Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper).

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 that will make in order the Cooper/Davis/Van Hollen Civil Service Bill of Rights amendment. Last night, the Republican majority refused to allow the House to consider this amendment. The Republican leadership had decided what kind of Democratic amendment would be acceptable to be included in the rule and since no Democrat was willing to toe the Republican Party line, Democrats have been shut out once again on a straight party line vote. The bill we are considering today makes enormous and far-reaching changes in the personnel laws affecting civilian defense employees. Furthermore, it does so with virtually no input or oversight from Congress. It leaves this massive overhaul in the hands of the Secretary of Defense. The Cooper/Davis/Van Hollen amendment would spell out an employee bill of rights to ensure that these valuable employees do not lose their basic employee rights. Yet under this unfair rule it will not be allowed to come to the floor for a vote. Mr. Speaker, it is hard for me to believe that just a few weeks after the war in Iraq, after all of us heaped deserving praise on all employees of the Defense Department, both military and civilian, that we would pull the rug out from underneath these patriotic, hard-working Americans. Let me make it very clear. A ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Department of Defense authorization. However, a ``yes'' vote amounts to slamming the door in the face of the military's civilian employees. As you cast your vote, think about these people and whether you will turn your back on them or whether you will do the right thing and vote to allow this amendment.

Mr. FROST. 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, for all of my 25 years in Congress I have worked for a strong national defense. Like so many pro-defense Democrats, I have bent over backwards to put politics aside and work together to support America's men and women in uniform. That cooperative approach is fundamental to our efforts to keep partisan politics from polluting the Armed Forces. So, repeatedly on the House floor and in the Committee on Rules, I have urged the Republican leadership to stop their assault on the bipartisan cooperation that has defined our approach to defense policy for so long. In response, the chairman of the Committee on Rules kept holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, in this second rule for the defense authorization bill the committee would allow a full and bipartisan consideration of serious defense issues. Last night, very late, the Committee on Rules reported out the second rule. Guess what? It does even more violence to the tradition of bipartisanship than the first rule did. For the second day in a row, the Republican leadership has prevented the House from considering serious and substantive issues in the defense authorization bill. For the second day in a row, they cast aside bipartisanship to protect the partisan and right-wing ideology that has been attached to this defense authorization bill. This is a shameful way to run this institution, an institution that is supposed to allow the voices of all Americans to be heard. For instance, Republican leaders used this rule to again defend their assault on America's environmental protections. The ranking members of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), offered their reasonable substitute to Republicans on environmental language. Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote on this substitute. To prevent terrorists from getting nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the second ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services and an acknowledged expert on defense issues, once again tried to strengthen America's cooperative threat reduction program, but the Republican leadership once again refused to allow his amendment, in spite of the fact that it simply does what President Bush has asked for. To protect the American taxpayers, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) tried to require that contracts over $1 million be awarded only in open bidding process, but Republican leaders decided to make it easier for big companies, for example, Halliburton, Brown and Root, Bechtel, to get private deals, so they rejected the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a staunch defense hawk from Mississippi, had a substantive amendment relating to the next round of base closures. But instead of allowing him and the House the vote they deserve, Republican leaders simply shut out his amendment. Similarly, Committee on Rules Republicans blocked three important amendments that I offered to address defense issues that I have pursued for some time: helping immigrant soldiers earn U.S. citizenship, providing tuition refunds to Reservists called to active duty, and tax fairness for civilian defense employees serving in combat zones. Finally, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are using this rule to rig the game in favor of their attack on worker rights at the Pentagon. Now, these are the same Pentagon employees who showed such bravery and sacrifice on September 11. So the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) proposed an employees' bill of rights. It is a common-sense approach to protecting those public servants who work to protect us. It has the support of America's firefighters. But Republican leaders refused to allow the House to vote to protect Pentagon employees. All in all, Mr. Speaker, this rule makes a mockery of the bipartisan cooperation that has been the keystone to our approach to defense policy, so I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Pentagon employee bill of rights. If the previous question passes, I urge a no vote on this rule. This is the only way to restore some semblance of bipartisanship to this process and to safeguard America's national defense policy from the partisanship and right wing ideology that are tainting this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).

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, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. The reasoning on the other side is very curious. I do recall in 2001 when they were promoting the first tax cut, the reason they gave for the tax cut was, oh, we have a surplus. Now we have this surplus, we need a tax cut so we can give that money back. Now we are in 2003 and we have a deficit, so we have to have a tax cut. Which one was it? It cannot be both. It cannot be we had a surplus, so we should have a tax cut; we have a deficit, so we should have a tax cut. I find their logic very curious. Everyone would like a tax cut. The American public obviously would like to pay less in taxes; and certainly we could have made the argument for a tax cut in 2001, perhaps not as large as they did, but we certainly could have made a valid argument: we are running a surplus; we do not need all of this money. Some of us felt like the tax cut was so large it was going to plunge us into a deficit, and that is what has happened. But it is hard to make the argument that now we are in a deficit, let us drive this country deeper into a deficit. Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will allow the House to consider H.R. 2046, introduced by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the Democratic Rebuilding America Through Job Creation plan. I guess I can understand why the Republicans are rushing through what they are claiming is a conference process to come up with a so-called economic growth bill. Every hour the American people have to see what the Republicans are up to, the less they will like it. It is a proposal that hurts American families, it hurts the American economy, and just digs the deficit hole deeper. In stark contrast to the conference agreement we will soon see here on the floor, the Democratic plan helps all Americans, not just the rich; and it helps the economy immediately. It provides middle-class tax cuts to stimulate demand; it gives tax incentives to all businesses, especially small businesses and U.S. manufacturing businesses; and unlike the Republican proposal, it is fiscally responsible. Yes, if I were a Republican, I might not want to have to explain a vote against the Democratic Rebuilding America Through Job Creation plan. But guess what, that is not a good enough reason to deny Members a chance to debate and vote on this measure. It is a terrible disservice to the American people if we let our fear of criticism prevent a vote on this very effective and responsible plan. Let me make it very clear that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the conference agreement. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to consider the Democratic job creation plan as a separate bill. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from taking up this responsible alternative. Make no mistake, this vote is the only opportunity the House will have to consider the Rangel plan. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. I will complete my statement, and then my friend, the chairman, will have plenty of time to respond.

Mr. FROST. Reclaiming my time, I am just proposing that we not try and tell them they are getting a really good deal here, that they are getting a really big tax cut, because the people who are getting the really big tax cut are the folks who are the millionaires, and the average folks out there are just getting a little bit. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I have been listening to the gentleman from New York and, of course, he offers a false choice. He says, do you want tax cuts or do you want bigger government? The people that I talk to do not want a government that puts them in debt. They do not want their children and grandchildren to be paying, having to bail out the country for this tax cut that is being passed this year because of the size of the debt that this is causing. No, they do not necessarily want bigger government, but they do not want that debt hanging over their children and grandchildren for several generations. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman makes a very interesting point. Of course, that is sunset almost immediately. They may get that for a year or two, and then it is sunset.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, here we are again, at quarter to eleven, the shades of darkness have fallen, and we have to ask ourselves a question, at least I do: Is the other side not particularly competent? Is that why we are here this late at night, as we always are on major pieces of legislation? Or have they intentionally put us here late at night so no one will watch this on television, so the American public will not know what is going on?

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, when it comes to supporting America's troops, there is no partisan divide in this Congress. Democrats and Republicans join together in saluting the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who serve America. More importantly, we work to provide them with the resources they need to do their jobs that we have asked them to do. So every year, Democrats and Republicans work very hard to put together a defense authorization bill that is as bipartisan as it is robust. There is much to be proud of in this bill. Its core is a bipartisan product that provides more for national defense than the President requested and more than this Republican Congress approved in its budget. As always, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services, deserves a lot of credit. He remains an unwavering advocate for the men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day to defend the United States. As a longstanding supporter of the U.S. military, I am especially pleased by the success of Democrats' efforts to include substantial quality-of-life improvements for America's men and women in uniform and their families. Specifically, this bill includes a 4.1 percent increase in basic pay for all members of the Armed Forces, plus targeted increases for midgrade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers to enhance retention. It also builds on our efforts to support the National Guard and the Reserves, who bear more and more of the burden of defending America at home and abroad. For instance, it ensures is that when they serve in areas where those on active duty get hazardous duty pay, they will also. Mr. Speaker, I want to particularly thank the Committee on Armed Services for including in this bill my legislation to make life easier for the National Guard and Reserves, both active duty and retirees, and their families by allowing them unlimited access to commissaries. They and their families are making great sacrifices for this Nation, and they deserve our support. Additionally, this bill continues to invest in the wide range of weapons that ensure America's military superiority throughout the world. It includes $4.4 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the next generation multi-role fighter of the future for the Air Force, the Navy and Marines. It includes $4.3 billion for the F-22 Raptor aircraft, the high-technology air dominance fighter for the Air Force. It also includes over $1.6 billion for the V-22 Osprey aircraft. Mr. Speaker, all of these important, pro-defense provisions have strong bipartisan support. They reflect the long-standing commitment of Democrats and Republicans to work together to ensure that the U.S. military has the resources it needs. Unfortunately, several provisions of this bill are neither bipartisan nor necessary to maintain the strength of the U.S. military. Indeed, some are nothing more than extremist, right-wing ideology piggy-backed on an otherwise bipartisan bill. For instance, does anyone really believe that national security requires that we gut environmental protections? Of course not. But rolling back America's environmental protections is practically the Holy Grail of the Republican party. So Republicans stuck into this bill provisions that attack the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act. Similarly, Republicans are trying to use this bill to weaken the workplace protections of the patriotic men and women employed by the Pentagon. They even defeated a Democratic attempt to preserve the current rules prohibiting patronage at the Pentagon. Mr. Speaker, these anti-environmental riders and attacks on the men and women who work at the Pentagon are not about supporting the military. There are about supporting the Republican party idealogy, and they have no business in a bipartisan bill to provide for the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. So Democrats have filed amendments with the Committee on Rules to free this bipartisan bill of these partisan riders. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the House Republican leadership has chosen to make ideology of such paramount importance that they have shut out two of the most important Democratic amendments. First, the Republican ideologues have denied the House the opportunity to even consider the amendment offered by the ranking members of the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Rahall-Dingell amendment is a common-sense and reasonable alternative to the anti-environmental language reported by the Committee on Resources and incorporated in the Committee on Armed Services bill relating to the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. This rule instead makes in order an amendment offered by the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. It claims to fix the most egregious provisions in the Committee on Resources bill. The fact that the Republican leadership has chosen to shut out Democrats in this manner gives many Members on this side of the aisle more than ample reason to oppose this rule. Now the chairman of the Committee on Rules said last night that it was still possible for additional amendments to be considered for inclusion in the second rule on this bill to be considered by the committee later today. But I doubt any Members will be holding their breath. The fact is, the Republican leadership would have done well to give this House the opportunity to have a vote on the Rahall-Dingell substitute, rather than risking losing this rule by shutting out so many reasonable Democrats who support the bill. Additionally, the House Republican leadership has chosen to tell the second ranking Democrat on the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a Member who has extensive expertise in the issue of nuclear threat reduction, that his amendment is just too hot to handle. The Spratt amendment sought to restore the President's requests for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. That is the President's request that he sought to restore. Yet the Republican leadership has refused to make this amendment in order, in spite of the fact that President Bush asked for this money. Again, the chairman of the Committee on Rules told me last night that it might be possible to consider including the Spratt amendment in the second rule, but, again, Members will not be holding their breath. Such arrogance practically begs pro-defense Members on this side of the aisle to oppose this rule, and it ought to give plenty of reason to oppose this rule to Republican Members who value fair play and institutional integrity or President Bush's national security priorities. Mr. Speaker, serious Members on both sides of the aisle have filed many other substantive amendments. But after seeing so many significant amendments blocked in this first rule, what do they have to look forward to in the second rule? Will they be shut out again just as their colleagues have today? I, for instance, have submitted three important amendments that address defense issues I have pursued for some time: helping immigrant soldiers earn U.S. citizenship, providing tuition refunds to reservists called to active duty, and tax fairness for civilian Defense Department employees serving in combat zones. Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly urged the Republican leadership to honor the long-standing tradition of allowing full consideration of substantive amendments like these on the defense authorization bill. That cooperative approach is fundamental to our efforts to keep partisan politics from polluting the Armed Forces bill and, in fact, has been followed in previous Congresses, both when the Democrats were in charge and even when the Republicans have been in charge. But this first rule has abandoned that cooperation. For that reason, I urge Members to vote no on this rule so the Committee on Rules can go back upstairs and start this process over. Maybe on the second try the Republican leaders will allow us to get it right. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, as I was saying at a press conference last week, not since Watergate and Richard Nixon 30 years ago have government agencies been used for domestic political purposes. And now, as in Watergate, we have the smoking gun. Today's issue of the Fort Worth Star telegram, my hometown newspaper, reports that the Department of Public Service in Texas sent an e-mail to all its officers in the middle of last week ordering that all records of the contact with the State legislators and government agencies be destroyed. I will read you what appeared in today's Star Telegram addressed to captains. The order said, ``Any notes, correspondence, photos that were obtained pursuant to the absconded House of Representatives members shall be destroyed immediately. No copies are to be kept.'' Now, we have asked for records on the Federal level. Since they have already been destroyed on the State level, we demand that those records on the Federal level be released now before they can be destroyed. Remember Rosemary Woods and the 18 minute gap. Release the record today here in Washington so that we will not have what happened in Texas the last week.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. I do want to answer the question, and then I do want to talk about one other item. As far as we can determine, that is exactly what they did. They activated the AMBER Alert, posting the information on the DPS Web site, clearly an abuse of that system that we worked so hard to get in place to help missing and exploited children. I would like to call the public's attention and the Speaker's attention to something that is far worse than what they did with AMBER Alert. Thirty years ago I was a young man. I remember following this in the news. Thirty years ago President Richard Nixon tried to use the FBI and the CIA to get involved in the Watergate issue. That was widely reported in the press of this country. It was an abuse of power by the President of the United States and is one of the things that led to President Nixon's ultimate resignation. Now we have reports in the Texas papers, in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, the Houston Chronicle, the Associated Press, that Tom DeLay attempted to use the FBI in this situation to intervene in a domestic political matter. I remember when Nixon did this, Republicans were outraged. I remember when Barry Goldwater, a conservative Republican, went to the White House and said to Richard Nixon enough, enough, and urged him to resign. I would urge Republicans, my Republican colleagues here in Washington and Republicans around the country, to tell Tom DeLay, as Barry Goldwater told Richard Nixon, this is not the kind of country we have. Tell Tom DeLay he cannot use the FBI to further domestic political agendas in this country. As far as we have been able to tell and as far as the newspapers of the State have been able to tell, the FBI did the right thing and they refused, they refused to be involved in domestic politics, and I applaud that. Tell Tom DeLay, anyone who is watching this on television, whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or an independent, that the greatness of America is the freedoms that we enjoy. May we never become a police state. May we never become a society where the FBI is used against political dissenters in this country. It is time to put this to an end. And if Tom DeLay continues in this matter, continues trying to abuse our political system, then maybe there are some people in this country including Republicans who should go to him and say, Mr. DeLay, it is time to step aside as majority leader. You are no better than Richard Nixon; and I regret the fact, Tom DeLay, that you are from the State of Texas and that you are emulating Richard Nixon and what he did 30 years ago. I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to honor 51 Texas patriots, members of the Texas Legislature currently in Ardmore, Oklahoma, who are standing tall to defend Texas against the thirst of additional power of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the House majority leader. Congressional district lines are normally drawn only every 10 years, and the current 32 Texas congressional districts were put in place just 2 years ago and approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was not happy with those lines. He now wants to force the Texas Legislature to draw new lines to remove Democrats from office. Until now, redistricting in the middle of a decade has not been done anywhere in the country in the last 50 years. I want to salute the following heroes from the Dallas/Fort Worth area who are standing up to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay): Roberto Alonzo of Dallas, Yvonne Davis of Dallas, Dr. Jesse Jones of Dallas, Terri Hodge of Dallas, Steve Wolens of Dallas, and Lon Burnam of Fort Worth. I want to call on Governor Perry to stop using the Department of Public Service to harass the families of these brave legislators. Leading Texas newspapers across the State are siding with the 51 patriot legislators, and when the annals of Texas history are recorded, these courageous legislators will be long remembered.