidelines make clear, public school students are free to voluntarily pray privately and individually at school. Students have a right to say grace at lunchtime. They have the right to meet in religious groups on school grounds and use school facilities like any other school club. They have the right to read the Bible or any religious text during study hall or other free class time. Similarly, people who wish to engage in religious expression on public property have the same rights as people who wish to engage in comparable non- religious expression. Not only is a new constitutional amendment unnecessary, Mr. Speaker, H.J. Res. 78 would, in a variety of ways, undermine the religious freedom we now cherish. It would embroil State and local governments in years of divisive and costly debate and litigation over its meaning, and we should all be aware it could well require American taxpayers to provide financial support to churches, parochial schools and other religious institutions. For over 200 years, the first amendment has protected our right to be as religious as we choose. Congress should not tamper with this most precious liberty. The first amendment should not be rewritten. Mr. Speaker, some advocates of this constitutional amendment will argue that the amendment is the answer to dealing with our growing problem of school violence. I recently met with a group of public school teachers and administrators in my congressional district to discuss this very important problem. It was clear from that meeting that the real solutions to dealing with our problem of escalating school violence are smaller class sizes, repairing our deteriorating older schools, more counselors and the stationing of law enforcement officers on our middle school and high school campuses. This constitutional amendment will not solve the very serious problem of school violence. There are millions of people of faith in this Nation. Religion, however, is a uniquely private matter. We draw strength from our faith, but we should never attempt to impose our religious beliefs on any other person, no matter how well-meaning our actions may be. Ours is a great Nation, in no small way because of the truly magnificent language of our Bill of Rights which creates a separation between church and State. We should not alter that historic guarantee of religious liberty by passing the constitutional amendment presented to the House today.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the time remaining on each side?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My great grandfather came to this country fleeing religious persecution in the Old World. He was a peddler in East Texas. I would like to quote from the grandson of a peddler from Arizona that some Members on the other side will recognize, the late Senator Barry Goldwater. In 1994, when Senator Goldwater was asked about his views on a school prayer amendment, he replied, It is a waste of time. There is nothing in the law that says people can't have a moment of silence in schools to do what they want, pray or cuss someone out. Barry Goldwater was a very wise man. I did not agree with him on every issue. He spoke his mind and he spoke it very clearly on this fundamental issue of our Constitution and what should be done with our Constitution and what should not be done with our Constitution. We do not need to alter the Bill of Rights. It has stood for 206 years and served this country well. It would be a mistake for us to pass the Istook amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote no when this matter comes to the floor later today.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to the importance and the need for a fair and accurate census count in the year 2000. The Constitution commands that a census of the nation's population be taken every ten years. Through its failure in accuracy, the 1990 census provided us with many valuable lessons, although better designed and executed than any previous census. An accurate census is of the utmost importance, because the effects from inaccuracy can be detrimental to the population. As a result of inaccuracy, the 1990 Census caused many Americans to be denied an equal voice in their government. Federal spending employing population based formulas--for schools, crime prevention, health care, and transportation--were misdirected. The census provides the structure to base information and knowledge about the American population, and can only be done in an efficient, effective manner. The census provides information for virtually all demographic information used by educators, policy makers, journalists, and community leaders. Census data directly affects decisions made on all matters of national and local importance, including education, employment, veterans' services, public health care, rural development, the environment, transportation and housing. Federal, state and local governments use census information to guide the annual distribution of $180 billion in critical services. Congressional seats are reapportioned and legislative districts are drawn based on census data. The 1990 census was a difficult undertaking, and in spite of unprecedented efforts to count everyone, accuracy in the 1990 Census fell short of the accuracy achieved in the 1980 Census. According to the Census Bureau, the 1990 Census missed 8.4 million people and double-counted 4.4 million others. In Texas alone, the 1990 Census missed more than 482,700 people, with children representing nearly half of Texas' undercount. Like the national results, a disproportionate number of the undercounted Texans were minorities--4% of African Americans were missed; 2.6% of Asians were undercounted; 5.4% of Latinos and persons of Hispanic origin were missed; and 2.8% of Native Americans were undercounted in Texas. With all of the information we have gathered, regarding our past mistakes, it is of the greatest urgency that we utilize the most effective, efficient method for counting. Experts from the Census Bureau and three National Academy of Sciences panels concluded that lower accuracy and undercounts were caused through a number of societal trends. Congress has already addressed the issue of inaccuracy in the Census through the Decennial Census Improvement Act of 1991, signed by President Bush, requiring the National Academy of Science to study ``the means by which the Government could achieve the most accurate population count possible.'' Specifically considered was inter alia, ``the appropriateness of using sampling methods in combination with basic data-collection techniques or otherwise, in the acquisition or refinement of population data for different levels of geography. . . .'' The legislation passed in both the House and under suspension of the rules by unanimous consent in the Senate. An accurate count in the 200 Census is far too important for partisan, political disputes. We need to ensure that we utilize the most scientific methods available. It is what every American deserves.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, Title III of the Conference Report to accompany H.R. 2400 contains project authorizations in section (c)(1) making $3,000,000,000 available for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 for a variety of projects. Included in this section is authorization for the Dallas North Central Light Rail Transit Extension in the amount of $188 million. I am taking this opportunity to thank the conferees for making these funds available, but I would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate the position of the Dallas Area Rapid Transit regarding the full federal share of this project. DART originally requested $333 million as the federal share for fulfillment of the Full Funding Grant Agreement that has been under negotiation between DART and the Federal Transit Administration. During these negotiations, FTA indicated its commitment to proceed with the implementation of the project by the issuance of a Letter Of No Prejudice. It is important to note that it is DART's understanding that the $188 million authorized in the conference report to accompany H.R. 2400 is a floor and not a ceiling and that the full $333 million will be made available for the federal share to ensure the completion of this project which has been the subject of the negotiations between DART and FTA.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Warwick H. Jenkins of Waxahachie, Texas, in celebration of his 50th anniversary as a licensed and practicing attorney. Mr. Jenkins grew up in Waco, Texas, and attended college at Baylor University. When America entered World War II, he enlisted in the United States Army, left Baylor, and served his country in the European theater. Mr. Jenkins participated in the landing at Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, and the crossing of the Rhine. He returned to Baylor after the war, and attended law school there on the G.I. Bill. Mr. Jenkins graduate from law school in 1948, and moved 64 miles north of Waco to Waxahachie in order to begin his practice. Mr. Jenkins is the founder and president of Jenkins & Jenkins, P.C. Mr. Jenkins has also found time in his busy work schedule to become an active member of his community. He teaches Sunday school at the First Baptist Church, served as City Attorney for Waxahachie, and is a past president of the Chamber of Commerce and the Lions Club. He has also been active on all political levels, having served as Democratic County Chair and as a member of the State Democratic Executive Committee. Mr. Jenkins is the father of four children, Jim, John, Laura, and Clay, and eight grandchildren. My fellow colleagues, please join me and his family in recognizing Mr. Warwick H. Jenkins, an outstanding attorney and active member of his community.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize June 1, 1998, as Stand for Children Day. On this day, Americans of all backgrounds will come together in their communities to take a Stand for Children, and to renew their community's commitment to improving the quality of our children's lives. On Stand for Children Day, families, citizens, members of religious congregations, schools, community based organizations, businesses, and political and cultural groups will join together as a national community to recognize and address our children's unmet needs. Caring for our children must be our families', communities', and nation's first priority. This commitment must begin at the local level, and be carried to Washington by the Members of this body. My fellow colleagues, please join me in recognizing June 1, 1998, as Stand for Children Day.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it was with great regret that I learned of the death of my friend, Terry Sanford. During his illustrious career, Terry Sanford served as Governor of the State of North Carolina, a U.S. Senator, and President of Duke University. I was lucky to know Terry personally, and to be able to call him a friend. In 1989, Terry Sanford and I traveled together to Budapest as part of the Interparliamentary Union. There, we worked to bring the tools of democracy to the newly formed parliaments in Eastern Europe. When Terry Sanford became Governor in 1961, he faced a difficult time of racial unrest in this country. Governor Sanford proudly stood up to those who called for turning back the clock on race relations, and instead blazed a new trail for his state, and this country, in his commitment to equal rights for all. As Duke President, he created the University we know today as a world leader in medicine, the arts, political science and the humanities. During his 16 year tenure, he took what was once a small southern University, and transformed it into one of the Nation's top ten schools. And still, his public service wasn't done, because in 1986, he served with distinction as a U.S. Senator. His tenure as a Senator was a continuation of all that he had worked for during his entire career, fighting for public education and the improvement of his Nation. It was an honor and a privilege for me to know Terry Sanford. Clearly, Terry's hard work and dedication to public service have improved the lives of all Americans, and he will be sorely missed.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 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 myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule proves once and for all that the Republican majority has no real interest in actually pursuing real campaign finance reform. Under the guise of full and free debate, the Republican majority has brought to the House a process which could in all probability take up weeks of the time we have left in this session of Congress and in the end might produce nothing. Mr. Speaker, there are many points of view on this subject, but it does not serve the institution well, nor does it serve the American people well, to debate those views in a cynical process which is little more than a charade. The process the Republican majority has brought to the floor ensures that the House will not have the opportunity to have an up or down vote on either the bipartisan freshman proposal or the Shays-Meehan proposal. This rule makes in order 11 substitutes to the freshman reform proposal, as well as the consideration of any germane amendment to each and every one of those substitutes. In essence, as each substitute is considered, the rule will allow multiple amendments to that substitute. In addition, it is anticipated that the Committee on Rules will meet again after the Memorial Day recess to report another rule which will make in order a number of nongermane amendments to the substitutes. Included in those nongermane amendments are a number of proposals which many Members in this House consider to be poison pill amendments. After each substitute has been considered, whichever has received the most number of votes will be judged the winner. This may be an open process, Mr. Speaker, but I beg to differ with those who might characterize it as allowing the House to reach a decision when in fact it may be designed to do the very opposite. To further compound the complication, the rule allows the House to bring up a constitutional amendment introduced but not supported by the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). The majority whip has called this proposal a ``big brother'' remedy, yet he came to the Committee on Rules yesterday to ask that it be made in order. Consideration of this constitutional amendment is just more of the same attempt to divert the attention of the House and the American public from the real question: Do we want real campaign finance reform or do we not? The Shays-Meehan proposal is considered by many outside good government groups to be true campaign finance reform. The bill bans soft money at the Federal and State level if those funds are used to influence Federal elections. The bill redefines express advocacy to include radio and television communications that refer to a clearly defined Federal candidate within 60 days of an election or that include unambiguous support or opposition to a Federal candidate outside the 60-day period. All ads falling under this definition could only be run by using legal hard dollars. The bill clarifies the Pendleton Act restrictions on fund-raising on Federal property and bars political parties from making coordinated expenditures on behalf of candidates who do not limit spending their own money to $50,000. Finally, the Shays-Meehan proposal codifies the Beck decision that ensures that nonunion employees who pay union agency fees do not have to pay for union political activities. Unfortunately, this bill does not contain a nonseverability clause. Should the Supreme Court find any essential part of this proposal to be unconstitutional, the remainder, however unbalanced or unwise because of the loss of that element, would remain the law of the land. Losing an essential element of Shays-Meehan would lead us right back to the situation in which we now find ourselves. After the Supreme Court struck down one of the four essential pillars in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, what was left was an unbalanced and unstable hodgepodge that gave us the quagmire we are trying to work our way out of today. If we are to consider amendments to these proposals, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that prominent among them should be one which provides for nonseverability. The Shays-Meehan proposal represents a sea change in how Federal elections are conducted today, Mr. Speaker, and it deserves the opportunity to be fully and freely debated. Unfortunately, this rule does not provide that opportunity. The freshman bipartisan bill, sponsored by the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), is also a proposal which would make significant changes in the way Federal election campaigns are conducted. The freshman proposal also bans national parties from accepting or raising soft money on behalf of the national committee or on behalf of State political parties. However, the freshman proposal does permit State political parties to continue to raise and spend soft money and use those funds for activities intended to affect Federal elections. These are significant changes, Mr. Speaker, and deserve to be debated by this House. The freshman proposal indexes for inflation the allowable amount of PAC and individual contributions into $100 increments beginning in 1999 and increases the aggregate annual contribution limit from $25,000 to $50,000 each year, instead of election cycle, with a maximum of $25,000 in donations to candidates and PACs, and a maximum of $25,000 to political parties. This bill also raises PAC contributions to national parties from $15,000 each election cycle to $20,000 each calendar year and removes party candidate coordination limits. Finally, the bill requires third-party advocacy groups who run issue ads on either television or radio to report expenditures of more than $25,000 on a single candidate, or more than $100,000 on multiple candidates. Failure to comply with the requirements set out in the bill could result in fines up to $50,000. These changes, Mr. Speaker, are quite significant and do deserve to be fully and freely debated. So, Mr. Speaker, some Democratic Members, in an effort to provide for debate on campaign finance reform that is not designed to derail the process, will vote against the previous question. They hope to amend this rule to provide for the kind of process that was set out in the discharge petition that came so close to reaching the requisite 218 signatures. They hope to allow the House to consider each substitute, and when the House has agreed to the substitute it wishes to work from, then consider amendments to that proposal. The Democratic rule is a much more reasonable process and one which will allow the House to choose within a reasonable period of time whether it wishes to pursue campaign finance or not. Mr. Speaker, we just heard Mr. Linder expound about things that are currently in the press related to China rather than talking about campaign finance reform. It is obvious that the Republicans do not want to deal with campaign finance reform. All they want to deal with is things that are in newspapers and on TV, whether they are substantiated or not. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 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 yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).