Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this has been a very long process. We had a lengthy markup in the committee lasting approximately 10 hours. We have had a lengthy hearing before the Committee on Rules. We have had negotiations on a bipartisan basis over the rule. This is not a perfect rule, but it does preserve the minority's right to offer most of the amendments that we sought. We would have preferred that we would have been given the opportunity to offer the DeLauro amendment. This is a very serious matter. It is in the interest of our country that our citizens be safe, and it is in the interest of the country that this House operate on a bipartisan basis. I believe we have been given that opportunity by the majority tonight. And while this is not a perfect rule, I urge the adoption of the rule so we can proceed to the consideration of the bill on the floor this evening and tomorrow, and so we can complete this very important piece of legislation before we adjourn for our August recess. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, creating the Department of Homeland Security is a bipartisan idea and it remains a bipartisan priority, but building a big new 170,000 person Federal bureaucracy is a difficult project. After all, our goal is not just moving boxes around inside the government. It is to increase the security of the American people in the real world. To succeed, Democrats have reached out to work with the administration. Indeed, the entire House of Representatives has worked overtime to make sure we could get this bill to the President's desk by September 11. On a bipartisan basis, Members have recommended a number of important, good faith changes to the administration's original proposal. Republican leaders on the Select Committee on Homeland Security unfortunately rejected many of these bipartisan improvements, and they snuck in several ideological and partisan side issues, controversial riders that, in some cases, actually threaten the effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security. That is why I, along with so many others, have argued from the beginning that the entire House needed the opportunity to vote on these controversies on the floor. While this rule is not as open as I would have liked, it does allow Members to address the most critical issues. Several Democratic amendments would add to the underlying bill to increase the effectiveness of new departments. The Waxman amendment, for instance, would strengthen the White House Office of Homeland Security. According to the General Accounting Office, creating the new department will take five to 10 years, and even after it is completed, much of the work to prevent terrorist attacks would be done in other agencies like the CIA and the FBI. The Waxman amendment would ensure that the White House Homeland Security advisor has the authority and the clout to coordinate all of these different governmental agencies to increase the security of the American people. Additionally, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) has an important amendment to ensure the new department shares information with State and local first responders, the people on the front lines of homeland defense, our local police and fire. Other amendments address the controversial provisions in the underlying bill. For instance, this bill would undercut the Freedom of Information Act. And it would harm whistleblower protections. That means that if an employee wanted to alert the public to wrongdoing in the Department, the way Coleen Rowley blew the whistle on failures in the FBI investigation on Zacarias Moussaoui, he or she might be subject to retaliation from supervisors. That is not just wrong, it is bad for effectiveness of the Department of Homeland Security. Fortunately, the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) have an amendment to fix this problem and I urge its support. Additionally, this bill contains language that actually turns back the clock on important civil service protections that may be crucial to the ideology of some on the other side of the aisle. But it will harm the effectiveness of the new department. Mr. Speaker, the civil service system protects Americans against a spoils system that would allow politicians to reward their friends and supporters with important government jobs. It is crucial that the Department of Homeland Security be staffed by professionals, not by cronies of whichever party happens to hold the White House. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and I have an amendment to restore the Committee on Government Reform's bipartisan agreement to preserve current civil service protections for the new department. And the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) has an amendment to ensure employees retain their collective bargaining rights unless their responsibilities change. Both of these amendments will protect existing workplace rights while preserving the national security flexibility the President needs. So unless you want to unnecessarily weaken the current civil service system, I urge you to support them and to oppose the two amendments that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman) has offered on the other side of this issue. Additionally, Republican leaders have, hidden in this bill, a provision that protects companies that sell harmful products to the public. This language, which was not requested by the President, goes well beyond current law and gives companies a get-out- of-jail free card, no matter how malicious, wanton or reckless their conduct may have been. Fortunately, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) has an amendment to ensure companies have legal protection to invest in security technology, but without leaving the public helpless against every scam artist who claims to have a security-related product. It deserves our support. Also, the rule make in order an amendment by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) that would maintain the December 31, 2002 deadline for airline baggage screening. This is a controversial issue that was added to the underlying bill by the Select Committee and was not requested by the President and it deserves full consideration on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I must note with disappointment, however, that Republican leaders are blocking a common sense corporate responsibility amendment by the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner). Their amendment would make corporate tax dodgers ineligible for government contracts at the new department because if a corporation will not pay its own taxes, then it does not deserve to be paid with other people's taxes, but Republican leaders insist on protecting this loophole. In the interest of time, I will leave it to others to discuss the other important amendments. I do want to mention a couple of additional ongoing issues surrounding the bill, however. First, we must ensure that America's immigration adjudication functions, like family reunification and adoption, operate effective, efficiently and fairly regardless of which Homeland Security Department structure becomes law, we must continue to welcome these law abiding immigrants who helped build America even as we focus on protecting ourselves here at home. Second, Congress must honestly address the question of how much it will cost taxpayers to create this new department. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office put the price tag at $4.5 billion and the bipartisan leaders of Senate Budget Committee have warned that it could add significantly to future spending. Nevertheless, Republican leaders in the House cling to the fiction that they can create a 170,000 person Federal bureaucracy without spending any additional money. It is no small irony that the same Republicans who often campaign against the government now want to create a bigger Federal bureaucracy but refuse to pay for it. Mr. Speaker, let us be honest with the American people. Our national security is not cheap and neither is homeland security. Cooking the books will only drag us deeper into debt and hurt the credibility of the new department we are creating. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, creating the Department of Homeland Security is a bipartisan priority, so I urge my Republican colleagues to join us in cleaning up this bill so that we can pass it with the overwhelming bipartisan majority of needs. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to repeat something I have said on several occasions in another context. The creation of this new department is something that I personally feel very strongly about. On September 11 the plane that crashed into the Pentagon struck the office of my wife's boss. My wife is an Army officer. Fortunately, she was not in his office on that day. Her office is several miles from the Pentagon. But two people who work for my wife and her boss were killed on September 11; and I want to make sure that nothing like that can ever happen again in this country. This country deserves the strongest possible protection against terrorist attacks. And I hope that on a bipartisan basis we will rise to the occasion and create a strong, effective new department in the next two days. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman). (Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate Congressman Tony Hall on becoming the United States Ambassador to the United Nations food and agriculture agencies in Rome. I cannot think of anyone that I would rather have represent the United States on a global stage than my friend, Tony Hall. Congressman Hall and I have served together in the House for 23 years, and serving most of that time together on the Rules Committee. During this time, I have come to admire his strong will and dedication. We all recognize Tony Hall as a tireless advocate of ending world hunger and ensuring global food security. His record on this issue speaks to his passion, his many accomplishments include: working actively to improve human rights conditions around the world, and the enactment of a law he authored to fight hunger-related diseases in developing nations. These and other works on behalf of the needy earned Congressman Hall a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize in 1998, 1999, and 2001. Although we will miss him in the House, I know that the United States will be well served by Congressman Hall. We as Americans should feel privileged that we have such a compassionate and dedicated individual looking after our interests in the United Nations. I know my colleagues will join me in wishing him the best of luck.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Democratic Caucus, I offer a privileged resolution (H.R. 470) and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, 40 years ago, June 27, 1962, an industry was born with the investment of just $1,000. That industry today is nearly half a trillion dollar market and provides jobs to more than 20 million people around the world. With the founding of EDS, Electronic Data Systems, that day, the world started doing business in a different way as information technology services became part of the global economy. Today, information technology is pervasive. Whether we're using an ATM, making airline reservations, or renewing a driver's license, we are all surrounded by computing power that fundamentally affects how we live. Plano, Texas-based EDS started small with just a few employees using the excess capacity of other company's computers. Today, EDS has 140,000 employees serving government and business in 60 countries with revenue of $21.5 billion. There have been many milestones along EDS's journey. In the 1960s, EDS developed the first comprehensive system for managing public health care programs. Today, EDS processes 2.4 billion medical claims transactions a year. In 1976, EDS started processing airline tickets sold by travel agents. EDS is now the largest provider of IT services to the airline industry. EDS launched the systems-integration market in 1982 with the U.S. Army's Project VIABLE, a vast and complex human-resources system. At that time, it was the largest IT-services contract ever let by the U.S. Army. In the 1990s, the United Kingdom's Inland Revenue Service selected EDS to become its IT services provider. Today, EDS is building a vast intranet for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps under the largest IT contract ever awarded by the U.S. government. The value is $6.9 billion. EDS has long made significant contributions to its communities. Its award-winning JASON Project brings the thrill of discovery to hundreds of thousands of school children each year. The company also provides grants to elementary school teachers so they can bring the latest technology to the classroom. And each fall thousands of EDS employees go out into the community to lend a helping hand as part of Global Volunteer Day. EDS is entering its fifth decade doing what it does best--managing and integrating information technology services. It is committed to building trust with each client and to making available to all clients sophisticated information security and business-continuity services. Well-deployed information technology has fueled significant productivity gains in the last 40 years--particularly in the last decade. These gains are especially valuable today in an interconnected, global, digital economy. EDS is a big part of those gains. The information-technology industry holds unprecedented opportunity. Everyone wants to be part of it. Many companies are realizing what EDS understood 40 years ago--that even the most groundbreaking technologies quickly lose their edge unless they are creatively and innovatively applied. Some may think the forty-year milestone may mean middle age is approaching. Not in EDS's case. It is a company as focused on delivering value to its clients today as it was in 1962. It stays young by reinventing itself and listening to its clients. Mr. President, please join me in saluting EDS for its many contributions to the information technology services industry and in wishing the company well for another 40 years.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Over the past several months, Mr. Speaker, the world has seen the skill, courage and professionalism of the United States military. America's men and women in uniform have done everything this country has asked of them, and they have done it well. So I am pleased to report that the defense appropriations bill on the floor today provides them with the resources they need to continue to ensure our national security. I would like to commend the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young); the ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis); and the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), for the tremendous job they have done to support America's troops and to protect Americans here at home. The bill represents the bipartisan support this Congress has for our troops and the war on terrorism. Overall, it provides nearly $34 billion more for national defense than we spent last year. It reflects the homeland security priorities for which Democrats have fought so hard, including $385 million for the chemical and biological defense program, and it funds substantial quality of life improvements for America's men and women in uniform and their families. In particular, this bill includes a 4.1 percent military pay raise and even larger increases for the mid-grade non-commissioned officers whom the armed services must retain. To improve military health care, it significantly increases funding for the Defense Health Program, some $141 million above the President's request. I also am pleased that this bill continues to fund the wide range of weapons programs that will ensure America's military superiority throughout the world. For instance, it includes $4.1 billion to procure 23 F-22 Raptor aircraft, the next-generation air dominance fighter for the Air Force. It also provides $882 million for research and development for this aircraft. Additionally, the bill provides $3.5 billion for continued development of the Joint Strike Fighter, the high-technology multi-role fighter of the future for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines; and it includes $1 billion for 11 V-22 aircraft. In sum, Mr. Speaker, this bill does a good job of providing needed resources to our troops for the fiscal year that begins on October 1, but I would be remiss if I did not call attention to the more pressing problem facing America's military right now. Specifically, U.S. troops are fighting the war on terrorism around the world at this very moment. They are winning, but they desperately need additional resources now for the remainder of this fiscal year. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Armed Forces will have to take drastic steps if they do not get help soon. The Army could have to cancel training exercises, for instance; and the Air Force could have to severely cut flight hours. That is why both the House and the Senate passed the emergency supplemental appropriations bill with substantial bipartisan support. Unfortunately, that bill is still stuck in a conference committee. Why? Because Republican leaders are playing a high-stakes game of political chicken with our troops. They are trying to use the wartime spending bill to hide the fact that they have increased America's national debt and are raiding Social Security. Make no mistake, America's debt is increasing because of the fiscally irresponsible tax plan Republicans passed last year. But House Republican leaders are desperate to disguise that fact from the American people, so they are holding hostage the wartime emergency spending supplemental bill. Mr. Speaker, House Democrats have repeatedly tried to work with Republicans to ensure the United States does not default on its debt. We have offered to help pass a bipartisan, short-term increase in the debt limit. All we ask is that Republicans join us in an honest, comprehensive budget summit so we can stop the fiscal irresponsibility that is rating the Social Security trust fund. Unfortunately, Republican leaders are afraid to take responsibility for their actions. They are afraid that a straight up-or-down vote to raise the debt ceiling will highlight the rising tide of red ink Republicans have created. That sort of budgetary dishonesty is bad enough, but holding up the emergency supplemental spending bill that our troops need is beyond the pale. Simply put, it is a particularly shameful form of war profiteering. Mr. Speaker, it does not have to be that way. Historically, Democrats and Republicans in Congress have worked together to support America's national defense. On the floor today, we are doing just that with the spending bill for the next fiscal year. I urge the Republican leadership to stop holding hostage the emergency wartime supplemental spending bill. Have the courage to increase the debt separately and free the supplemental. How, Mr. Speaker, can the Republican leadership let this body adjourn for the Fourth of July recess, our most patriotic celebration, without tending to the needs of the men and women who are defending our flag and our country in every corner of this globe? To me, it is an abdication of the responsibilities we, the elected Members of the House of Representatives, have to our constituents and to our country. If the Republican majority wants to govern, now is the time to show the country that they are capable of doing so. Pass a separate debt limit and bring up the supplemental that is so desperately needed right now by every branch of the armed services. If the Republican leadership will do that, then we can pass the supplemental with an overwhelmingly bipartisan majority and get the troops the assistance that they need today. We are providing the assistance in this legislation that is before us that they need starting October 1, and that is good and we all support that. But what about the months of July, August, and September? Let us move on and provide that help also. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

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

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is a very important proposal before us today, and it is in fact a bipartisan proposal; and I think it speaks well of this institution that we can work on a bipartisan basis on something this important. I also am pleased that the leadership on both sides has now agreed that once the select committee has acted that the matter then will be brought to the Rules Committee and that the Rules Committee will then handle this in the normal way, adopting a rule for consideration on the floor. I would hope that when we do that, that we would adopt an open rule so that the key issues can be joined on the floor. This is a very important decision that we will be making. There are many people in the House who have some very good ideas. I hope they will be given the opportunity to offer those on the floor during consideration of this important piece of legislation. I would point out to the House that in the late 1970s when the Department of Education was created, that was considered on this floor under an open rule procedure. Everyone had the opportunity to offer their ideas, votes were held and we ultimately adopted the legislation creating the new department. Certainly that is an appropriate model for the decisions that we will be making later this year. I urge adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, in the aftermath of September 11, the people of this Nation have pulled together to meet the first great challenge of the 21st century. Across the globe in Afghanistan, the men and women of the United States Armed Forces prove their courage and skill on the battlefield once again, and here in Washington, Democrats and Republicans put aside partisanship to support the war on terrorism. Still, Mr. Speaker, much remains to be done, especially in the area of homeland security. For months, Democrats and a few Republicans have argued that homeland security must become a Cabinet-level priority. I myself am a cosponsor of a House bill to do just that. So there was bipartisan support for the President's decision a few weeks ago to reverse his prior opposition to a new Department of Homeland Security. By itself, reorganizing the Federal Government will not ensure Americans' safety, but it is an important first step, and the short 35- page bill submitted by the administration yesterday provides a useful starting point, even as it raises a lot of important questions. How will it improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Government's intelligence operations? How will it change the relationship between individual Americans and the Federal agencies, FEMA and the Coast Guard, for instance, that now provide them with crucial services? Additionally, Mr. Speaker, we must work through important questions about the nature of the agency itself. We must ensure that Americans' fundamental values, rights and liberties are not sacrificed on the altar of this new governmental structure. That includes the employment rights of the public servants who will work in this department and devote their lives to protecting their fellow citizens. We must honestly address the question of how much it will cost taxpayers to set up and operate this new Federal department. America's national security is not cheap and neither is its homeland security. Just yesterday, for instance, the Republican staff director of the Senate Budget Committee pointed out that additional costs seem likely. Mr. Speaker, the Congress must answer these and other questions to ensure that creating a new Department of Homeland Security accomplishes more than just moving Federal employees around Washington but actually makes Americans safer in this new war against terrorism. That is why it is so important that we follow regular order and draw upon the tremendous experience and expertise in the standing committees of jurisdiction. Many of our Members have literally decades of experience with these matters. Simply put, they know what works and what does not work in the real world. Mr. Speaker, Democratic Leader Gephardt was right to set September 11 of this year as the deadline to create the new Department of Homeland Security. That deadline is less than 3 months from today, but is a full year from the infamous day when terrorists made clear America's new homeland security needs. Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, we can meet that goal, but it will require the type of bipartisanship we saw immediately after September 11. Fortunately, the Speaker seems to understand that, and so today the House is taking an initial step down the long road toward the real and substantive cooperation necessary to create an effective Department of Homeland Security. Of course, sticking to the path of bipartisanship will require determination at all stages in the process, in the initial work of the standing committees, as the select committee itself reconciles their approaches, and as the Committee on Rules sends that product to the House floor. Indeed, the end of the process will be as important as the beginning. So I urge the Speaker to commit to bringing the final bill to the House floor under an open rule. That way we can ensure that the will of the entire House is reflected in what we pass. Mr. Speaker, we all understand how absolutely critical it is that partisan politics play no part in our deliberations. This is no time for any political party's agenda. It is time to prove that we are worthy of this monumental task to protect our Nation and its citizens, and to reassure them that their government is part of the solution, not part of the problem. Democrats are eager to get to work reorganizing on this critical task. So I urge the adoption of this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal). (Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor).