Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and this conference report providing appropriations for military construction in fiscal year 1998. This conference report rightfully retains the emphasis the House-passed bill placed on quality-of-life issues for the men and women of our Armed Forces and their families, and deserves the support of all of the Members of this body. Forty-two percent of the funds in this conference agreement are dedicated to family housing, including $900 million for new family housing units and for improvements to existing units and $3 billion for the operation and maintenance of existing units. Decent housing for our troops and their families should be one of the highest priorities, and this bill makes a significant continued commitment toward improving the housing available on our military installations around the world. But improvements are not just for family housing, Mr. Speaker. This conference agreement also provides $724 million for barracks for single and unaccompanied military personnel. This conference report also includes $32 million for child development centers and $160 million for hospital and medical facilities on military installations. In combination, these items total more than half of the $9.2 billion recommended in this conference report, amply demonstrating the commitment of this conference on a bipartisan basis to improving the standard of living of the men and women we depend upon to protect and defend our Nation. It is the very least we can do, and I commend this conference report to my colleagues.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the last speaker has made a bunch of interesting comments. I would point out to him that the only Member of the House of Representatives who has pled guilty to campaign violations during this session of Congress was a Member on the other side of the aisle, a Republican Member from the State of California. If he wants to make these kinds of allegations, he had best be careful when he is talking about Members of the House of Representatives.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, let me say that I support the rule. This is a reasonable rule, as I stated earlier in my remarks. As the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] has indicated, it is his intention to oppose the previous question in order to make an amendment which would require the House to consider campaign finance legislation before we adjourn sine die for the first session of this Congress. The request being made by the gentleman from California that we consider campaign legislation sometime between now and the end of October is a reasonable request. There are a number of proposals pending which would do a variety of things, and I do not agree with all of the things that are under consideration, and I would like to take a moment to discuss some aspects of that. That does not mean that we should not consider campaign finance reform, but it does mean that there are some aspects of campaign finance reform that require careful consideration. One is the effort to totally ban donations of non-Federal money, commonly called soft money, to political parties. Such a ban would have the ultimate effect of destroying the political party system in this country. Mr. Speaker, the destruction of organized political parties does not serve the ends of democracy, and will certainly never ensure the free and open political discourse so many people seek. Let me be specific. Under this proposal to totally ban soft money, all elections in even numbered years anywhere in this country would essentially be federalized; that is, all activities conducted by State and local political parties would have to be paid for entirely out of federally qualified funds, since the names of Federal candidates appear on the ballot in those years. State and local political parties would be precluded from using funds that are otherwise legal under State law during election years when Federal election contests take place. Let me take this one step further. If the total ban on soft money were to become law, State and local political parties could not use any locally used funds for such activities as voter registration, slate cards that contain the names of Federal candidates, get-out-the-vote phone banks designed to identify and turn out voters for an entire party ticket, or even programs designed to assist seniors in voting absentee by mail. These activities are of course conducted by State and local parties, which depend upon a combination of non-Federal donations and hard dollars for the funds necessary to carry them out. Mr. Speaker, since federally qualifying dollars are tightly limited and controlled, and go primarily to candidates for the purchase of television and other advertising, State and local parties and the State and local candidates they support would have great difficulty operating under such a proposal. There is no question that there have been abuses in the way soft money has been raised and the way soft money has been spent, and I agree, Mr. Speaker, that those abuses should be addressed by the Congress and should be addressed this year. The appropriate way to address these abuses is not to ban soft money, but rather to place reasonable caps on how much any individual or other entity, such as a corporation or union, can contribute to a party committee while allowing political parties to continue to pay for basic turnout activities with a combination of hard and soft dollars. Mr. Speaker, I for one believe that vibrant, healthy political parties are crucial for the effective functioning of democracy. I feel that the proposal supported by some to totally ban soft money would destroy the institutions that are basic to and necessary for the continuation of a representative democratic government in this Nation. Political parties ensure democratic representation in all levels of government in our society, and without them I fear that ultimately only those individuals who have great personal wealth will have the means to run for political office. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], who has been very active in this area of campaign finance reform on a comprehensive basis for a sustained period of time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, when this tax package is taken apart, it will be apparent that House Democrats, who have throughout this debate insisted on fairness, have been successful. What started out as a bill cutting taxes solely for the benefit of the wealthiest among us, while denying any sort of tax relief to those who really need it the most, has been modified to meet the fairness test. My Republican colleagues have for months insisted that working families who make less than $30,000 a year do not pay taxes and should not get a tax break. But House Democrats have stood fast and insisted that young families with children, those families just starting out in life who are trying to make ends meet, perhaps pay a mortgage, take the kids to McDonald's and maybe see a movie every once in a while need a tax break also. Why, we wondered, should a family making $29,000 a year be denied tax credits? Who says they do not pay taxes? Not the Democratic Members of the House, that is for certain. We know that everyone that works pays taxes. We all pay income tax, but we also pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, State income taxes, and unemployment taxes. Those taxes count every bit as much for the family making $29,000 a year as they do for a family making twice or three times as much. Maybe they count even more. And so, in the end, Mr. Speaker, Democrats have prevailed in our position. This bill will provide the tax credit for every family with children under the age of 17 who make $18,000 or more a year. That is what Democrats stood for, and that is what Democrats achieved. Democrats have stood firm in our insistence that education be a top priority in this bill and we joined with the President in insisting that the HOPE scholarship program be instituted to make the first 2 years of college as universally available as a high school diploma is today. We need more opportunities for our young people to advance their education, and Democrats insisted that this package provide a way for everyone to continue education. And this package does that. We have components of this package which will go a long way toward ensuring that our work force in the 21st century is productive and globally competitive. Democrats stand for things like penalty-free IRA withdrawals for undergraduate, post-secondary vocational, and graduate education expenses. Democrats stand for tuition tax credits for juniors, seniors, undergraduate students, and for working Americans who are seeking to enhance or upgrade their skills. Democrats stand for things like education savings accounts and for extending the exclusion of employer- provided undergraduate educational benefits. Mr. Speaker, since those things are in this tax bill, Democrats achieved what they stand for. Mr. Speaker, the fact that this tax bill provides for families and for those Americans who want to pursue an education make this bill much more palatable to Democrats. But I should point out that in spite of the infusion of fairness in this package, our Republican colleagues have managed to ensure that the upper end of the income scale has been taken care of. I wonder how many of us really understand that the child tax credit is available in some form for couples with adjusted gross incomes up to $150,000 a year. Democrats are, of course, in the minority in the House and we cannot win on every point, but I do find it interesting that a party that was so willing to deny this tax credit to families making less than $30,000 a year is now so willing to extend it to families making five times that much. However, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a position to be able to discuss a balanced budget and tax cuts simultaneously is because 4 years ago, this House, or should I say the Democrats in this House, passed a deficit reduction package that has now produced an economy that is so healthy and so productive that our deficit has fallen by 75 percent since 1993. When the House passed that package, Mr. Speaker, it was done without a single Republican vote. It was done, Mr. Speaker, while the current Republican leaders lamented loudly that it would send the economy straight down the tubes. Yes, as my Republican colleagues are so fond of pointing out, that deficit reduction package did contain some tax increases, but I would like to remind my colleagues that those increases were aimed primarily at the upper end of the economic scale, at those people who are doing so well today that the stock market has soared in value, so much so that it has increased in value by 50 percent in the past 2 years. That deficit reduction package which the Republicans opposed unanimously set the stage for the action of the Congress this week. That package created an economy which this year has the lowest unemployment rate in 24 years and has created 12.5 million new jobs. I voted for that package in 1993, just as I voted for the spending cuts on Wednesday. I voted to bring Federal spending under control and to balance the Federal budget for future generations. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues now crow and claim credit for balancing the budget, but more importantly, Democrats can claim credit for ensuring that the proposals of the Republican majority are tempered and made much more fair for working men and women, their children, our seniors and for our vulnerable groups in society. Democrats stand for fairness and equity as do the American people. I think we won on these basic points in this debate. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson Lee].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, there are strong feelings on this particular piece of legislation. There are a number of Democrats who will support it. There are some Democrats who will oppose it. Each group has its own valid reasons which will be developed during the general debate. I would only point out to the gentleman from California, and I intend to support this legislation, but I would only point out to the gentleman from California that his side chooses selectively to ignore the fact that the largest deficits in this country were run up under Republican Presidents during the 1980's and the early 1990's. It was the decisive action, decisive action of the Democrats in this Congress in 1993 by passing a deficit reduction package that brought us to the point today where we can entertain a tax cut and we can make a fair tax cut for the American public. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Sanders].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When the vote occurs later in the day, Mr. Speaker, on this conference report, a significant number of Democrats will vote in favor of it. I would point out to those watching this proceeding on television that no Democrats who are going to vote in favor of it have asked for time during this debate. The only Members who have asked for time are the ones who are opposed. The Committee on Rules grants the time to the Members who come to the Chamber and ask for time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. (Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of this open rule on H.R. 2266, the Department of Defense appropriation for fiscal year 1998. The appropriations in H.R. 2266 provide for our Nation's security and for our defense. Thus, they are critical to ensuring that the United States remains the world's leader. The funds recommended in this bill closely track the authorization levels passed by the House and reflect the major policy decisions which were decided in that legislation. While the funding levels in this bill do fail to keep pace with inflation, they reflect the reality of budgetary restraints and, consequently, the dollar figures in this bill are those that reflect the overall spending levels agreed upon by both the President and the Congress. Mr. Speaker, the cold war may be over, but we do not enjoy a peacetime that allows our military forces to stand down. Instead, they are being called upon to perform both military and peacekeeping roles all around the world. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who serve our country are being stretched to the limit, but they are up to the task and their performance under these trying circumstances should make us all very proud. Mr. Speaker, longer rotations and longer family separations and more work with fewer people is taking a toll on our men and women in uniform and their families. I commend the committee for putting our troops first by providing for the pay raise recommended by the President, improved housing and for quality of life initiatives. The Congress has an obligation to these men and women who serve us, and I hope the continuing commitment to those improvements will be a top priority for both the authorizing committee and the appropriating committee. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for waivers of points of orders against the consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI. This waiver is necessary, of course, because the authorization bill has not yet been signed into law. But as every Member knows, the House has done its work and has passed the authorization, and the provisions of this appropriation closely track that bill. This is especially true with reference to the major policy decisions and acquisitions in the authorization. I am pleased that the committee has provided funding for the B-2 stealth bomber at the level agreed to by the House in the authorization bill, at a level which will allow those parts of the production line, which had been shut down, to start. The B-2 will continue to serve the Air Force well into the next century and, by providing adequate funding for advance procurement, the Congress will ensure that production of this effective weapons system continues in future years. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides $81 million for advanced procurement of the F-22, the fighter of the 21st century, as well as funding for acquisition of seven V-22 tiltrotor aircraft. Important components in the ability of the particular marines and special forces to deliver combat troops safely and effectively. The bill rightfully concentrates on important operations and maintenance accounts, but also looks toward the future by funding important research and development programs. A combination of quality of life initiatives, procurement, operations and maintenance, along with research into the future of our military needs, makes this an excellent bill in light of the cutbacks required by our need to balance the Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule. It allows any Member to contest the spending levels recommended in the bill, but it does not permit the consideration of legislative issues which have already been decided by the House in the authorization bill. I commend this rule and the bill to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, today Fort Worth, TX, says goodbye to one of its own, golf legend Ben Hogan. As a youngster growing up in Forth Worth in the 1950's, I realized Ben Hogan was something special. He was spoken about with reverence in our city. Only later, when I tried with little success to play golf, did I realize how very special he was. One of the greatest golfers to ever play the game, Ben Hogan began his career as a caddie at the Glen Garden Country Club in Forth Worth when he was 11 years old. When he was 16, his mother urged him to do something more productive with his life. Ben, displaying the determination that would characterize his play later, responded by saying, Mama, some day I am going to be the greatest golfer in the world. Ben Hogan won nine major tournaments and in 1953 won the U.S. Open, the Masters, and the British Open in the same year, something no other golfer has ever done. All told, he won 63 tournaments and displayed a quiet dedication and grace that were the envy of everyone who ever played the game. Now the starter at the Celestial Golf Club has called Ben Hogan to the first tee for his next round. I expect that Ben will master that course as well.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the assurance of the gentleman. It is also my understanding that the manager of the opposition to the bill will be the gentleman from Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget [Mr. Kasich], who will yield half of his allotted time to the ranking minority member, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt]. I think such a division of time is equitable to all sides and I would ask my colleague, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], if that division of the debate time regarding the time in opposition is indeed what will happen once we get to general debate?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, once again reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for that assurance and for his clarification. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Kind].

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Evans].