Martin Frost

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. McCarthy). (Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, since September 11, the world has watched this Nation, from the President and the Congress to the U.S. military abroad and the American people here at home, pull together to wage war on terrorism. Unfortunately, America's desperately needed economic recovery has been a different matter. Our economy has been in recession since March, long before September 11, according to the experts. Millions and millions of people are unemployed across the country. In the past few months alone, hundreds of thousands of hard-working Americans have lost their jobs. Meanwhile, just months after Republicans passed budget-busting trillion dollar tax breaks, the administration is now admitting that the surplus it inherited is gone and America now faces years of growing debt, threatening priorities from Social Security and Medicare to homeland security and affordable health care. How have Republican leaders responded to this problem? With billions of dollars in tax breaks for big corporations, leaving just crumbs for laid-off workers. And today, Mr. Speaker, Republican leaders are using the House to play politics for the 2002 elections. Instead of helping American workers, Republican leaders are trying to help their own fund- raising. Do not take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. The Chairman of the Republican Campaign Committee spelled it out in the Washington Post a few days ago. For Republican leaders, he said, this Fast Track bill is about fund-raising. It does not matter, he bragged, whether this bill passes or not. Just as long as they can use it to help the Republican fund-raising, then they will be happy. So Republican leaders have written a Fast Track bill that shortchanges working Americans from coast to coast. They have written a bill that does not protect the environment, and they have written a bill that represents a dereliction of duty by Congress, an abdication of our responsibility to protect the people we represent on issues from food safety to telecommunications. Mr. Speaker, Democratic leaders on trade fought valiantly for a bipartisan approach that protects American workers. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Trade, tried over and over to work with Republican leaders, but their overtures were rejected because Republican leaders wanted a political issue, not a bipartisan bill. And when the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) wrote a Democratic substitute, Republican leaders refused to even let the House vote on it. Thus, Mr. Speaker, did Republican leaders drive a stake into any hope of bipartisanship on trade. Indeed, there should be no doubt about how we got to this point. Republican political gamesmanship has put Fast Track trade authority in jeopardy. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve better. Reject this rule and force Republican leaders to sit down and work with Democrats. That is the only way Fast Track will ever get the broad bipartisan support it needs, and it is the only way we will ever achieve fair and free trade that benefits American workers.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, halfway around the world, the men and women of the U.S. military are demonstrating unmatched courage and professionalism in the fight against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Their successes on the battlefield are a tribute to them and their families and to America's longstanding commitment to a strong national defense. Meanwhile, here at home, domestic security has become our top priority, and Democrats and Republicans alike are united in our efforts to prevent and defend against further terrorist attacks. This bill provides a good foundation for supporting these efforts. In my 23 years of service in this Congress, I have always been a strong supporter of America's national and domestic security. I strongly support the funding in this bill to provide for our Armed Forces. I have consistently supported funding for our troops, for without them, we cannot fight. I have consistently supported modernizing and upgrading our equipment, for without it, our military cannot carry out its mission. I support the programs and funds in this year's appropriations for the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill does not go far enough, because the Republican leadership in this House has refused to make the investment needed to support the war abroad fully and to protect America at home fully. Last night in the Committee on Rules, the Republican leadership reported a rule that will not allow the House to even debate three important and relevant amendments. The first one is critical to ensuring that our troops now fighting in Afghanistan have the equipment they need to carry out their mission and to ensure the safety of their loved ones and, indeed, all Americans at home. In the case of the second amendment, the Republican leadership refused to allow the House of Representatives to even debate an amendment which would have fulfilled the bargain made with the city of New York to help rebuild that wounded city after the terrorist attacks of September 11. Finally, the Republican leadership refused to allow the House to consider an amendment which would have provided critically needed funds to shore up our homeland defenses; to make sure our mail, as well as the men and women who carry it, is safe; to protect patrols on our borders; and to make sure the that ships, trains, and airplanes entering our country do not carry more danger than cargo or passengers. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, for the first time since I came to Congress, I will oppose a rule on a Department of Defense appropriation bill. It is unconscionable that the Republican leadership in this House should cut off the ability of Members of this body to debate and vote on amendments which are clearly critical to the safety and well-being of every American, whether at home or fighting abroad. Just last month, Republican leaders insisted on spending $25 billion on retroactive tax breaks for some of the largest corporations in this country, but now they cannot find half that amount for homeland security or national defense. So they are shortchanging some of America's most pressing needs in the war on terrorism. Take national defense. This bill does not fund 70 percent of the critical needs identified by the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies in the wake of September 11. While America's Marines are on the ground in Afghanistan, Republican budget officials have tried to slash $817 million from the Defense Department's request for small arms ammunition for the Marine Corps and the Army. While U.S. Special Forces work to hunt down Osama bin Laden, these same Republican budgeters have tried to cut $1 billion from the Defense Department's request for Special Forces. That is why I offered an amendment to the rule last night to allow the House to debate an amendment providing an additional $6.5 billion for the military's most critical needs, like intelligence, special forces and defense against chemical and biological warfare. This amendment, which is identical to the amendment offered in the Committee on Appropriations markup by the Subcommittee on Defense ranking member, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), was rejected on a straight party-line vote. The Republicans on the Committee on Rules, each and every one of them, voted against allowing the House to even consider an amendment which would provide crucial critically needed money to carry out the operations in the war against terrorism. Or, Mr. Speaker, consider the assistance pledged and promised to New York City after the attacks of September 11. Immediately after that tragedy, the people of New York as well as the other States affected by the tragedy were promised half of the $40 billion down payment passed by this Congress. But the Republican leadership has chosen to shortchange the City of New York and only provide a portion of the amount of the money needed to help that great city continue its recovery process. A bipartisan amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) that would have delivered on the promise made to New York was rejected by the Republican leadership in favor of an amendment which will not only shortchange New York but every other State in the country by literally lifting money out of their pockets. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let us consider homeland security. Just this week, Tom Ridge, the Director of the Office of Homeland Security spoke to the House, spoke to the New York Times about the billions of dollars America needs to strengthen our homeland defense systems. We need to be stronger, Mr. Ridge said. We need to be larger. We need to be better. We all know he is right. We need massive investments in priorities like small pox vaccinations and emergency personnel. Food and water supply safety must be improved and law enforcement agencies, from the FBI to the border patrol to State and local police, need more resources to respond to added responsibilities of America's new war on terrorism at home. At the same time that Tom Ridge has been warning that our homeland defenses are not up to snuff right now, other administration officials have repeatedly warned the public that future terrorist attacks are possible if not reasonable to expect. Yet, the Republican leadership in this House insists that Americans can afford to wait 6 months before making the homeland security investments that everyone knows we need right now. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, has offered an amendment that provides $6.5 billion for these and other critical homeland security needs not addressed by this bill. But the Republican leadership has refused to allow us to even debate the amendment, much less vote on it. So, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has given me little choice on this rule. In fact, their actions make my decision very easy. If Members believe that these priorities, bioterrorism, nuclear non- proliferation, ammunition for the Marines on the ground in Afghanistan, are not immediate needs in the war on terrorism, then they should vote for this rule. But they should also be ready to explain to their constituents why our troops in America's homeland security can afford to wait 6 months or more for what they need right now. Or if Members believe it is our duty to act now to provide resources to defend America at home as well as abroad, then I believe those Members should vote to defeat this rule and force the Republican leadership to allow the House to vote on our amendments, to increase homeland security and national defense. I urge every Member of this body to vote to defeat this rule so the House might have an opportunity to live up to its responsibilities as an institution and as representatives of the American people. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). (Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I guess George Orwell has taken up residence on the other side of the aisle, the famous author who defined words by changing their meaning. Black was white, day was night, open is closed, closed is open. They keep saying they have an open rule. Their open rule prohibits the gentleman from Wisconsin, the ranking member of the committee, from offering an amendment to increase the amount for homeland security. Their open rule prohibits the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) from offering an amendment to increase the amount of spending for defense. Their open rule prohibits a bipartisan group of New Yorkers from offering an amendment to honor the President's original commitment of amount of money for New York. Open is closed, closed is open. The world stands on its head. This rule is a sham. They know it. We know it. The American people know it. Everyone supports the money for national defense. All we are asking for is the opportunity to provide additional resources right now for homeland security, additional resources right now for New York. I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) in whose district the attack on the World Trade Center occurred. (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, this conference report is a tremendous victory for the American people. It is a comprehensive airline security bill that will put more federal air marshals on airplanes, strengthen cockpit doors and require that all baggage is screened. But the most important fact of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that it puts the federal government in charge of aviation security. On September 11th, all of us were made painfully aware that aviation security is a federal law enforcement responsibility. So this legislation replaces the failed current system--lowest-bidder private security contractors--with federal law enforcement professionals at airports. That, as much as anything, will go a long way toward restoring public confidence in airline safety and in America's economy. A lot of people--Democrats, Republicans and Independents--have asked why this desperately needed reform took so long. All of us agreed on a comprehensive approach to airline security long ago. But for the life of me, I cannot explain why a few Republican leaders spent the past two months fighting against federal law enforcement professionals at America's airports. The bipartisan members of the conference committee deserve enormous credit for defying those few Republican leaders, and for insisting that airport security become a federal law enforcement responsibility. Finally, the Congress is giving the American people what they deserve--a real, comprehensive airline security bill.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would further ask the gentleman, when we return on the 27th, will there be suspension bills that day?

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

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) when he would anticipate our first vote would be when we return.

Mr. FROST

Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 292) and I ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration in the House.