Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, every single rule the House has adopted this session has been a restrictive rule; you heard that correctly, the Republican House has so far adopted 100 percent restrictive rules in this session. And if it is adopted, the rule before us will leave that 100 percent purely restrictive rules record intact. This is the 63d restrictive rule reported out of the Rules Committee this Congress. In addition, 75 percent of the legislation considered this session has not been reported from committee--9 out of 12 measures brought up this session have been unreported. I include the following material for the Record:

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 and include extraneous material.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Eshoo].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Lofgren].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cardin].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Velazquez]. (Ms. VELAZQUEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] who wanted to correct the Record on one point.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers] the ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers.]

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my opening remarks, I am yielding to Democrats on both sides of the issue. There are some Democrats who agree with this legislation and some who oppose it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Barrett]. (Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] only 15 percent of the rules in the last Congress involved bills that were taken away from committees, whereas we are talking about 75 percent in this session. Second, when the assault weapons ban was brought to the floor last Congress, it was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. It went through the committee process. This repeal has not gone through the committee process. That was the point I was making. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT 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. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules met yesterday afternoon to consider this rule, I made two points I feel are worth repeating here for the benefit of all Members of the House. The first point relates directly to the consideration of the ban on assault weapons. In the 103d Congress, I believe a serious error was made when the House was not given the opportunity to take a final up or down vote on this issue. Given the controversy surrounding issues relating to gun ownership, these issues should be addressed directly, not buried in other legislative proposals, as was the assault weapon ban in 1994. Consequently, the desire of a great many Members to have a direct vote on this issue is understandable. However, it is how we are getting to this direct vote that I find peculiar and out of the ordinary. I noted yesterday afternoon that it is unusual, though not unheard of, for the Committee on Rules to take legislation away from a committee with jurisdiction and report it directly to the floor. Section 34.1 of chapter 17 of Deschler's specifically grants the Committee on Rules that authority and this procedure was indeed used when Democrats were in the majority. In fact, our tally shows that 15 percent of the rules reported during the 103d Congress governed the debate on bills which had not been reported from their committee of jurisdiction. But, I am concerned that the Republican majority has adopted this practice for the consideration of nearly every legislative proposal that is brought to the full House. In this session, 75 percent of the bills we have voted on have not been reported from committee of jurisdiction. In other words, no votes have been taken in the committee or committees of jurisdiction on three-quarters of the bills considered by the House this session. The Republican leadership would do well to read this small pamphlet entitled ``How Our Laws Are Made.'' Every office has copies. They are used to send as educational materials for schools and citizens who are interested in the legislative process. The language is not hard to understand. Please let me read a pertinent passage: Perhaps the most important phase of the congressional process is the action by committees. That is where the most intensive consideration is given to the proposed measures . . . This short book goes on to describe committee deliberation, committee voting, the preparation of committee reports, and how that committee action and those reports are used as part of the legislative history of bills which later become laws. This book neatly sums up the accountability directly attributable to the committee process. But, Mr. Speaker, in the direction we are heading, it seems that the Rules Committee will be the only committee in the remainder of the 104th Congress. All other committees will be irrelevant. Mr. Speaker, if that is the intention of the Republican majority, it might be necessary for the House to reprint this small pamphlet to reflect the new Republican realities. In closing, let me say that because there is no committee report to reflect the debate in the committee of jurisdiction, I believe it is vitally important that all sides of this issue be allowed an opportunity to speak. Consequently, it is my intention to yield time to Democrats who both support and oppose this rule and who both support and oppose this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer]. (Mr. SCHUMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon [Ms. Furse].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule is proof positive that the Republican majority cannot finish the job they were sent to Washington to do. It seems to me that in addition to bringing about the revolution they have spoken of so often in the past 15 months, their responsibility, as the majority party, is to make sure that the trains run on time. Well, Mr. Speaker, not only have the trains not run on time in this Republican Congress, we have had to live through two major train wrecks, and now, nearly 7 months into fiscal year, most of the train is still off the tracks. But, Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues have added insult to injury by asking this House to once again impose martial law. And what does martial law do, Mr. Speaker? Quite simply, martial law allows a majority to disregard the rules that they once so vigorously defended when they were in the minority. For 4 continuous months the House has operated under procedures that, had they been imposed by the Democrats, my Republican friends would have screamed bloody murder. Today the Republican leadership plans to bring up the sixth martial law resolution of the 104th Congress. The resolution allows the Speaker to bypass the regular committee process and bring legislation immediately to the House floor without the normal 1-day layoff period required by the rules of the House. Usually this extraordinary authority is granted only in the final days of a session as adjournment approaches. But under, Republican control, the House has operated under martial law continuously for 4 months, from November 15 through March 15. Today they plan to extend that authority again until April 1. In the Democratic 103d Congress the House operated under martial law for a total of 5 days with no martial law resolution lasting more than 1 day. In this Republican Congress a single martial law resolution, House Resolution 330, lasted 50 days. In the Democratic 103d Congress each martial law resolution applied to only one bill. Under the Republican control all martial law resolutions have applied to entire classes of bills encompassing everything from spending bills to Bosnia. So, Mr. Speaker, I am going to make an offer my Republican colleagues should not be able to refuse. Let us go back to regular order and use the rules which have in previous Congresses served both the majority and the minority. Let us not circumvent the rules and undercut the democratic process in an effort to cover up the fact that the Republican majority cannot do its job. I intend to oppose ordering the previous question in order to be able to offer an alternative rule which strikes the martial law provisions recommended by the Committee on Rules Republicans. I think that after 7 months of delay, if the Republican majority is serious about finally funding the Federal Government, the very least the Republican majority can do is offer the Members of the House the opportunity to take the time to read the bill. Martial law does not give anyone, Republican or Democrats, such an opportunity. So I would encourage those Members across the aisle who are serious about maintaining democratic, with a small ``d,'' principles to vote again the previous question and to support my alternative to the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. If I understand the previous speaker, he is generally making two points. One is that the ends justify the means; and, two, that democracy is a very dangerous thing. What law we are asking for is that this House follow the rules of this House that have been followed for years and years when Democrats were in the majority. The question is are we going to suspend the rules of the House and not require a 1-day layover, a simple 24-hour layover for the House to have a chance to read bills before bringing up a rule on the floor of the House. We very rarely did that when we were in the majority, and only at the end of a session, and only for 1 day at a time. The new majority wants to suspend the rules of the House for 4 months. I guess they consider democracy very dangerous. The ends perhaps do justify the means in their view, not in mine. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the Democratic whip.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Wise].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, my colleague on the other side of the aisle is a little confused. I have listened to him and listened to him and tried to understand what he is saying. He obviously is confused. Let me see if I can set it straight. We are not suggesting that the CR should not be brought up. The CR will be brought up today, should be brought up today, even under what we are suggesting. The only thing that we are asking is that the martial law provision of this rule be stripped out. Strip that out, you still bring the CR up today, because the CR is laid over 24 hours. That is all we are asking. The gentleman seems to be very, very confused. He seems to think that if we won the previous question and we were able to strip out the martial law provision, that the CR could not come up. That is not the case at all. The CR would come up. It would be the next order of business. I guess perhaps the staff on the other side may explain that to the gentleman, that even if we win, that the CR will be voted on today. I know it is a little hard to follow, what goes on around this place sometimes, but we are not suggesting the CR should not be brought up. We are suggesting it should be brought up, voted on today, so the Government can stay open. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as I stated earlier, I am asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. This matter, we fully explored this matter today. I would only point out to the gentleman on the other side the concept of martial law really was a concept that was talked about by a Member on his side of the aisle during preceding Congresses, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Walker, who is still with us, and he may want to discuss that with Mr. Walker some time. But it is Mr. Walker, who when we were in the majority, stood up at that microphone when they were in the minority and railed against this procedure time and time again. I have not seen Mr. Walker on the floor today. Mr. Speaker, I would be interested to share his observations at this point because he was the leading proponent on your side of the aisle for not suspending the rules, for not doing what you are doing today and have done for 4 months now. I urge my colleagues to vote down the previous question and to proceed with the consideration of this measure in an orderly manner. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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