Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes). (Mr. REYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I explained at the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, today Republican Members have the opportunity to begin to restore some integrity to the House of Representatives. All they have to do is vote no on the important parliamentary procedure known as the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to vote on my amendment to ensure that the Justice Department can never again be abused for partisan political purposes. I wish this were not necessary, Mr. Speaker. But earlier this year Texas Republicans tried to treat the Justice Department as the enforcement arm of the Republican Party. And so it is vital to the integrity of the Justice Department that we force it to do what the Transportation Department has already done, institute what at least one newspaper has called the ``DeLay Rule'' to protect it from future political misuse. To be clear, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not block the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. It will only allow the House to ensure Americans that Federal law enforcement belongs to the people and not to a political party. But a ``yes'' vote will stop my amendment and it will send the signal that this Republican House refuses to protect the Department of Justice against partisan misuse. So I urge my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in opposing the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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 yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. FROST. 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 Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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 yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Brent Berryman for his many years of dedicated service to Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas, Texas, and to congratulate him on his retirement from the company. During his tenure with Lockheed Martin, Brent has managed the company's employee and company contribution programs, coordinated employee volunteer efforts, and served as the company's lobbyist for state and local issues. He served as Lockheed Martin's Constituent Relations Manager for local relations with federal officials in the Dallas area and has served as executive director of the LTV Foundation and manager of the company's political action committee. As a devoted employee and civil servant, Brent Berryman complemented his many business activities at Lockheed Martin with service to the Dallas Assembly, the Dallas Urban League's Board of Directors, the March of Dimes, and the President's Task Force of the State Fair of Texas, among others. In addition, Brent volunteers as a Mentor and Tutor in three different elementary school programs and serves as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Amelia Earhart Learning Center. In 2002, Brent received the Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control Excellence Award for his consistent success in community outreach. He has also received awards from the Women's Center of Dallas and the Dallas Urban League for his outstanding community service and support. Mr. Speaker, I have had the good fortune to work with Brent on many issues important to the defense of our nation and the economic well- being of North Texas. He deserves special recognition for his tremendous achievement and dedication to his company and its mission. I look forward to continue working with Brent, post-retirement, and I know my colleagues will join me today in wishing him success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Alfonzo Torres Martinez for his many years of dedicated service to Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas, Texas, and also to congratulate him for completing over fifty years of service with the company and its predecessors. Following two and a half years in the Army, including a year in the Philippines, Al Martinez began his career at then-Chance Vought Aircraft as a Wiring Serviceman Helper at a starting wage of $1.34 an hour. Through the years, Al has left his mark on numerous missile programs and continues to lend his resilience and determination to MFC programs at the age of 82. Mr. Speaker, the celebration of fifty plus years of service is a remarkable feat, and I know that the other members of this body will join me in extending our warmest congratulations to Al Martinez on his incredible accomplishment.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to discuss what happened in the House Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary on a straight party-line vote rejected the resolution of inquiry presented by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) asking that the Congress investigate the Department of Justice activities in Texas regarding the Texas legislators who broke a quorum several months ago. Why is this so important? Because to restore the integrity of the Justice Department, Congress must investigate the Department's involvement in helping Texas Republicans in a strictly partisan political matter. Congress must unveil the facts and clear the air quickly because if the redistricting scheme of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) somehow succeeds, these same Texas Republicans will be asking the same Justice Department to certify that its new plan does not disenfranchise African Americans and Hispanics in my State of Texas. Earlier this year, as I mentioned, Texas Republican leaders abused Federal law enforcement for political purposes in a manner Americans had not seen since Richard Nixon and Watergate 30 years ago. In May when Texas State legislators blocked the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. DeLay) unprecedented redistricting scheme with a legal parliamentary maneuver, breaking a quorum which Republicans have done in the U.S. Senate and which Abe Lincoln did in the Illinois legislature in the last century, they violated no State or Federal laws. In their response, Texas Republican leaders treated Federal law enforcement as their own personal political police force. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) acted as if the Department of Justice was an arm of the Republican Party. The majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, which is charged with overseeing the Justice Department, publicly urged the FBI and the U.S. marshals to arrest these legislators in Oklahoma and drag them back to Texas. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) privately contacted the Department of Justice, a fact that he denied at first. Mr. Speaker, an FBI agent in Corpus Christi, Texas, tried to track down the Texas Democratic legislators and indicated they were conducting surveillance. The Justice Department is stonewalling, and so Congress must investigate and do so immediately. Mr. Speaker, what happened in the Committee on the Judiciary today on a party-line vote was wrong and should not stand.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to recognize an outstanding engineer from my district. Mr. William Guy Redmond, Jr., recently celebrated the remarkable accomplishment of over 50 years of service to Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas, Texas. Guy Redmond came to what was then-Chance Vought Aircraft Company as a young man after serving in the U.S. Navy and receiving degrees from SMU and MIT. Over the years, Guy has amassed over 20 patents. He is highly respected by all for his integrity and technical expertise and unwavering dedication to his organization. In 1983, Guy was recognized through a nomination for the coveted IEEE Pioneer award for his contributions to the company and the community. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Guy Redmond again today for his enormous accomplishments at Lockheed Martin and offer my heartiest congratulations on his 51st anniversary. I'm sure the members of this body will agree with me that 50 years of constancy and dedication is a feat not accomplished by many, and I wish him great success in his future endeavors.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Let us be very clear about what is happening on the floor today. The United States Senate has a procedure called a filibuster where Members can get up and talk and fill time. Up until today the House does not have a filibuster. What we are doing is to pass a bill, a change in our rules, that would create a filibuster on the floor of the House and prevent Members from having the opportunity to debate substantive matters. Why do I say that? We are going to add an extra day of suspensions. Why do the Republicans want to add an extra day of suspensions? They want to use our valuable floor time for minor noncontroversial matters. Why do they want to use our valuable floor time for minor noncontroversial matters? Because they do not want to provide full debate on matters like changing Medicare and the new prescription drug plan. Why do they not want to provide full debate on Medicare and prescription drugs? They do not have enough time. There is not enough time for us to do this. Why do not we have enough time? Because they are bringing more noncontroversial bills to the floor. It is very interesting. This is of course the oft remarked case of the young person who killed his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. Let us be very clear what the Republicans are doing. They do not want to debate the key substantive issues that face this country. What did they do in the rule last night, this morning? We were here until 5:15 a.m. this morning. Why were we here until 5:15 a.m. this morning in the Committee on Rules? Because our meeting did not start until 12:50 a.m. this morning. Why did it not start until 12:50 this morning? Because the Republicans did not want a meeting that would be widely covered by the press and it would be easily accessible to our Members to come and testify. A lot of very good Members, a lot of conscientious Members on both sides of the aisle stayed up. They were there at 12:50 a.m. and they testified until 5 a.m. this morning, and what did the Republicans on the Committee on Rules do? They told them thanks for coming but no thanks, they are not going to give them any time on the floor, they will not give them an amendment. They did this to some of their own Members as well as to Democrats. Why are they doing that? Because they do not want their own Members to have to vote on things that might be embarrassing for them when they go back to the next election. So that brings us to where we are today. We are going to create a filibuster rule in the House. We are going to permit the Republican leadership to filibuster, to use our time, our valuable floor time, by bringing noncontroversial bills commending people for things they have done, naming facilities, all kinds of things. We used to just do those in a day or two. Now we are going to have 3 days of those bills and now, ``Oh, by the way, we will not have any time for you to offer your amendment on Medicare, we will not have any time for you to offer your amendment on prescription drugs. We have used up all our time. We have created another suspension day.''

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service of Arthur Duane Schaezler, a gentleman who has recently celebrated his 51st anniversary with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in my district. Duane Schaezler served this country as an Air Force navigator for three years before he obtained his BS in Aeronautical Engineering from the University of Texas in 1949. Duane joined what was then-Chance Vought Aircraft in 1951 and has since applied his vast experience and expert technical knowledge in the areas of guidance, navigation, flight dynamics and control systems. Duane is an excellent example of a dependable and deliberate American whose positive work ethic and loyalty are so important in today's society. Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Duane Schaezler on his incredible accomplishment of fifty-one years with Lockheed Martin and wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Roy Orthmor Bohner, who recently celebrated his 51st anniversary working with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas, TX. Roy Bohner has been a dedicated employee of MFC since he began working there many years ago as an Engineering Trainee and a junior hydraulics design engineer. Some of his notable accomplishments include a design of an autopilot for a radio controlled drone aircraft, a successful R&D program to do flight control analysis, and design studies for a ``fly-by-wire'' control system named Electro-RAM. In addition to his service in Dallas, Roy spent some time at the General Dynamics plant, now Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth, as part of the Industry Assist program. Prior to joining MFC, Roy served our country in World War II as a member in the 11th Army Division, and he continues to contribute to this Nation through his loyalty and dedication to his projects at Lockheed Martin. A man of ardor and great humor, Roy's objective is to be the oldest living employee at Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas. Roy is an exemplary model of the American worker who is dedicated to continue serving this great Nation. Mr. Speaker, Roy Bohner deserves special recognition for his tremendous achievement and dedication. He serves as a role model to the rest of us, and I wish him success in his future endeavors.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to call attention to the House to a racist piece of literature currently being circulated by the Harris County Republican Party to its e-mail subscribers. There is going to be a redistricting hearing in Harris County, Houston, on Saturday and so the Harris County Republican Party is right now e- mailing this information to all its regular subscribers. It says: ``She will be there to express her views. Will you be there to express yours?'' Who is ``she''? She is the gentlewoman who is here with us right now, Sheila Jackson-Lee. There is a very nice colored picture of Sheila, whom everyone can see is African American. Sheila is one of four Democratic Congress Members from Harris County. The other three are white. One African American, three whites. Of course, the gentlewoman appears in this e-mail and there is no picture of Gene Green, who is white, there is no picture of Chris Bell, who is white, and there is no picture of Nick Lampson, who is white, there is only a picture of the one African-American Member. And so what does it say? ``She will be there to express her views. Will you be there to express yours? Reminder: Redistricting Hearing in Houston this Saturday.'' Then it gives the time and the place and the details. I would ask the gentlewoman from Houston, what does she think about this e-mail posted by the Harris County Republican Party on their Web site?

Mr. FROST. I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent statement. I would only observe that this type of racist appeal is something that we saw in our State 20 or 30 years ago. I thought we had moved beyond that. I am ashamed for the State of Texas and I am particularly ashamed for the Harris County Republican Party that they would stoop to racism in the year 2003.

Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

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 supported the Department of Homeland Security back when most Republicans still opposed it, and I served on the Select Committee that created the new Department last year, so I expect to vote for this bill to fund the Department on final passage. But before we get to that point, Members will have the chance to address several serious weaknesses in America's homeland defense system. First, we need to pass the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the committee, to increase security at our ports, our airports, and our northern border, and to meet other vital security needs identified by the Bush administration. As it stands, the base bill does not address major holes in homeland defense, and the Obey amendment would plug some of those. And to do it, all we 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 get critical homeland security investments. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is not willing to ask millionaires to accept an $83,000 tax break next year rather than an $88,000 tax break, so they blocked the Obey amendment. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, addressing the second issue does not cost a dime, but it is fundamental to the success of the new Department of Homeland Security. As my colleagues will recall, when the Congress created this powerful new domestic security agency last year, several Members, Republicans as well as Democrats, expressed concern that its powers could be abused and turned against law-abiding American citizens. The former House majority leader, Dick Armey of Texas, was particularly outspoken on this issue. Unfortunately, we have already seen an example of the danger that concerned Mr. Armey. And that is why it is absolutely critical that the House act to protect the Department of Homeland Security from ever again being used as the Department of Political Security, as happened just last month. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security became involved in a partisan political dispute last month when it helped Texas Republicans hunt down law-abiding Democratic State legislators. Specifically, the Homeland Security agency charged with tracking terrorists was enlisted to help Texas Republicans trying to track Democratic lawmakers who had stood up to the Republican leadership in Austin. These Democratic legislators violated neither State nor Federal law. They simply used a legal parliamentary tactic, breaking a quorum, in a legislative battle to stop an unprecedented bill to unnecessarily redraw Texas's congressional districts. They employed a legitimate parliamentary tactic that Republicans have used at other times and in other places. But when Abraham Lincoln broke a quorum in the Illinois legislature in 1839, his political opponents did not have the option of using the Department of Homeland Security to track him down. Neither did the officers of the U.S. Senate in 1988 when Senate Republicans tried to break a quorum. Today, however, the Department of Homeland Security has enormous domestic intelligence powers. And somehow, on May 12, 2003, America's homeland security resources were employed to help Texas Republicans against their political rivals. There is really no disputing this, Mr. Speaker. According to a report by the Department's own Inspector General, the Homeland Security Department's Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center spent its resources helping the Texas State police and the Texas Republican leaders directing the manhunt trying to find the plane of former Texas Speaker Pete Laney, a Democratic legislature who had flown to Oklahoma, to break the quorum. Many of my colleagues will remember Mr. Laney as the Democrat who introduced George W. Bush to the Nation on the night that he was declared President by the Supreme Court. If my colleagues can believe it, Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security officials maintain that the 40 minutes they spent assisting in the Texas Republican's manhunt was only a ``minimal'' amount of work. That is a troubling excuse. If the Department of Homeland Security spent just 1 minute in a domestic political dispute, then it was 1 minute too long. But they spent 40 minutes, which is longer than it took for terrorists to carry out their September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. Even the office of a Republican member, Representative Ken Calvert, who represents the Riverside area where the AMICC is based, called to express shock at their involvement, at the Homeland Security Department's involvement in this political matter. Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security officials also contend that they were tricked into getting involved. The report issued by the Department's Inspector General indicates that ``several individuals'' were instructing the Texas State police officer who got homeland security involved in the manhunt. According to a partial and heavily blacked-out transcript released by the Homeland Security officials, the officer was taking direct orders from a ``State representative.'' The Texas State police refused to identify who was directing them, and they quickly destroyed most of the documents relating to the episode. As a result, Homeland Security referred this case to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but the FBI says it has no interest in investigating. Fortunately, some Texas State police field notes survived the document purge and they indicate that Texas Republicans, Governor Rick Perry, State House Speaker Tom Craddick and others, personally instructed the State police during much of the manhunt which was run out of Speaker Craddick's office. So as my colleagues can see, Mr. Speaker, a lot of disturbing questions remain unanswered about how homeland security resources were used to help the Texas Republicans track their political rivals. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: my goal here today is to protect the Department of Homeland Security. Its mission, safeguarding Americans against the threat of terrorism, is too important to risk undermining its credibility with the public. But even if homeland security officials were misled, and the available facts do not clearly support that excuse, the entire episode still reveals the Department of Homeland Security's dangerous vulnerability to abuse. Unfortunately, Homeland Security officials have refused to even acknowledge the Department's vulnerability or the threat it poses to their mission. Secretary Ridge has refused to release the complete tapes of the Department's communications with Texas officials or anyone else involved in this episode, despite legitimate requests from numerous Members of Congress, including the ranking members of the House and Senate committees that oversee the Department. And the Department's Inspector General declared that its own agency's actions were ``appropriate.'' Mr. Speaker, that is so wrong that it is frightening. It is never appropriate to use homeland resources for partisan purposes, no matter how many minutes Homeland Security officials spend helping one political party, or which party they help. On the contrary, it is a dangerous abuse of power, one that threatens the liberties of all Americans, and one that risks public support for the Department of Homeland Security. That is why the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, submitted amendments to the Committee on Rules last night to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security never again finds itself being used for partisan purposes. Republicans on the Committee on Rules, however, seem not to understand the seriousness of the Department's vulnerability or the importance of closing this loophole immediately, because they blocked both amendments. As a result, there is only one way to protect the Department of Homeland Security against political abuse: by opposing the important procedural vote known as the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider these two amendments to restore public trust in America's homeland security officials. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to put politics aside and oppose the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?