Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

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, how much time is remaining on each side?

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. Again, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that to protect the Department of Homeland Security against political abuse, vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. I would inquire as to how much time remains, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Members on the other side of the aisle and their colleagues in Texas sought to misuse Federal resources. Now, the Inspector General said, oh, but it was only 40 minutes, so it is no big deal. I would remind the gentleman on the other side of the aisle that the attack on the World Trade Center occurred in less than 40 minutes, and so Republicans in Texas sought to divert homeland security resources for 40 minutes. What did they also seek to do? They also contacted the Department of Justice, tried to involve the FBI, tried to involve the U.S. Marshals Service, tried to involve the U.S. Attorney's Office in Texas. This was a blatant misuse of Federal resources, even if it were one minute. But it was not just one minute, and it was not just the Department of Homeland Security. It was other agencies of the Federal Government. They know it. It should never have happened and, hopefully, it will never happen again. I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order two very important amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules last night and rejected by the Republican majority. Both of these amendments seek to protect the Department of Homeland Security against the type of political abuse it suffered when it ended up helping Texas Republicans hunt down their political rivals in a legislative dispute. The first amendment, by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, would require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to implement written procedures for the use of personnel and resources for any nonemergency use of homeland security services; and would prohibit the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement from supporting Federal, State or local law enforcement or humanitarian efforts until that is done. The second amendment, by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), a member of the Department of Homeland Security, would prohibit the Department from using funds for political purposes or for any other purpose not relating to protecting homeland security. I am confident that all Americans and all Members of this House support this sentiment expressed in these two amendments. So I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let me emphasize a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It will not prevent other amendments from being offered under the open rule. However a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from considering these two very important amendments that are critical to protecting the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect Americans against terrorism. Also, assuming that the previous question passes, there will then be a vote on the rule, and I would urge Members at that point to vote against the rule so that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will have the opportunity to offer his amendment to put money back in this legislation to do the things that should have been done originally. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

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 yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I support the idea behind the association health plans. Helping small businesses has been a priority of mine for a long while. At the same time, I strongly believe that we have a moral obligation to help every American get the health coverage they and their families need. So I am glad that the Democrats on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, particularly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from new Jersey (Mr. Andrews), have written the Democratic substitute. It is a sensible and affordable plan to ensure health coverage for small businesses and their employees that is at least as good as Federal employees get. If you think small businesses deserve the same health coverage that Members of Congress get, then the Democratic plan is for you. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives. That gives them the power to block important priorities, and they have no problem using it. For instance, they are still blocking tax relief for millions of military and working families. Six times Democrats have tried to give the child tax credit to these families because we believe that they deserve at least a fraction of the tax breaks that Republicans gave to millionaires last month. But six times, House Republicans have used their power to deny these families. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is using their power and this restrictive rule to undermine patient protections. Now, perhaps Republicans will say that we should not be surprised. More than 90 percent of the rules in this Congress have been restricted, a shameful record of stifling democracy and blocking critical American priorities. But the rule on the floor today perfectly illustrates how the Republican majority has operated during this Congress. In the Committee on Rules, Democrats offered 14 amendments on issues that are critical to the health of the people who might participate in these plans, but the Committee on Rules Republicans voted down all but one of them, the Democratic substitute. Consider patients' rights, for example. Republicans have successfully blocked a national Patients' Bill of Rights for the past several years, and the base bill would undermine the patient protections that various States have passed, making it a kind of anti-Patients Bill of Rights. So the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) went to the Committee on Rules with an amendment to ensure that these new association health plans comply with State patient protections, like prohibitions on doctor gag rules and access to emergency rooms, OBGYNs, and specialists. But Republicans on the Committee on Rules defeated their amendment on a party-line vote. Or take prostate cancer and breast cancer. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) tried to ensure that these new health plans cover screenings for these deadly diseases, but Republicans refused to allow the House to vote on her amendments. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) each tried to protect Americans with autism. The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) tried to ensure maternity and well-child benefits continue to be covered in States that require this coverage. And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) tried to protect small businesses and their employees from discrimination based on race, gender or age. Each of these is an important issue when you are creating a new system that could affect the health of millions and millions of Americans. But Republicans refuse to allow the House to even vote on their amendments. As a result, Mr. Speaker, if the Republican-based bill passes the House, millions of Americans will lose out on important patient protections, and that is just one example of how Americans are harmed by what the Republican leadership does on the Committee on Rules. Of course, none of these amendments would have been necessary in the Republican bill were they not so deficient, but it is. In fact, the Republican plan is opposed by more than 475 organizations representing State governors, insurance commissioners, attorneys general and State legislators, as well as physician groups, consumer organizations, Chambers of Commerce, farm bureaus and small business associations. The American Nurses Association, for example, wrote that it ``would undermine the protections provided by State laws while doing little to provide coverage for the uninsured.'' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that premiums would increase for 80 percent of small employers, while as many as 100,000 of the sickest people would lose coverage altogether. In my home State of Texas, more than 1.5 million people would pay higher premiums if the Republican bill passes, according to an analysis of a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Despite this, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership refused to allow votes on the Democratic amendments to fix their bill. That means that the Democratic alternative is the only way to protect patients and increase coverage for small business employees. It sets up a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan that would work like health plans that now cover Federal employees. It covers all small businesses and their employees, offers affordable premiums, and ensures that people get coverage at least as good as what Members of Congress gets. And unlike the Republican bill, it preserves State patient protections. To pass the Democratic alternative and provide affordable and comprehensive health coverage to small businesses, we need Republicans to stand up to their leadership and vote ``yes'' on the Democratic alternative. But before that, Republicans have yet another opportunity to stop blocking tax relief for millions of military and working families. To do that, all they have to do is stand up to the Republican leadership on the important parliamentary vote on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, the Democrats can amend the rule to allow the House to vote on the child tax credit and the Armed Forces Fairness Act. The President could sign both of these bills tomorrow if only Republicans would finally stop standing in the way. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Republicans to put the American people above their leadership today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes the Small Business Health Fairness Act, it will take from the Speaker's table the Senate passed version of H.R. 1307, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. Additionally, my amendment will add to H.R. 1307 the text of H.R. 1308 as passed by the Senate, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was removed from the Republican tax bill. This will allow the House to combine these two Senate passed bills and immediately send them back to the Senate and then hopefully on to the White House for the President's signature. If this happens, we can begin helping America's low and modest income working families right away and we can give tax relief to those brave members of the military who are in combat overseas. As my colleagues know, this is the seventh time we have tried to bring the child tax credit to the floor for a clean up or down vote. The reason we have continued to persevere is because this is so important to America's families, particularly those making at or near the minimum wage, families who struggle every day to get by. They have no one else to fight their battle for them. They cannot afford to hire expensive lobbyists, and they cannot afford to be a Bush pioneer. We are here for them and we will keep fighting for their voices to be heard. Vote no on the previous question so we can finally consider these two Senate passed tax plans, tax plans which will help those most in need of relief. I would like to stress that a no vote will not stop us from considering the Small Business Health Fairness Act. However, a yes vote will once again, for the seventh time, block the House from having an opportunity to vote to restore the child tax credit that was unceremoniously stripped from the Republican reward-the-rich tax bill that was passed last month. Again, vote no on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous materials be printed in the Record 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 back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST of Texas

Mr. FROST of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the faculty and students of my alma mater, Paschal High School in Fort Worth, Texas for being ranked among the nation's finest schools by Newsweek magazine. Officially, Paschal placed No. 12 in Texas and No. 200 nationally based on advanced placement test scores. This year alone, the senior class included 11 National Merit Scholarship semifinalists. Founded in 1885, Fort Worth's oldest high school has always been regarded as an academic leader. Today, Paschal exists primarily as a large, urban school with a diverse population and student body. The curriculum emphasizes balance, preparing students for college or university life through a variety of academic disciplines, clubs, advanced placement classes, and a host of athletic teams. This preparation enables students to understand and appreciate other cultures, become active participants of their community, and take ownership of their education. Paschal High School is a terrific example of a successful collaboration between students, community representatives, faculty members, parents, alumni, and the Fort Worth Independent School district. This collaboration is truly remarkable, when considering the awards and accolades that this school has amassed since its inception. Again, congratulations to the students and faculty of Paschal High School in Fort Worth, Texas for this latest achievement.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the great crocodile tears shed on the other side on the issue of coupon settlement proposition. Of course, if they want to change that, they should support the Democratic substitute which is stronger on the issue of coupon settlements than their underlying bill. Also, it is fascinating to listen to the advocates of States rights on the other side suddenly shift gears and become advocates of a very strong Federal system. I guess there is just a fundamental distrust of our State court system on the part of Republicans, and I find that very curious and very interesting. Also, particularly in light of the fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is opposed to dumping these additional lawsuits into the already overburdened Federal system. So we just have a peculiar situation in which people on the other side of the aisle are disregarding the Chief Justice of the United States, a member of their own party, and are also suddenly, in this particular instance, advocating for stronger action by the Federal system which would override the State system that they normally support. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. Last night the Committee on Rules broke with its past precedents and refused to make in order two important amendments Democratic Members brought to the committee. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will restore fairness in the debate on class action reform that the House has adopted in the previous two Congresses. Under my proposal, the House will be allowed to debate one amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) that will delete the bill's retroactive provisions; and, two, the Delahunt-Scott amendment to prevent corporations from using interlocutory appeals to run out the clock on class action lawsuits. No matter what their position is on this bill or on these particular amendments, all Members should support bringing fairness back to the process and vote no on the previous question. I am merely asking that all Members with serious amendments be allowed to bring them to the House floor just as they have been able to on the earlier occasions when we have debated class action reform. Let me make it very clear. A no vote would not stop the House from taking up the Class Action Fairness Act and would not prevent any of the amendments made in order by the rule from being offered. However, a yes vote will preclude the House from considering these two very important amendments that are critical to the debate on class action lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendments immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, what rule are you stating?

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). (Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)