Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman that we do have some speakers and one is here currently.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the committee.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

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, Economics 101 tells us that if we spend more than we make, we quickly find ourselves in a hole. And as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) often says when asked about the Federal deficit, the first thing we have to do when we find ourselves in a hole is stop digging. Well, Mr. Speaker this country has been digging for 3 straight years, and the result is a very, very deep hole. Three years ago we projected a surplus of $432 billion for fiscal year 2005. But the Republican budgets of the past 3 years have changed a few things. We now face a deficit of $521 billion this year; a debt accumulation of $1.2 trillion over the last year, this year, and the next; and deficits will continue as far as our forecasts go. That is a dangerous trend, Mr. Speaker, and I will tell the Members why. Budget deficits and the ensuing debt are bad for the economy. That is a view that almost all economists share. The current chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, Harvard Professor Gregory Mankiw, even agrees. As a matter of fact, I have right here his well-known and respected 1998 economics textbook, ``Principles of Economics.'' In it, Professor Mankiw wrote about what he called `` . . . the most basic lesson about budget deficits,'' that when a government runs a budget deficit, investment falls and the economy's growth rate is reduced. This is a very important point to understand, Mr. Speaker, that the budget deficit can really harm the economy, especially since the jobs outlook for the 8.2 million unemployed is getting worse, not better. The latest Labor Department numbers show the average length of unemployment is now up to 20.3 weeks, the longest duration of unemployment in 20 years. Coupled with the administration's refusal to extend unemployment benefits, the situation for the jobless looks bleak and unlikely to improve. It did not have to be that way, Mr. Speaker. Our Nation's surpluses were meant to shore up Social Security for the retiring baby boom generation and pay down the national debt. This may sound familiar to anyone who may be listening to the debate today, and it should. Mr. Speaker, for the third year in a row, this House is considering a budget that makes deep funding cuts to our national priorities while at the same time it drives America deeper and deeper into debt. There is only one way to dig ourselves out of this hole now, Mr. Speaker: by working together, as a national family, to restore fiscal responsibility. That is how families across the country operate. They take an honest look at their expenses, their debts, and their income, and then they sit down at the kitchen table and work it out. That is what Democrats have tried to do repeatedly with the Federal budget. We have repeatedly urged Republicans to forget politics as usual and join us in a bipartisan budget plan that does not bankrupt our grandchildren. Last year, Democrats offered a budget that would have saved our Nation and our grandchildren almost $1 trillion in debt over 10 years. I need to repeat that, Mr. Speaker. The budget Democrats proposed last year cost almost $1 trillion less over 10 years than the Republican budget. That is a phenomenal number, but not one Republican Member of this House voted for that bill, not one. Mr. Speaker, despite their rhetoric, Republicans do not want to deal with the problem of the deficit. They would rather hide behind budget gimmicks and accounting tricks to hide the true cost of their agenda. The budget that is before us today does not reflect the fiscal reality of our Nation today, Mr. Speaker. That is because it omits a number of large expenditures that are sure to exist, including funding for the war in Iraq after fiscal year 2005 and the cost of making the President's tax cuts permanent, a goal that Republicans have repeatedly advocated, but which is conspicuously missing from their budget. Republicans also assume billions of dollars in unspecified cuts that will never be enacted. At best, the Republican budget will dig our Nation deeper into debt, leaving us with a $377 billion deficit in 2005, spending the entire $1 trillion Social Security surplus from 2005 to 2009, and leaving America with deeper deficits far into the future. It is an irresponsible proposal brought to us by the leadership of the Republican Party. Mr. Speaker, I am getting sick and tired of this. The American people deserve better, and they expect that Congress will act in their best interest, not spend the Social Security surplus and burden their grandchildren with debt. I believe that America deserves better than this partisan misleading and divisive resolution. That is why today, Mr. Speaker, I will vote in favor of the Democratic budget alternative. The Democratic budget resolution will provide real fiscal discipline, with a balanced budget over 10 years, by extending pay-as-you-go rules to both spending and tax cuts and by offsetting the cost of tax cuts through reform measures such as closing costly loopholes and eliminating abusive tax shelters. There are no tricks, no gimmicks, and no hidden costs. The Republican budgets of the past 3 years have clearly led America in the wrong direction. And what do we have to show for 3 years of fiscal mismanagement, 2.9 million fewer jobs, paltry funding for education, health care, and other national priorities, and a $1.2 trillion debt for our grandchildren to pay. The budget resolution before us today will only compound these problems. If Members of Congress are really serious about reducing the debt, they would vote today for the Democratic budget alternative. Democrats have put together an honest proposal to reduce the deficit, invest in our Nation, and restore fiscal responsibility in the budget process. It is the right and responsible vote to make for this country, its economy and its people. And that is why I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Democratic budget alternative. The American people deserve no less. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will allow the House to vote on the Thompson-Moore pay-as-you-go amendment. This amendment would require that any new mandatory spending or tax cuts must be paid for. Mr. Speaker, the amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night, but was defeated on a straight party-line vote. For some reason, the Republican leadership is afraid to allow Members the opportunity to vote on this responsible and reasonable proposal. Three years ago the budget deficit was shrinking and the economy was robust and growing; but, as Members have stated today, the leadership of the Republican Party has turned a balanced budget into record deficit spending. And here they go again, pushing a dangerous budget that will spiral the deficit out of control. Well, Mr. Speaker, I just do not see how we can continue this reckless, unchecked growth in our national debt. I believe deficit spending is a serious threat to our economy. The numbers are so high and out of control, they have almost lost their full impact. Republicans are throwing trillions of dollars around like it is pocket change. But it is not pocket change, Mr. Speaker; it is a staggering number, and it can crush any chance our Nation has of an economic recovery. We must put something in place to halt the out-of-control deficit, and I think the Thompson-Moore pay-as-you-go amendment is a step in the right direction. A ``no'' vote on the previous question will let the American people know once and for all which Members stand in favor of reduced deficits, responsible spending, and fiscal restraint. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials at this point in the Record, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the life of Cesar Chavez, who forged a legacy of service, conviction, and principled leadership that helped define a new decade of reform. Cesar began working early in life as a migrant farm worker during the Great Depression. He soon became involved with the Community Service Organization, a self-help group for Mexican-Americans, which sparked his desire to establish an organization solely dedicated to farm workers. His dream became a reality in 1962 when the National Farm Workers Association was established, and from that point on he dedicated the next 31 years of his life to pursuing social justice. He helped establish a 5-year strike by California grape pickers, as well as boycotts of grapes and lettuce that grew nationwide attention. Mr. Chavez will always be remembered and admired for achieving powerful change through this use of nonviolent activism. In honor of his many contributions to society he received the highest civilian awards from the United States and Mexico, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Aguila Azteca. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that Mr. Cesar Chavez will be honored and remembered for his lifelong contribution to not only the Hispanic community, but to all of humanity.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate Benito Juarez, an influential Mexican hero who made an amazing impact during his lifetime. The son of Native American parents and the first president of Native American descent, Don Juarez worked hard to educate himself in law and to later become one of Mexico's greatest leaders. He established a new democratic government after the fall of Mexican General Antonio de Santa Anna, and he later he helped to restore this government after the French military invasion led by Austria's Archduke Maximilian. As a national hero and President of Mexico, Benito Juarez left a legacy of liberal reforms that helped establish Mexico as a more democratic place to live. His democratic ideals were further embodied in the Constitution of 1857 which gave the Mexican people their basic rights of free speech and press. Due to significant contributions to Mexico through his service in state and national legislature and as a judge, a governor, and ultimately a president, Benito Juarez is regarded as one of the greatest heroes in Mexican history.

Mr. FROST

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 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 thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. I do so because it is time to send a strong message to broadcasters that indecent television and radio programs are not okay. For too long, the producers of indecent programming have regarded FCC fines as just a minor nuisance; as a cost of doing business. That attitude has to end. Congress needs to send a strong message to broadcasters that doing anything for profit, no matter how much it offends American viewers and harms the public interest, is definitely not okay. Mr. Speaker, the basic principle of broadcasting in our country is that the American people grant private businesses the ability to make money while using our public airwaves. In exchange for a license, we ask that broadcasters air programs that serve the public interest, and we ask them not to broadcast indecent material at times when children are likely to be watching or listening. In other words, we have a social contract with our media companies. They can use the airwaves, but they must run their businesses in a socially responsible way. They must remember they have a duty to serve not only their shareholders but also the American people. The reason we have special rules for radio and television programming is that the broadcast media is, in the words of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, ``a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans.'' When 100 million Americans, including myself, tuned into the Super Bowl, we allowed a broadcast company to enter the privacy of our homes. Just like any other guest, we welcomed them into our home. We expected the Super Bowl broadcast to be respectful of us and our families. We do not expect to agree with our house guests on everything, but we do expect them to show good judgment and to refrain from saying crude and offensive things, especially when children are in the room. What we all got on February 1 was anything but a good guest, Mr. Speaker. Besides the now infamous incident involving Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson, the half-time show was full of crude and sexually explicit performances. Throughout the game, we were subjected also to some offensive advertising. And all this was going on in our dens, our living rooms, and the other places we gather every year to watch the Super Bowl. It is estimated that one in five American children were watching this year's Super Bowl broadcast. I would like to note, Mr. Speaker, that the actual Super Bowl game was one of the most exciting, best-played games in the 38-year history of the sporting event. Decided by a field goal kicked with 4 seconds left, this year's game had plenty of action and drama to sell itself on its own merits, without adding the controversial material that has provoked so much outrage for the past month. To be fair, we should not be singling out the Super Bowl broadcast for our disapproval. When I drive around the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area, I enjoy going up and down the radio dial to listen to many different stations that offer information and entertainment to the people of North Texas. I hear a lot of good programming, but I am also astonished at the amount of gratuitous foul language some talk show hosts use on a daily basis. The hosts of my favorite sports talk shows in the Dallas market seem to be using more and more offensive language. I applaud the FCC commissioners for aggressively cracking down on this type of programming and hope that this legislation gives them a more effective enforcement tool. I would also like to note that this problem goes beyond just the programming we receive in our homes from the FCC broadcast licensees. Congress does not currently have the same power to regulate the indecent content of cable programming as we do over broadcast programming. But all of us who have cable television know that there are cable network shows aired during family hours that are equally offensive and indecent. Although they operate under a regulatory system that would not be covered by the bill we are considering today, I urge the cable networks to remember that they have a social responsibility to the American people too. Mr. Speaker, some people may be suggesting that with this bill and the speeches we are giving today, we are trying to censor speech or limit expression in our society. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a former broadcast journalist, and as the father of a broadcast journalist, I have a deep respect for the right of journalists, artists, political and religious leaders, and anyone else for that matter, to exercise their constitutional freedom of speech. Our communication laws on obscenity and indecency do not stop free speech or suppression. They simply say it is not always appropriate to broadcast crude and sexually explicit material into our homes and into our motor vehicles, especially when our children could be watching or listening. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and the FCC's new efforts to take back our air waives from the people who have cynically decided the best way to sell advertising is by shocking and offending us. I have more faith in Americans than that. Voting for this bill is not just a vote to protect our families from indecent programming, it is also a vote in support of the vast majority of broadcasters, producers, and performers today who are running profitable businesses while broadcasting in a way that serves the interests of our families and our society. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on ``UNE-P'' pricing of wholesale phone lines. Mr. Speaker, telecommunications companies are set to invest billions of dollars in network infrastructure--investment that will help the weak economy and create and preserve jobs--but the current regulatory environment restricts growth and investment in the telecom sector. With this decision, the FCC should play a major role, as envisioned by Congress in passing the 1996 Telecom Act, of stimulating technological innovation, preserving quality universal service, and creating new jobs in a vital, growing, competitive industry.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am here to recognize the 75th anniversary of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the oldest and largest Hispanic organization in the country. Since its inception on February 17, 1929, LULAC has championed the cause of Latinos in the United States and Puerto Rico. In 1930, the organization desegregated hundreds of public places, including barber shops, swimming pools, restaurants, hotels and others. The following year, LULAC helped organize and fund the case against the Del Rio, Texas, Independent School District, which was the first class- action lawsuit against a segregated Mexican school. Again in 1946 LULAC set its sights on ending segregation in schools through the Mendez v. Westminster lawsuit, which ended a century of segregation in California's public schools, and by 1948 it ended the segregation of Mexican children in the State of Texas. By 1940, LULAC had sought to change the workplace for Hispanics, helping to file discrimination cases for the Federal Employment Practices Commission. LULAC was also crucial in earning Hispanics the right to vote by taking the Hernandez v. the State of Texas case to the Supreme Court in 1954. Mr. Speaker, we all should recognize the valuable work of this organization.

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman if he has any other speakers.

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

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, my fellow Texas Democrats have joined me here today on an issue of fairness. Will this House be fair to those who stand to lose a Social Security pension that has been fairly paid into and is fairly deserved, or will they vote to drive valuable public servants out of a system that desperately needs them? Some Members believe that the Texas teachers and other public employees want some sort of special treatment. They do not. Their spouse correctly and completely paid into the Social Security system. And if they were just not teachers, policemen or firefighters, then they would receive their spousal benefit. Is this the message that we want to send, that the Social Security system will treat everyone honestly except those who are most valuable to our society? Every Member here today supports the underlying bill, the Social Security Protection Act. Its main provisions would deny Supplemental Security Income, SSI, to fugitive felons, make it easier for seniors to get a lawyer for the complicated disability process, and reform the representative payee program so that seniors are not defrauded. In fact, the House considered all of these reforms during the 107th Congress in a bill that passed the House unanimously. Unfortunately, that bill, H.R. 4070, was not conferenced before the end of the Congress, and it has returned in this much more controversial form. I support all the reforms in this bill, Mr. Speaker; and if the bill consisted of just these provisions, we would again pass this bill unanimously. But the same bill that helps protect our seniors from Social Security fraud hurts our teachers, firefighters, police officers and other public servants around the country, including in my home State of Texas. Specifically, section 418 of this bill would prevent those hard-working public servants from protecting their retirement benefits from the harsh impact of the Government Pension Offset. Mr. Speaker, this issue may appear complicated to some, but it is very clear to the thousands and thousands of dedicated teachers and other public servants who are affected by it. So clear, that both the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers are opposed to this bill. Many teachers in this country have pension plans that are not covered under Social Security, but they have spouses who are working in jobs that do pay into Social Security. Under normal circumstances, a surviving spouse, such as a teacher, would be eligible for spousal or survivor's benefits if their spouse, who paid into Social Security, dies. But under current law, the Government Pension Offset reduces or eliminates the spousal or survivor's benefits for teachers and others who pay into pension plans that are not covered by Social Security. Fortunately, there is a provision in the law right now that helps some people in this situation. It allows you to protect your retirement by switching jobs at the end of your career. This ``last day exemption,'' as it is called, has helped many teachers in Texas and other States protect the Social Security benefits they deserve and that they now need to retire. However, section 418 of the underlying bill would eliminate this exemption. Instead, it would force teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants to work 5 additional years before receiving full spousal benefits. Mr. Speaker, that is no way to treat hard-working people who have dedicated their entire lives to serving their communities and this Nation. It hurts real people, especially women and lower-income individuals. That is why I will ask Members to defeat the previous question on this bill today. If we do, then I will do something that 285 of our colleagues have asked this Congress to do, and that is to eliminate the Government Pension Offset. Our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), has a bill, H.R. 594, which 285 of us have cosponsored, which calls for the elimination of the GPO. If we defeat the previous question, then I will attach that bill to H.R. 743 without section 418 and then bring the measure before the House for its immediate passage so that teachers and other public servants can continue to protect their retirement benefits. Mr. Speaker, there should not be a Texas Member in this House who does not vote to defeat the previous question. I would hope others would join us. I urge my colleagues to support Social Security fairness for teachers, firefighters, and police officers by voting to defeat the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).