Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have an inquiry of the other side. Is the other side going to just play rope-a-dope here and not have any speakers? I guess the answer to that is yes. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have only one concluding speaker, and I would ask if the other side intends to close. If they have any other speakers, do they intend to close after our concluding speech.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I would offer an amendment to the rule. This will give Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment by the ranking member, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), which is identical to the bipartisan amendment passed in the other body last night by a vote of 51 to 47. That amendment will require that a portion of the money for reconstruction efforts will be in the form of a loan. The amendment provides $5 billion as a grant to rebuild Iraqi security services, and it provides $5.2 billion as a grant for water, power and other critical infrastructure facilities. Congressional notification would be required for any projects in excess of $250 million; $10 million would be considered as a loan but would convert to a grant upon 90 percent forgiveness of prewar debt by other countries. I want to stress that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from voting on this supplemental. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the identical language that will be included in the Senate bill. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge a vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to vote on the Senate loan amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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 voted to authorize the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power, and I believe we must provide the resources to finally finish this war and to ensure Iraq transitions to a stable democratic nation. So I anticipate supporting this bill, despite the fact that it still asks for too much from U.S. taxpayers while also doing too little for U.S. troops. President Bush and his administration have created a very difficult situation for themselves, for Iraq, and for the United States. So while they will likely get the $87 billion they have requested, I personally doubt that they will get more for reconstruction in the future, even from this fiscally irresponsible Republican Congress, if they continue to force American taxpayers to shoulder this burden alone. I hope that the Bush administration is finally able to convince our allies to share this burden by providing significant financial and military help, like the first President Bush did in the first Gulf War, and I am frankly mystified that they have failed to get it done so far. There is no good reason to force Americans to pay for this reconstruction alone or to shift the burden to our children and grandchildren by adding its cost to our already monstrous national debt. Mr. Speaker, the American people are generous, but the United States has needs of its own. The Republican Congress refuses to fix our crumbling schools or help with sky-high prescription drug prices, and too many military families still live in sub-standard housing. If the Republicans who control this government can find money to take care of Iraq, why will they not take care of our needs here at home? Moreover, the Bush administration did not prepare the American people for the costly and deadly reconstruction efforts they are now witnessing. Many Democrats in Congress repeatedly urged the President to be completely forthright with the public and to share his post-war plan. Needless to say, the administration did no such thing. Instead, they told us not to worry about the post-war plan. And whenever people like General Shinseki and Larry Lindsey let slip the truth, that it would be very expensive and require lots of troops, they were publicly rebuked and then relieved of duty. Well, Mr. Speaker, ever since President Bush landed on an aircraft carrier and declared the war officially over, the American people have seen for themselves the post-war plan he told us not to worry about, and the public is worried because they have seen over 180 Americans killed in Iraq since President Bush declared victory. And they have seen reconstruction costs explode while certain big corporations are making massive profits at the expense of the public. Mr. Speaker, before the war, the American people were told Iraq was an oil-rich country that could fund its own reconstruction. So the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, will offer an amendment to turn this reconstruction gift into a loan so that Iraqis can use their future oil wealth to help Americans pay to rebuild the Iraq that Saddam Hussein destroyed. Now, for some reason, the Bush administration insists that American taxpayers should shoulder this burden alone, so they oppose the Lantos amendment. President Bush has even personally lobbied Republicans against such a measure. Like the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), I cannot imagine that Iraq's proven oil reserves have disappeared since the war began, and I do not understand the administration's opposition to protecting American taxpayers. Because the Bush administration is basically saying that Iraq oil revenue cannot be used to pay for rebuilding Iraq and instead must be used to repay the debts that Saddam Hussein ran up to rebuild his war machine. The administration is saying that paying off Iraq's debts to countries like France and Germany, which opposed our efforts against Saddam Hussein, is a better use of American taxpayers' money than paying off America's own national debt or investing in priorities like education, health care, and the economy. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is simply wrong. But if the Bush administration insists on forcing American taxpayers to foot the entire bill for rebuilding Iraq, they should at least pay the tab, instead of passing the buck on to our children and grandchildren by adding it to our massive national debt. Make no mistake, there is a simple way to pay for it. Since President Bush took office, he has given massive tax breaks to the very wealthiest in this country. If you simply ask those wealthiest few, individuals making over $350,000 a year, to take a smaller tax break, then you can pay for this entire bill and have some left over for the next bill for Iraq. That is why the substitute legislation, written by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, is so important. The Obey amendment provides more resources for U.S. troops, $4.6 billion more for priorities like 20,000 additional U.S. Army soldiers, better health care, and increased military family support services. The Obey amendment forces the administration to share the financial burdens for rebuilding Iraq by working through the World Bank. And instead of passing on the cost to our children, the Obey amendment pays for itself by asking the wealthiest few individuals, those making over $350,000 a year, to take a smaller tax break than the one Republicans have already given them. Mr. Speaker, for reasons I cannot explain, the Bush administration opposes this reasonable, fiscally-responsible, and pro-defense plan. They would force all Americans to sacrifice in the future because President Bush will not ask the wealthiest few to take a smaller tax break now. They would raise taxes on our children in future years because they refuse to ask people making over $350,000 to take a smaller tax break. Last night in the Committee on Rules, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans blocked the Obey amendment, preventing it from even being considered on the House floor. As a result, Members of this House have only one way to increase help to U.S. troops and relieve the burden on U.S. taxpayers, by voting ``no'' on the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Obey amendment. But if Members vote ``yes'' on the previous question, they will be voting to deny the House the opportunity to vote on the Obey amendment, and they will be preventing the House from helping the taxpayers and the troops today. That should not be a difficult decision, Mr. Speaker. So I hope my friends on the Republican side of the aisle will not allow blind party loyalty to keep them from doing what is right for the country and for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter). (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. I would like to make a clarification for the record. In the report to accompany this rule, I am recorded as having voted ``aye'' to report the resolution. However, the fact is that I was recorded as having voted ``no'' on the motion to report. The report submitted by the majority to the Government Printing Office makes clear that I did indeed vote ``no'' on that motion. But because GPO made an error and recorded me as an ``aye'' vote, the Committee on Rules majority has asked for a star print of the committee report which will correct the record. However, since this report is now available publicly, I wanted to state for the record that I voted ``no'' on the motion to report. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. The amendment will give Members an opportunity to vote on the Obey substitute which will help the troops, would require accountability, and will pay for that bill. Last night, the Republican leadership instructed Republicans on the Committee on Rules to vote against allowing the House to consider this substantive alternative to the committee bill. Voting for the previous question will deny the whole House the opportunity to debate important questions that the Republican leadership in the House do not want to air. Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment provides desperately needed funding for the many overlooked and severely underfunded areas that threaten our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amendment will reduce total reconstruction funds by $4.6 billion and use it instead to provide desperately needed protection for our soldiers in the field and to help ease the difficulties these brave men and women face every day. It will provide funds to repair and replace military equipment. It will allow the Army to increase the number of active duty troops to ease the burden on those currently deployed. It will provide funds for water purification, predeployment health and dental screening, and extension of Guard and Reserve health benefits. That is not all this amendment will do. It will also pay for this bill so our children will not be burdened with its staggering costs for years to come. We can pay off this enormous IOU simply by eliminating the Bush tax break for the wealthy 1 percent of Americans with annual incomes in excess of $350,000. Our troops make huge sacrifices every day; I think the wealthy can do their part too. It is very disturbing that the Republican leadership of the House would deny Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to improve the conditions faced daily by our troops. Mr. Speaker, I want to make something very clear. A ``no'' vote will not, I repeat will not, prevent us from voting on this supplemental. But a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote to better protect our troops who are risking their lives every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. A ``no'' vote on the previous question is a vote for our troops, and I urge each and every Member of this body to stand up and do the right thing by these men and women who are on the front lines. At this point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment immediately prior to the vote. Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can have an opportunity to vote on the Obey substitute.

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, while H.R. 1829 has been placed on the Union Calendar and I can no longer remove my name as a cosponsor of the legislation, I would like to indicate that I am no longer supportive of the bill. While I do support providing small businesses greater access to government contracts, removing the Federal Prison Industries (FPI) mandatory source preference would result in countless inmate jobs being lost. Idle prisoners increase the likelihood of prison unrest and eliminating the program would remove the opportunity for inmates to learn vital job skills. These jobs teach the prisoners a trade that they can use after they reenter the workforce. The program is so popular that there currently are not enough jobs to fill all the requests for prison employment. Money earned by the prisoners is often used to make child support payments and pay restitution. Mr. Speaker, under current law, federal agencies can purchase products from the private sector if their prices are lower than FPI. Doing away with FPI will cost local prison jobs and only present the possibility of creating additional domestic manufacturing jobs elsewhere.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to join my colleagues in asking the House conferees of the Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1588) to accept the Citizenship for America's troop's provision that Senator Kennedy included in the Senate's bill. Ever since the war against Saddam Hussein began, politicians and commentators have noted that many brave soldiers were risking their lives for America despite the fact that they are not citizens. As many have pointed out, some of these non-citizen soldiers were among the first brave men and women to fall. Some were born in Mexico before joining the U.S. military--like Pfc. Francisco Martinez Flores, Cpl. Jose Angel Garibay and Lance Cpl. Jesus Suarez del Solar. Others were born in Guatemala--like Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez. But all died fighting for a country where they couldn't even cast a vote. Of course, this is not a new problem. In the last Congress--in May of 2002, to be precise--I first introduced legislation to help remove the obstacles these brave soldiers face on their path to citizenship. And I re-introduced my bill in this Congress one week before our country went to war in Iraq. But months and months have passed, and still this Congress has not acted. So while the citizenship provision in the Senate bill is not identical to my original legislation, I fully support it. It is the quickest way to honor the brave soldiers who have shown the willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for the country they dearly wish to be citizens of. Members of the military who risk their lives to defend this Nation deserve better than the bureaucratic and financial burdens that now stand between them and citizenship. And they deserve better than the waiting game they've had to endure since I first proposed legislation like this more than a year ago. So, Mr. Speaker, I again urge the House managers to not play politics with this issue. Accept the Kennedy language and do the right thing for our troops. It is the only way to get this done in a timely fashion. Our legal permanent resident troops have already waited for far too long.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rafael Palmeiro of the Texas Rangers for hitting 500 home runs and to thank him for his outstanding contributions to the local community. Known both for his powerful swing and golden glove at first base, Raffy, as he is known to many fans, joined an elite club on May 11 when he became only the 19th player in baseball history to hit 500 major league home runs. Mr. Speaker, Rafael Palmeiro has been a constant example of hard work and quiet dedication to his sport. He is a four-time All-Star and was awarded three consecutive Gold Glove awards from 1997 to 1999. Known for his rock solid dependability, he has never spent a day on the disability list and has missed astoundingly few games each season. With the exception of the strike-shortened 1994 season, he has played an average of 157 games in each 162-game season of his career. He is currently three home runs short of tying Jimmie Foxx's record of 9 straight years with 35 or more home runs. Since 1993, only Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa have hit more home runs. Mr. Speaker, Rafael Palmeiro has become a role model for people of all ages. Having fled Cuba with his family in 1991, he remains a hero within the Cuban-American community. Additionally, his dedication to the local community, as we have already heard, for his work with foster children and families in Ft. Worth has made him a leader both on and off the field. My wife, Kathy, and I just recently attended a reception at the ball park sponsored by Raffy on his Shoes for Orphans program, a program that he has spent a great deal of his time on recent years. Mr. Speaker, I have had the honor of watching Rafael Palmeiro play at the ball park in Arlington in my congressional district. He deserves special recognition for his tremendous achievement and I look forward to the day when he will join the likes of Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Roberto Clemente in Cooperstown at the baseball Hall of Fame. I know my colleagues will join me today in congratulating him and in wishing him continued success in all of his future endeavors. I would like to add and note to the management of the Texas Rangers ball club. I hope that the management of our great club will find a way to extend Raffy's contract when it runs out at the end of this year so that he may finish his career as a Texas Ranger.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta for her many years of dedication to the world's poorest citizens. Ordained as a sister in 1928, Mother Teresa originally served as a teacher at St. Mary's High School in Calcutta from 1929 to 1948. In 1948, the poverty outside her convent inspired her to leave her school and begin working to help the country's most vulnerable citizens. In 1950, she founded the Sisters of Charity with a mission to serve the poor, the suffering, and the dying in whatever place they called home. Today Mother Teresa's order has over 5,000 sisters and brothers and over 50 different relief efforts to help the ``poorest of the poor'' in India. In her later years, she worked to establish hospice programs for AIDS patients. Mother Teresa has been recognized worldwide for her devotion to the poor. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Foundation for Hospice and Homecare in 1985. Mr. Speaker, few people have served humanity with more compassion and love than Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa was a perfect example of love and compassion to people of all nations and all religious backgrounds. Once quoted as saying, ``Let no one come to you without leaving better and happier,'' Mother Teresa lived her faith. While her work lives on today in the work of her order, she deserves special recognition for her tremendous achievement. I know that my colleagues will join me today in honoring Mother Teresa's life and wishing her religious order the greatest success in their future endeavors.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Dallas Southwest Osteopathic Physicians Inc., as it celebrates its 20th anniversary. In 1983, a group of doctors at Stevens Park Osteopathic Hospital decided to form a social welfare organization with the noble intention of investing in charitable causes in the Dallas community. With $7 million in hand, the doctors invested their money, the returns on which led to large contributions to medicine, education, and community development initiatives. Over 20 years, the organization doubled its assets and has since contributed more than $12 million in grants, scholarships, and financial assistance, to numerous community projects. The Dallas Southwest Osteopathic Physicians have granted gifts to organizations and individuals in nearly every facet of life. Among their many gifts to the community, the Physicians have granted gifts to build a community center at the Oak Cliff YMCA; construct a playground for the handicapped; establish a Fire Safety House for the Dallas Fire Department; start a Bookmobile for the Dallas Public Library; and establish the Endowed Chair in Clinical Geriatrics at UNT Health Science Center at Fort Worth. By benefiting the truly needy and encouraging philanthropy in Dallas, the physicians have made a significant and indelible imprint on Southwest Dallas. Mr. Speaker, Dallas Southwest Osteopathic Physicians Inc. has helped over 150 beneficiaries over 20 years. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring them today, and wishing them the very best in their continuing efforts.

Mr. FROST

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 believe that the Committee on Appropriations has done the best it could with this spending bill, but the actions of the Republican leadership have created major holes, failures that will leave Americans vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home and to political abuses here in Washington. First of all, this bill is yet another example of how Republicans are mortgaging America's security in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest few. Simply put, Republicans have spent trillions of dollars on tax breaks, and now they do not have enough money for law enforcement. They gave expensive tax breaks to the small, elite group of Bush Pioneers and Rangers who fund Republican campaigns, and now this bill shortchanges local law enforcement and the successful COPS Program. Mr. Speaker, local police officers are on the front lines of homeland defense, so the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has an amendment to give police the support they need. To pay for it, all you have to do is ask millionaires to take slightly smaller tax breaks than they are already getting next year. It is a reasonable trade; about 200,000 millionaires would give up just $5,000 of the over $88,000 in tax breaks they are getting next year, and all Americans would benefit from critical law enforcement investments. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the bill leaves America's preeminent law enforcement agencies subject to partisan political abuse. Fortunately, Republicans will not have to ask millionaires to forgo further tax breaks in order to solve this problem, but they will have to stand up to the growing threat America faces from misuse of power by this one- party government. Last Friday, a Republican Member of this House used his power as a committee chairman to send the police after Democrats, Members of Congress who had done nothing more than ask for more time to read a brand-new piece of legislation. For many of us, that recalled an incident just 2 months ago. Then, Texas Republicans in Austin and in Washington tried to use Federal security officials as their own personal political police force. The Homeland Security agency, charged with tracking down terrorists, was enlisted to help Texas Republicans trying to track down Democratic lawmakers who had done nothing more than employ a parliamentary tactic in a legislative dispute, a tactic used by Republicans in the U.S. Senate, as well as Abraham Lincoln, in order to defend their constituents against an outrageous political power grab. The FAA, whose core mission is to keep airplanes and their passengers safe in the air, was misused to track down a Democratic legislator's private airplane. And once Republicans found the Democratic legislators, they urged the FBI and the U.S. Marshals to arrest them despite the clear fact that they had violated neither State nor Federal law. Justice Department officials say they did nothing wrong, but newspapers reported that an FBI agent in Corpus Christi, Texas, tried to find the Democratic legislators and spoke of ``ongoing surveillance.'' Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this was not the first evidence of Republican misuse of the Justice Department. In May, a distinguished member of the Texas House of Representatives, Representative Richard Raymond of Laredo, withdrew his voting rights complaint from the Justice Department after receiving reliable information that a powerful Republican in Washington had interfered with it. Instead, Representative Raymond had to go to a Federal Court to defend the voting rights of his Hispanic constituents. Mr. Speaker, we face a serious problem when the Department of Justice has been so politically abused that Americans no longer trust its ability to defend their voting rights; and there is only one way to restore the integrity of the Justice Department, through a comprehensive investigation that lays out all the facts before the American people and then acts to ensure the Department can never be abused again. That is what the Department of Transportation did this month. They quickly conducted a thorough investigation and released to the Congress their full 800-page report. And, just as importantly, they strengthened their rules, instituting a new regulation, that at least one newspaper has named after one of the Texas Republicans, to ensure that politicians could never again misuse America's air safety resources. In contrast, the Homeland Security officials released only a partial, heavily edited report, less than 100 pages in length, and they are still stonewalling with the help of Republicans on the Select Committee on Homeland Security. Unfortunately, the Justice Department and some House Republicans have followed that sorry example. It has been 10 weeks since Texas Republicans tried to misuse the FBI, the U.S. Marshals and the Department of Homeland Security for partisan purposes. For several weeks, Justice Department officials tried to keep secret their internal investigation, and they still have not released any information to Congress. Meanwhile, the Republicans on the Committee on the Judiciary, many of whom often led the charge to investigate a Democratic administration, have turned a blind eye to the Justice Department's stonewalling. Mr. Speaker, this entire episode has brought discredit to the House of Representatives and to many of America's premier Federal security agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, the FBI and the entire Department of Justice. In Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch has written of an ``egregious'' misuse of Federal resources. The San Antonio Express-News has called it ``offensive for a Member of Congress to manipulate a Federal agency to track down political foes in a strictly political situation.'' And as the Houston Chronicle wrote today of Chairman Thomas' attempt to use the police against Democratic Members last week, ``The latest incident again betrays a particularly disturbing tendency of the party in power, the Republicans, to regard police agencies as enforcers, not only of the law, but of the majority's political will.'' That is why I have offered an amendment to this bill that would institute a new rule at the Department of Justice to protect it against political abuse. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Committee on Rules blocked it last night. So, once again, the Republican Members of this House face an important substantive choice on the critical parliamentary vote known as ``the previous question.'' They can stand with their leadership and vote ``yes'' and protect Texas Republicans who misused Federal law enforcement earlier this year. That is basically what happened last Friday, when Republicans refused to vote for a resolution, saying it was wrong to call the police against your political opponents. But I am hoping that today Republican Members will follow a different role model and begin to restore some integrity to the House of Representatives. More than 30 years ago, a Republican, Senator Barry Goldwater, went to Richard Nixon and told him the hard truth, that he had abused his power in the Washington scandal and that it was time for him to resign the Presidency. Today, on the previous question vote, Republican Members can follow that courageous example. They can stand up against abuse of power and they can say that the Justice Department belongs to the people of America, not to any political party. All it takes is a ``no'' vote on the previous question. I urge my Republican friends to do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore