Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely gratified that we are here today to begin the debate on reform of the gift rules. I rise, however, in reluctant support for the rule which has been reported by the Republican majority of the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, for 11 months my Democratic colleagues and I have attempted to bring this issue before the House. Now, when at last the Republican leadership has scheduled this reform for the consideration of the full House, they have stacked the deck. [[Page H 13066]] Mr. Speaker, instead of providing the House with an opportunity to take a clean vote on the Senate-passed gift reform proposal, this rule compels the House to vote down two gift reform amendments before the House ever gets to House Resolution 250, which contains virtually the same language as the Senate measure passed last July. The resolution is sponsored by the gentlelady from Utah [Mrs. Waldholtz], as well as a number of Democrats and Republicans. House Resolution 250, closely resembles the proposal of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], which Democrats have tried to bring to the House on six separate occasions this year. The resolution was reported by the Rules Committee with only minor modifications. While most observers recognize that the Rules Committee proposition is not perfect, it is clearly far superior to the substitute proposed by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], but also provides far more flexibility for Members than the proposal which may be offered by the Speaker. This rule stacks the deck in such a way that the House will be forced to choose between more of the same--which is the Burton substitute--or a modified zero gift rule--which is what the Speaker's amendment offers. If either one of those propositions prevail, then the Waldholtz bipartisan proposal will never even come to a vote. Never mind the fact that the Rules Committee held one briefing, two hearings, and one markup on the Waldholtz proposal. Never mind that the Rules Committee proposal was carefully examined by the Standards Committee and contains amendments that were recommended on a bipartisan basis by the Chair and ranking member of that committee. Never mind, Mr. Speaker, that the bipartisan group of Members supporting gift reform asked that House Resolution 250 be quickly sent to the floor and considered without amendment. So what has the Rules Committee done, Mr. Speaker? In effect, the committee has ignored the product of its own labors and has given us a rule which may very well assure that the Waldholtz proposal may never be voted on directly. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic Members of the Rules Committee support reform, but we question how we can move toward reform when this rule which puts golf outings ahead of real reform. We will support this rule, but it is a shame that the House is being placed in this position. Yesterday an amendment was offered to this rule which would have allowed for a direct vote on the Waldholtz proposal and every member of the majority--that's right, every Republican Member including Mrs. Waldholtz, the sponsor of the proposal--voted no. I have to ask, What's the problem, Mr. Speaker? Why can't we just take a vote on a proposal which enjoys such wide bipartisan support? Mr. Speaker, this issue, and the closely linked issue of lobby reform, have enjoyed support from Members both Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, senior and junior. Congressional reform is not a partisan issue--it is an issue that matters to all Americans who cherish this House as the House of the people. We cannot let the appearance of impropriety continue to add fuel to the fire of public animosity toward the Congress. If we do not pass the Senate- passed version of gift reform, I fear we will, to a man and a woman, be held in scorn and ridicule. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues--those of us who are truly committed to restoring the public's confidence in this institution--to vote support this rule, but in doing so, I must urge a ``no'' vote on the Boston proposition. Mr. Speaker, this institution is not held in particularly high regard by the American people, especially at this moment when we are grappling with this budget impasse. I fear that in spite of our good intentions, and those intentions are bipartisan--this rule will force us into a box and our resulting actions will be seen as just more serious business as usual here in Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests during this portion of the debate, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. As every Member is fully aware, this is the second conference agreement on the Department of Defense appropriation. And, while not every Member will agree with every provision in this conference report, the conferees have attempted to address at least one of the major objections to the original report, that being the question of abortion. Mr. Speaker, we are all well aware that the original conference report was defeated because of opposition from those Members who felt funding levels were too high, as well as those Members who opposed the provisions relating to the abortion. The conferees have [[Page H 13044]] modified the abortion language to only allow the procedure to be performed in military hospitals in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. This action has thus removed an objection voiced by at least some of the opponents of the original conference report. While I would have preferred that the conference report maintain its original language on this matter, I do support the conference report and I would urge all Members to do likewise. The provisions of this report track closely those originally passed by the House and deserve our support. I do not have to tell any Member how important it is to pass this appropriations bill. And, I need not remind Members of our responsibility to act on each and every one of the remaining appropriations bills in order that the Federal Government might be funded for the fiscal year. In spite of the passage of a short-term continuing resolution by the House last night, which may very well be vetoed, we must continue to press forward to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities. Mr. Speaker, Democrats want to solve this impasse. And I cannot deny that my Republican colleagues share that goal. We--Democrats and Republicans--can go a long way toward resolving this situation by passing this conference report this morning. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, there are differences of opinion on this side of the aisle. Some of our Members are for this conference report, others are not. I urge a yes vote on the rule, and I personally urge a yes vote on the conference report, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery].

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I will manage the time, as I know of no Member who intends to rise in opposition to this amendment on our side.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. parliamentary inquiries

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. (Mr. BRYANT of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, very recently, I believe it was last week, an objection was made to the use of charts during the abortion debate, and ultimately those charts were permitted to be used on the floor as an issue of free speech. Is this the same issue?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of free speech?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I recall seeing on videotape this exact quote from the Senate majority leader, speaking on Medicare to the American Conservative Union: I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare, 1 out of 12, because we knew it would not work in 1965. That is an exact quote from the Senate majority leader, Mr. Dole.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I would ask the gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], who is managing the rule on our side. Is it not true that the Republicans in the Senate and the House have stubbornly refused to drop the increase in the part B premium on Medicare, so that that will be established at 31 percent rather than being permitted to drop to 25 percent as in current law?

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman if what this means, of course, is that senior citizens, instead of next year paying $42 a month for their part B, will pay $53 a month for their part B, an increase of $11 per month, and this is on a glidepath that the Republicans are following that will take part B, premiums to $87 a month by the year 2002, instead of $60 a month as in current law, which means that senior citizens will be paying $27 more per month if we follow this strategy to its conclusion?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, these increases in Medicare part B are totally unnecessary. The increases are being used to go to the general fund, not to provide for the solvency of Medicare, and are being used to fund the tax cut being proposed by the other side.