Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would be happy to respond to the gentleman. Clearly that is the case. They are just not getting anything out of this, unless they happen to be wealthy. This does not help lower income and middle-class families. The gentleman is correct, it is after-tax dollars. It just does not happen to help most of the families in the country.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I ask the time remaining on each side so that we know where we are.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Stark], a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1534, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 1997. This important legislation seeks to provide a clear end to the process of resolving land use disputes which, under the current administrative and judicial system, can drag on for years. While this legislation seeks to give property owners their day in court, it does not change the statutory underpinnings that define takings, it does not change environmental laws, and it does not mandate compensation. What it does do, Mr. Speaker, is to provide a much more expeditious remedy to land use and property rights disputes arising from Federal statutes and constitutional law. In spite of my support for the legislation, Mr. Speaker, I must oppose this rule which provides for its consideration. The Committee on Rules majority has recommended a rule which denies the House the opportunity to fully debate the matter. This rule, in effect, forces Democratic Members to barter among themselves for which amendment to the bill might be included as a part of a Democratic substitute. In addition, an amendment relating to homeowners and their property rights, which was brought to the committee by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento] was rejected by the committee Republicans. The excuse offered by the Republican majority was that there was not sufficient time to consider amendments before the House completes is business for the year. This is a very poor excuse, Mr. Speaker, for denying Members the opportunity to fully debate a matter of such importance. I support this legislation and I will urge all Members to vote for its passage, but I am of the opinion that the consideration of one or two additional amendments would not have tied up the House and delayed our departure. Perhaps it would have been wise for the Republican leadership to have scheduled more legislative days this month and fewer district work period days. We have important business to attend to in Washington, and H.R. 1534 is just one of those important matters that should be heard and should be passed. I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, about the outcome of the vote on this rule, but I would like to remind my Republican colleagues once more of their pledge to open the process in this House. This legislation is seeking to clear away hurdles encountered by property owners who seek to assert their rights in court. Why then cannot the Republican majority do the same for Members of this House, and clear away the hurdles that they have erected which prevent Members from expressing their points of view? Mr. Speaker, again, I support H.R. 1534. It is a bill which enjoys bipartisan support, and is a far cry from the takings legislation passed by this House 2 years ago. This legislation is a procedural bill which clarifies how the Federal courts should address Federal property rights claims. It seeks to bring relief to property owners, who now can spend an average of 10 years jumping through the administrative and judicial hurdles that currently exist in order to be allowed to use their property. It is relief that is long overdue, and which can be remedied through passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in recognition of the month of October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. This year alone, 180,000 women in this country will be diagnosed with breast cancer. Although there is no cure, the best way known to prevent breast cancer is through early diagnosis and treatment. Two bills have been introduced to combat breast cancer. House Resolution 135, the Breast Cancer Patient Protection Act, guarantees that women who must undergo surgery for the treatment of breast cancer get the hospital stay they need and deserve. This legislation requires a woman to receive a minimum hospital stay of 48 hours for a mastectomy, and 24 hours for a lymph node removal. This will enable women and doctors to determine how long they need to stay in the hospital and not the insurance companies. The other bill is House Resolution 164, the Breast Surgery Benefits Act, which targets insurance coverage for breast reconstruction. It requires group and individual health insurance plans to provide coverage for reconstructive breast surgery if they provide coverage for mastectomies. This bill will protect many of the mastectomy patients that are denied coverage for breast reconstruction each year. Breast cancer is a serious problem facing every woman in the United States today. I believe that breast cancer deserves more attention and that is why I am a cosponsor of both of these bills. Breast cancer is not going to go away and we must, in any way that we can, protect our women from the dangers of it.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman on the other side seems to be a little confused, and I can understand that because it is difficult to follow all these things, but I am not affiliated with the DNC. I am chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Also, I would point out to my friend on the other side that there has been one conviction of a sitting Member of Congress during this session for campaign violations. It was a Republican Member, who pleaded guilty to accepting over $200,000 in illegal corporate contributions. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Pallone].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule gives the Members of this House an opportunity to do the right thing for the residents of the District of Columbia. The rule provides Members the opportunity to vote for a fair deal for the District and its citizens and to reject the unfair bill reported from the committee. The Moran substitute deserves the support of the House, and because the majority has made this substitute in order, I will support the rule. But Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the bill unless it is amended by the Moran substitute. Because of the deplorable financial condition this city was in 2 years ago, the Congress and the President have sought through tough measures to bring about drastic change. But in doing so, I fear that the residents of the District of Columbia have been denied democratic representation. The Mayor, the council, and the school board have been effectively removed as voices in or for the city. I am not a defender of the old order, but at the same time I cannot support what the Republican majority has proposed as a remedy. Mr. Speaker, if the Republican majority wants to revoke home rule for the District, then the Republican majority ought to deal straight with the residents of this city instead of micromanaging every aspect of the city's government. Using the city as a Petri dish for experimentation in Republican social engineering is unacceptable. I urge every Member to reject the committee bill and support the Moran substitute. There are many reasons why Members should oppose the committee bill, not the least of which is inclusion of $7 million for a school voucher program. The state of affairs in the schools of this city is sorry. We have all read the papers and know what is going on. But, Mr. Speaker, taking $7 million away from the public schools to provide scholarships for poor students to attend parochial and private schools will not repair the roofs and buy the books for the hundreds of students who will be left in the classrooms of the public schools. Mr. Speaker, if the Republican majority is determined to implement school vouchers as an educational alternative to public schools in this country, I call upon them and the supporters of vouchers to bring out a bill and let us debate it fair and square. Do not use the kids in the District to further their social agenda and provide them with photo ops. This bill seeks to completely revamp the medical malpractice system in the District of Columbia and to cap damages for injury at $250,000. Mr. Speaker, the medical malpractice system in the District is not in any way related to providing the funding for the operations of the government and services of this city in fiscal year 1998. How the Republican majority thinks the inclusion of this 16-page title will make this government work more effectively for the benefit of the citizens of this city is beyond my understanding. This provision is clearly irrelevant to the appropriations process and deserves to be stricken from the bill. However, I should point out to my colleagues that the only opportunity Members will have to strike this provision is by voting for the Moran substitute. Mr. Speaker, this rule also makes in order an important amendment which will be offered by the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo]. The Republican majority has included in the bill a provision which waives the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage standards for school construction projects. The Sabo amendment seeks to strike that provision and deserves the support of the House. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill which, if the House supports the Moran substitute and the Sabo amendment, can be made acceptable. The people of the District do not deserve the bill reported by the Committee on Appropriations. They want their city to work for the benefit of its residents and the many millions of visitors it receives each year. I think the Congress should help the city recover, not use it to further the Republican social agenda. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in opposition to this conference report. Mr. Speaker, yesterday when the Committee on Rules met to consider this rule, I offered an amendment to the rule which would have, in essence, stricken section 337 from the conference report. I offered this amendment to the rule since this section of the conference report has an immediate and negative impact on my congressional district, as well as the entire Dallas area. Section 337 alters a longstanding agreement between the Federal Government and the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas relating to air service out of Dallas Love Field. However, the committee majority did not see fit to agree to my amendment, and for that reason I will oppose this rule. Mr. Speaker, I do support the content of the conference report, except for this provision in section 337, and I would like to take a few minutes to explain the importance of this matter to the Dallas area and as has previously been indicated by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Granger], who spoke just a moment ago. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1960's, the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth each wanted to have their own airport and the competition between the cities resulted in intense disagreements and fragmented air service. The old Civil Aeronautics Board, frustrated with this rivalry, forced the cities to coordinate their efforts and resources. This coordination resulted in the construction of a regional airport now known as Dallas/ Fort Worth International Airport, the second busiest airport in the United States. Before construction began, however, Dallas and Fort Worth executed concurrent bond ordinances to finance the airport and agreed under contract to phase out commercial traffic from each city's local airport in order to protect both cities' substantial investment in the new airport. To further facilitate this agreement, in 1979 Congress enacted the Love Field amendment, popularly known as the Wright amendment. The Wright amendment expanded allowable service from Love Field by permitting flights to Texas and its four contiguous States, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, and New Mexico. Exempted altogether from the provisions of the Wright amendment were commuter airlines operating aircraft with passenger capacity of 56 passengers or less. The Wright amendment has served the communities of Dallas and Fort Worth well in the 18 years it has been in place. It protected neighborhoods surrounding Love Field, which is, after all, right in the middle of the city, from the noise and other hazards of a full-fledged commercial airport. And it has preserved relations between the two cities on an issue which many consider to be the most important to the economic development of the entire north Texas region. This conference report does grave injustice to my district as well as to the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth. The Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation has seen fit to insert language in the Senate-passed bill and this conference report, which expands the area of service as well as the type of service allowed from Dallas Love Field. He has done this in spite of the fact that the city councils of the affected cities, the mayors of the two cities, as well as myself, the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Granger, the former mayor of Fort Worth, and the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson, in whose district Love Field lies, as well as the two Senators from Texas, are opposed to this change in the Wright amendment. Mr. Speaker, this is a local matter, and it is one that should be settled locally, not by an appropriations conference report, and this body should not allow itself to be bullied by one U.S. Senator who does not represent the area affected. Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of this rule and the rejection of this conference report.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, as the only Jewish Member of the leadership of either party in this House, I feel obligated to make some observations at this point and to make a suggestion to my distinguished colleague from Texas, the majority leader. I believe that the parliamentary situation that we have found ourselves in for the last several hours does not bring credit to either party in this House, and I would suggest to the majority leader that there is a solution to this problem. I know the majority leader is reluctant to accept this solution. I would urge him to do so. The solution is to roll these votes until next Monday. The alternative of having votes tomorrow places the Jewish Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats, in an intolerable situation. The Jewish Members cannot be present tomorrow. The Republican Jewish Members cannot be present, the Democratic Jewish Members cannot be present tomorrow, and the majority leader understands that. If I may continue, I think what we have done in the last several hours does not bring credit to this House and it does not bring credit to either party in this House. I would urge the majority leader to amend his unanimous request and do the correct thing, even though I know he is reluctant to do that. But I would urge him, in a sense of comity, in a sense of what is good for this institution, to continue those votes to a time when Members can be present and vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, if I could engage the majority leader in a colloquy.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Dekerrian Ware, the 1997-98 national poster child for sickle cell disease and a student in my congressional district. Dekerrian is 8 years old, and is a third grade honor student at David K. Sellars Elementary School in Fort Worth, TX. Dekerrian is as active as most boys are his age by playing football, basketball, riding his bicycle, and keeping busy with his church activities. But because of sickle cell disease, there are times when he is too sick to do the things you and I take for granted. Dekerrian, however, is a young man filled with strength and determination, and I believe that he will be able to achieve anything he sets out to do. Dekerrian is a true champion in life and in school as he copes with this genetic blood disease which has no cure. Mr. Speaker, September is National Sickle Cell Disease Awareness Month and there is still much to do in combating this disease. Sickle cell anemia, the most common form of the disease, affects 1 in 500 African-Americans, or about 72,000 Americans. All newborn babies should be tested for sickle cell, because all forms of sickle cell disease are inherited. Children inherit genes for the disease from their parents, and we need to encourage everyone to learn more about sickle cell disease. Dekerrian is a true hero to all of us who are fighting sickle cell, and an inspiration to those who confront this illness.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the conference report. The conference report provides the funds for our national security, the funds to defend our borders and our way of life, and the funds to ensure that the United States remains the world's leader in military might. This conference report lives up to the commitment that this Congress made when we passed the balanced budget this summer, but it also realistically faces and addresses the needs of each of the branches of our armed services. This conference report does not provide for every need, but it certainly addresses priorities and accordingly deserves the support of every Member of this body. Madam Speaker, this conference agreement continues the Congress' commitment to ensuring that our fighting forces are equipped with the best. This commitment assures, as best we can, that should our Nation become embroiled in a military engagement, our Armed Forces can fight and win with the least number of American casualties as is possible. But more important, Madam Speaker, our Armed Forces represent the best trained and best equipped military in the world, which will make our enemies think twice before provoking a confrontation. As General Shalikashvili said yesterday in his speech to the National Press Club, ``An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.'' This bill provides our military with far more than an ounce of prevention, and hopefully we will not have to test the cure. This bill ensures that our fighting forces now and in the future will be equipped to fight and win. The conference agreement provides for $2 billion to continue the development of the F-22 fighter, the next generation fighter aircraft for the Air Force. The B-2 bomber funding level has been cut by $176 million from the House-passed amount, but the $331 million in the conference agreement still includes funds which may be used for the procurement of long-lead-term components to restart the B-2 production line. In addition, Madam Speaker, the conference agreement includes $627 million for the procurement in fiscal year 1998 of seven new B-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft for the Marine Corps, and an additional $62.1 million for advanced procurement of seven more aircraft in fiscal year 1999. Madam Speaker, this conference agreement totals $247.7 billion in budget authority and is consistent with the overall fiscal year 1998 defense spending totals agreed to by the President and the Congress in the 1997 budget agreement. I commend the conferees for bringing a good product back to the House and urge passage of this important appropriations bill. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the conference report and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall] on the Committee on Rules for yielding me the time. Since the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. McInnis] on the other side of the aisle mentioned my name, I did want to take this opportunity to make it very clear that I support the efforts to pass campaign finance reform this year. There is a difference of opinion as to what the content of that legislation should be. There are legitimate, honest differences of opinion on what should be in the bill. But I fully support the efforts of the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] and others to force a vote on this legislation this year. There should be no misunderstanding about that. To the extent that the other side does not want this vote, does not want to have a vote on this issue this year, they are not serving the interest of the American public. There are legitimate differences of opinion about how we should reform the process. There is no difference of opinion about the fact that we should reform the process.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].