Max Sandlin

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 2035, the Identity Theft and Financial Privacy Act. As Congress begins the process of reauthorizing various provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act FCRA, I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting measures that help protect people from the growing problem of identity theft. Consumers' private financial information should be carefully guarded, and Congress must act promptly to ensure that credit bureaus provide individuals with updated, accurate information about their credit reports. H.R. 2035 is an important first step in Congress's efforts to prevent identity theft. By requiring consumer reporting agencies to provide free credit reports annually upon the request of a consumer, this legislation will allow individuals to detect identity theft at an early stage, before their credit reports are permanently damaged. Such reports can be the determining factor behind financial institutions' decisions to extend credit for the purchase of homes and durable goods such as cars and home appliances. Credit reports damaged by stolen identity and fraud can prevent hard working individuals and families from building better lives and attaining the desirable goals of home ownership and financial security. To that end, I am pleased that H.R. 2035 includes a provision that would require credit card issuers to confirm change of address requests if such a request is received within 30 days of a request for an additional card, and would amend the FCRA to require consumer reporting agencies to notify requesters of potential fraud when the request includes an address for the consumer that is substantially different from the most recent address on file with the consumer reporting agency. Finally, by requiring the truncation of credit card numbers on printed receipts, H.R. 2035 will curtail a common method by which identity theft so often occurs. In many instances, criminals have easy access to individuals' credit card numbers simply by viewing those numbers on printed receipts. In 2001, 73 percent of American households had at least one credit card, making a large segment of the country vulnerable to having their financial information stolen. This legislation will thwart a significant number of would-be identity thieves by blocking most of the numbers in a person's credit card account, thereby preserving and protecting sensitive, private financial information for the vast majority of the public. Congress has a responsibility to help the American people, and our national economy, prosper. Strengthening financial privacy laws and preventing identity theft will help to achieve these goals, and I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting the Identity Theft and Financial Privacy Act.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, it is the old bait and switch. The Republican leadership has used smoke and mirrors to trick seniors into thinking they are getting a Medicare prescription drug plan when in reality they are forcing them to seek medication from private insurance companies, not Medicare. Mr. Speaker, this is not an entitlement Medicare plan for seniors. All this is is an entitlement to ask to be able to make an offer, to make a purchase from a reluctant, profit-seeking insurance company who may or may not accept that offer. Importantly, not a single insurance company in the United States of America has volunteered or agreed to take part in this program, not one, nada, zip, zilch. This plan is nothing more than a mere vapor. What has history shown us about what happens when private insurance companies get involved in Medicare? Medicare+Choice, the great managed care experiment on our Nation's seniors, should have been named Medicare Minus Choice. After all, it has been a total disaster for seniors. Between 1998 and 2003 the number of Medicare+Choice plans dropped by more than half. In my home State of Texas, 313,000 Medicare+Choice seniors have been dropped by insurance companies just since 1999. Question: Who sets the price of the drugs in the Republican insurance company plan? The Republican insurance company plan allows HMOs and pharmaceutical companies to determine how much to charge and what coverage to offer. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a vote, what do my colleagues think the insurance companies will choose, more coverage or less coverage? What will the pharmaceutical companies charge, more money or less money? The answer is clear. The other day the President said, ``When the government determines which drugs are covered and which illnesses are treated, patients face delays and inflexible limits on coverage.'' And yet the Republican private insurance company bill wants to turn over these decisions to an insurance company who has financial interest in denying coverage. The more insurance companies deny, the more money they keep. Now, is that not special?

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, on June 24 of last year,President Bush stated that the Palestinians must develop a new leadership not tainted by support for terror. The new leadership must be committed to peace with Israel and to destroying the terrorist infrastructure. Only then would the United States consider recognition of a Palestinian state. Israel is fulfilling its commitment by dismantling unauthorized outposts, releasing Palestinian prisoners, allowing Palestinians to work in Israel, and releasing funds out of the treasury. They cannot be expected to give up counterterror measures so long as Palestinians fail to comply with their road map obligation to stop terror. Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to self-defense. As long as Palestinian leaders do not aggressively go after the terrorist infrastructure, the Israeli government has the responsibility to protect its citizens against further terrorist attacks. Merely negotiating a cease-fire is not enough. Terrorism must end. Peace demands it. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my firm commitment to the safety and security of Israel and the Israeli people. One year ago, President Bush called upon the Palestinian people to put in place leadership not tainted by support for terrorism. Terrorism is the great scourge of our age, and there is little doubt that it represents an insurmountable threat to peace throughout the world, but most particularly in Israel and in the Middle East. In order for peace to be realized, terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad must be contained. The Palestinian leadership--with support from the rest of the Arab world--must take a firm stand against the blight of violence and death that terrorists spread wherever they commit their atrocities. The destruction of the terrorist infrastructure that threatens innocent Israelis everyday is a necessary precondition to the success of the peace process and the recognition of a Palestinian state. While I am encouraged that the Bush administration appears to be re- engaged in the peace process, the fact that 22 innocent Israelis have been killed and many more injured in a serious of suicide bombings since the summit in Aqaba, Jordan, demonstrates clearly the difficult and treacherous road to peace that lies ahead. The sad fact is that we as a nation have too often overlooked or considered route the terror that daily threatens the peace and security of Israel. So, I ask you to consider a situation that would be better understood in our country. Think about a shopping mall or a busy street in New York, Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago or New Orleans; and think about the people who might be on the bus on their way to school or to work; people going about their daily business, shopping for groceries or picking up that last-minute necessity. Now imagine that someone came along with a bomb in one of those cities, or right here in Washington, DC, and created an explosion that killed 7 or 70 or 700 in one fiery blast. What would the response be in America? We would call out the Army, the Navy, the Marines, the FBI, the police, every agency that could retaliate, whether to capture or kill the responsible person and the leaders of an organization that would seduce a young person to sacrifice his or her life for such a heinous purpose. Yet, when Israel responded to the murder of 17 innocent Israelis by launching an attack on the leadership of Hamas, the Bush administration criticized the attack as heavy-handed and an unnecessary complication to the peace process. We would not stand by five minutes and accept such attacks on American civilians. And we should not expect Israel to stand by five minutes and accept it either. We cannot look at the violence on both sides as though it is comparable. It simply is not the same. Israel's attacks are always in retaliation for violence that radical terrorists--murderers or killers, to use the President's terms--have brought down upon them. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, among others, delight in taking responsibility for a suicide bomber who walks into a cafe or disco and takes 8, 10, 20 or more innocent lives. Like every other sovereign nation, Israel has the right to defend itself against the cowardly acts of terrorists. The United States must not be caught in the trap of thinking of Israel's response to terrorism on its soil as the equivalent of the terrorism itself. There is no doubting the difference. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution expressing our solidarity with Israel. Just as we have when the terrorist attacks were on our soil or against our national interests, we must roundly condemn the acts of terrorists in Israel, and we must continue to exert pressure on Palestinian Prime Minister Abu Mazen to use very resource at his disposal, including force, to root out terrorism and remove it as an obstacle to peace. Moreover, we must be unwavering in our support for Israel's right to defend and secure herself against such senseless violence. If the peace process is to succeed, rather than criticizing Israel for its efforts to combat terrorism, we must offer our full support and take whatever action is necessary to ensure that Israel is free from the scourge of terrorism. Only then will the Israeli and Palestinian people realize the promise of peace embodied in the ``road map.'' I have no doubt that the Israeli and Palestinian people can live side-by-side in peace and prosperity, as so many do even today throughout Israel. Yet that goal will likely never be realized unless and until terrorist organizations like Hamas, Hizbollah, Islamic Jihad, and others are removed from the equation. Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of the House to express their full support for Israel and their continuing commitment to the eradication of terrorism wherever it rears it violent and ugly head and to vote for this important demonstration of our commitment to peace.

Mr. SANDLIN

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

Mr. SANDLIN. I am just asking if the gentleman would yield. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SANDLIN. I do not want the gentleman's time.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield at this point?

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the gentleman, if that has been misquoted, I would like the gentleman, number one, to read the entire quote, because the gentleman will see that, in fact, he did say that it should wither on the vine; and possibly the gentleman could comment on Senator Santorum's comment that we should phase out traditional Medicare. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) who is both a good personal friend of mine and a political friend of mine, and I want to thank him for 7 years of political leadership in addition to his practical leadership due to the fact that he is a pharmacist and speaks with a great deal of authority on these issues. Mr. Speaker, in looking at this bill it is clear, it is the old bait and switch. I rise today to join the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) and my colleagues in speaking to the Republican House leadership abandonment of rural America by crafting a sham prescription drug benefit. Because at the end of the day, it is no plan at all. What a cruel joke on America's seniors. As the United States Representative of rural east Texas, I am gratified to have an opportunity on the Committee on Ways and Means to be a voice for my constituents at home. The seniors in my district have told me clearly that they need real relief for their soaring medical expenses; and yet once again this year the majority leadership in Congress has rejected its responsibility to deliver a true prescription drug benefit to our parents and grandparents and friends at home. Just like last year, the Republican majority has delivered an alleged prescription drug plan which favors profits over people, insurance companies over seniors, HMOs over American families. Today I want to talk about choices and who is choosing what. Our Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives love to say that they are giving our parents and grandparents and friends choices for their prescription drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, that is simply not true. They also have stated that if our seniors and disabled folks want prescription drug coverage, then they have to look to HMOs and private insurance companies, not Medicare for help. That is the choice they have, and what kind of choice is that? It is clear, it is absolutely no choice at all. Now anyone who lives in rural areas knows that this little rule is anything but a choice. Rural areas have been flat out abandoned by private insurance companies. We know this, Medicare+Choice, the great managed care experiment in our Nation's seniors, should have been named ``Medicare Minus Choice.'' It has been a disaster. Just look at the facts. Between 1998 and 2003, the number of Medicare+Choice plans dropped by more than half. In the great State of Texas, over 313,000 Medicare+Choice enrollees have been dropped just since 1999, 313,000 people in my State. Further, this is occurring all over the country. The 10 States, including the District of Columbia with the highest percentage of their enrollees dropped in any 1 year from 1998 to 2003 were South Dakota, the Mount Rushmore State, 99 percent; Delaware, the First State, 95 percent; Arkansas, the Land of Opportunity, 90 percent; New Hampshire, 85 percent; Maine, 82 percent; Maryland, 79 percent; Utah, 76 percent; District of Columbia, 71 percent; Kansas, 54 percent of the people dropped; Connecticut, 52 percent of the people dropped. It goes on and on. Mr. Speaker, over 80 percent of rural Medicare beneficiaries today live in an area that private insurance companies have made a choice, that is the choice, they have made a choice not to serve. Now please note, this is not an entitlement program. This is not entitlement as we know it under Medicare. You have no guarantee. This is this kind of an entitlement, it is an entitlement to ask to be able to make an offer to purchase a plan from a reluctant, profit-seeking insurance company that may or may not accept your offer. By the way, it is very important to note this: not a single insurance company in the United States of America has agreed to take part in this program. Let me say that again. Not one single insurance company in the United States of America has agreed to take part in this plan anywhere in America. That is a fact. Furthermore, even if they do decide to participate at some time in the future because they think they can make big profits, under this latest Republican drug proposal, if the private drug plan or insurance company decides rural America is not lucrative enough for their company, they can withdraw every 12 months. So much for our seniors having the choice of continuity of care. Knowing this, how can we approve a plan that does not even have a fall-back option of traditional Medicare providing drug coverage if private care pulls out? How is that a fair choice for the 9.3 million seniors and disabled folks that live in America? What kind of choice is that? Let us be clear, this legislation does not and this legislation cannot require insurance companies to offer prescription drug plans in rural America, and they will not. They have not and they will not. If we are going to talk about the choice of being fair, we are going to have to talk about prices. Under this bill, the HMOs and pharmaceutical companies are given the express choice, there is that word again, they are given the choice to determine how much to charge and what prescription drugs to offer seniors and the disabled. Mr. Speaker, what do you think they are going to choose: high prices or low prices? More coverage or will they choose less coverage? Mr. Speaker, the answer is clear, it is profits over people. That is their choice. Yesterday the President said, ``When the government determines which drugs are covered and which illnesses are treated, patients face delays and inflexible limits on coverage.'' Yet now he wants to turn over those very decisions to insurance companies who have a financial interest, who have a financial gain to make in denying coverage to America's seniors. They make more money, the more seniors they deny, the more money they make and the circle goes on and on. That is not a good choice. We have an opportunity to deliver a true prescription drug plan to our seniors this week, and to do so Congress must come together and choose to soundly reject this Republican albatross, this madness. If we shine a light on this, we can see the many problems with this sham prescription drug proposal. It does not provide a guaranteed, defined set of costs and benefits; it does nothing to reduce the high price Medicare beneficiaries are forced to pay for their prescription drugs. For seniors it is simply high on cost and low on benefits with a gap in coverage so large that our seniors would forget they have a drug benefit if they were not still writing a monthly check for the premium while they were not getting any benefits. Still paying a premium, not getting any coverage. That is not a nice choice. Our Republican colleagues say we do not have enough money to give a better prescription drug benefit. Mr. Speaker, that, too, is just a bad choice they have made, to enact $1.7 trillion in tax cuts. While we are paying $1 billion a day in interest for the wealthy rather than serve our Nation's seniors is an outrageous and true reflection of their priorities. It shows you where their heart is. You can get lost in the details, but the result is clear. This is a terrible piece of legislation. Let us forget the gimmicks, it is time to deliver a real drug plan to our Nation's seniors. All they want is an affordable drug benefit with a reasonable premium cost that is defined and meaningful benefits, and that means a benefit without a $3,000 gap in coverage. They just want a benefit that is available to all seniors regardless of whether they live in Texas or California or New York City. The Republican plan is just a shameless smoke and mirrors scheme. Let us reject this tired bait and switch scam. We know the end game, do we not? Everybody in here does. Former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Medicare should wither on the vine, and recently our Republican colleague in the other body, Senator Santorum, said traditional Medicare should be phased out. That is the goal. That is the object. That is the plan. Let me read something I did not say, something the Republicans did not say, something the Democrats did not say. This is in Newsday June 23, 2003. ``The House proposal would replace Medicare's guaranteed coverage with a guarantee only that the elderly would get a sum of money to buy whatever kind of benefits at whatever price private insurers chose to offer. Those who want traditional fee for service Medicare would be forced to pay higher premiums. So at least now we know the drug plan, skimpy and fraught with uncertainties, is merely a cover for achieving former House Speaker Newt Gingrich's dream of forcing Medicare to wither on the vine.'' Newsday. That is the plan. This ill-conceived and inadequate plan is not an attempt to provide drug coverage to seniors. It is an attempt to set up the very destruction of Medicare and place HMOs and insurance companies in the catbird seat. It is as simple as that. We all know that. Now Congress has to make a choice. Seniors and healthcare, HMOs and profits, privatization or Medicare. Mr. Speaker, it is our choice to make. Whom do we stand for? Whom do we stand for in the United States Congress?

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, what are the Republicans trying to hide with H.R. 1115? Who are they are trying to protect? Do the names WorldCom, Enron and Arthur Andersen strike a familiar note? Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are jumping up and down like rodeo dogs trying to claim that they are interested in protecting individuals. Now, is that not a fine kettle of fish? They must mean individuals like Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Bernie Ebbers and the CEOs of corporate wrongdoers who enrich themselves at the expense of American families and pensioners. Oh, now, I understand. Those are the individuals who we are protecting. Mr. Chairman, these CEOs do not need further protections. They have the fifth amendment and they use it all the time. Individual groups, the real individual groups such as the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, CWA, MALDEF, National Education Association, National Women's Health Network, SEIU, United Church of Christ, NAACP, true individuals oppose this legislation. They are the ones that need protections. Mr. Chairman, who knows more about the judicial system than the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court? He is opposed. How about the Judicial Conference of the United States? Opposed. How about ten attorney generals who gave a statement just yesterday? Opposed. Federal courts? Opposed. State courts? Opposed. And I find it interesting that the Republicans have now adopted the Washington Post as their spokesman. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will see their Washington Post and raise them the Augusta Journal. I will raise them the Columbus Dispatch. I will raise them the Wilmington, North Carolina Star News. I will raise them the Salt Lake City Tribune. I will raise them the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. The list goes on and on. And why, oh why, did our Republican friends make this retroactive? We do not do that. Who are they trying to protect? The individuals they are claiming to be interested in? Give me a break, Mr. Chairman. Do the Republicans actually believe anyone in America will believe that the Republicans are standing up for individuals against corporate wrongdoers? And the automatic appeal? That gives Enron some extra years to destroy evidence. That is why they want that. Make no mistake about it. Thus far it is Enron, for; the American Cancer Society, opposed. Worldcom says yes; the National Education Association, the teachers, they say no. Arthur Andersen, good; United Church of Christ and NAACP, bad. This act should be called exactly what it is: the Corporate Wrongdoer Past, Present and Future Protection Act; and, by the way, do not forget to send the money. Let us shred up this document. Let us shred up this piece of legislation just like the documents that the corporate wrongdoers love to destroy. That would be true justice. That is what ought to happen to this legislation. It is improper. It is unconstitutional. Our friends on the other side know it, and the judicial system of the United States has said this should be opposed.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard some very charming stories about this amendment, but how about a little truth in advertising. The Sensenbrenner amendment that we are considering today is not Feinstein. While it is true that a rose by any other name is still a rose, calling a dandelion a rose do not make it so. Yet that is precisely the hoax that is being perpetrated by the Sensenbrenner amendment. In a desperate attempt to make H.R. 1115 appear moderate, trying to hide that it is really a radical expansion of Federal authority and away from the States, the proponents of the Sensenbrenner amendment want the House to believe that adopting this amendment makes H.R. 1115 the same proposal advanced by Senator Feinstein last month in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Chairman, that is just not so. The Feinstein amendment was only about class actions, period. That is it. It was not meant to apply, nor does it apply, to mass tort cases, consolidated cases, joinder cases or State Attorney General actions; and as my friends on the other side of the aisle are so prone to say, why do they not read their own darn amendment. Let us get real on this. Here is what the proponents of the Sensenbrenner amendment will not tell my colleagues and do not want us to know: In the Senate, committee passage of the bill, including adoption of the Feinstein amendment, was tied to the passage of another amendment, the Feinstein-Specter amendment that narrowed the scope of the bill so that it applied only to class action. Now Sensenbrenner is more extreme in other ways, of course. That is what we are about here, extremist policy. There are three very important ways that it is more extreme. Feinstein does not apply to joinder or consolidated cases or attorney general actions. Sensenbrenner does. Feinstein does not apply retroactively to pending cases such as ongoing actions against Enron and WorldCom. Sensenbrenner does. We know who they are protecting. We know what they are doing. Feinstein does not allow defendants to remove cases into a Federal settlement and give those same defendants the right to delay proceedings, appeal intelocutory orders, and stay discovery. Sensenbrenner does. It is time to tell the truth about the Sensenbrenner amendment. We know what it does. We know what it says. We know who it protects. We have read the thing. In closing, I have brought a chart to explain this amendment. If my colleagues can understand it, they are wasting their time in the House. They should be confirmed as the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court if they can go over the Sensenbrenner amendment and the Feinstein wording and make any sense whatsoever of it. It is poorly drafted, it does not have definitions, it does not allow one to remain in Federal court or State court. It bumps a person back and forth on a jurisdictional merry-go-round that never ends, that protects corporate wrongdoers. It is bad for America.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), mentioned earlier that we need fair, across-the-board reform in the area of class action. I agree with that; it needs to be fair, reasonable and workable. That is what we should pursue. In typical fashion, our friends have cited isolated cases over a number of years that they say cry out for reform. However, they forgot to mention the case in Georgia at the Tri-State Crematory where they had been foregoing cremations for bodies received from funeral homes. Instead, they passed off wood chips and other substances as ashes. They forgot to mention the Ohio case wherein an Ohio neighborhood was filled with noxious gases when an 8,500-gallon resin kettle exploded at a Georgia Pacific plant. An employee was killed, 13 were injured, and 15 houses near the plant were evacuated. They forgot to mention the Foodmaker case which we heard earlier where the parent company of Jack- in-the-Box agreed to pay $14 million in a class action settlement in the State of Washington. That class included 500 people, mostly children, who became sick in early 1993 after eating undercooked hamburgers tainted with E coli. They forgot to mention the Indiana case, TRG Marketing LLC, who sold fraudulent health insurance policies to more than 5,000 Floridians who were left with several million dollars in unpaid medical bills. As you might imagine, we could go on day after day, case by case, a tit for tat, going forward and comparing our cases. But let us look at reasonable reform that protects business and consumers, that respects State law, that can be supported by both sides of the aisle. The Democratic alternative, importantly, is reasonable and, more importantly, it is not retroactive. If we change the law, let us do it properly. Let us do it from this point forward. There is no reason to pass a law that is retroactive. The Democratic alternative is not retroactive. The Democratic alternative does not contain compulsory appeal requirements to ultimately delay justice by years. Certainly the appeal is permissible. The appeal is available, just like it is in the law now. The Democratic alternative does not cede jurisdiction to the Federal courts. It says that we respect the State courts. The State courts are the ones where these cases were originally filed. Class actions were originally founded in State court. Even when you go to Federal court, there is a requirement of the use and interpretation of State law. The Democratic substitute respects the sovereignty of State courts. The Democratic alternative provides substantial protection to consumers and other class action plaintiffs that could result in settlements; and we want to make sure that the settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate to address the injuries of the parties and their claims. The Democratic alternative provides specific, reasonable reforms to address concerns about so-called magnet State adjudication of multistate class actions. This act does not preempt State attorney general mass tort cases as we mentioned earlier. We also have protection on fees to make sure that they are reviewed by the courts to make sure that they are fair and reasonable. Any coupon settlements that we have heard all about today, which I notice that the Republicans did not ban, but any coupon settlements can be examined by a court and expert testimony can be received on the actual value of the settlement. Attorneys' fees under our bill would be determined and measured by the amount of the actual noncash benefit redeemed, not what was awarded, to make sure that that is fair and equitable. Additional requirements on settlements. The courts can only approve the settlement of a class action if it determines the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate, and it applies to only the claims that are currently before the court. We protect the integrity of the courts, we say that the primary authority should be in the State courts, we prohibit the destruction of documents. As I mentioned on interlocutory appeals, they are permissible, not mandatory. We create, much as the Federal courts have, a State multicourt litigation panel to operate as a panel in the States just as we do in the Federal. If we have a concern about Federal versus State and not having a panel, our legislation takes care of that. We have an establishment of procedure for transferring actions to Federal court, but it puts the discretion within the State courts. It says the State courts know best how to interpret State law for their State citizens. Also, importantly, we have a best practices study. Let us let the National Center for State Courts conduct a study to identify problems that arise in the litigation of State class actions. Let us get them to recommend things to us that will cause us to pause and to make corrections. Let us let them report to Congress about problems that they see and potential corrections. It just boils down to this: Do you want the States to decide or the Federal Government to decide? State courts, Federal courts. We feel like that our substitute and the summary that I have just gone on is a reasonable, fair way to address the problems. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I think it is important that the other side read the Federal rules and be familiar with Federal procedure. If they would look on page 8, first paragraph, where it says: ``No pending class action may be consolidated without the approval of the State court judge handling the pending action.'' That is consistent and completely accurate with Federal practice as it currently exists. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, we are calling today on Secretary Ridge to uncover the cover-up. What have you got to hide? On May 11, 2003, Mr. Speaker, a number of Democratic members of the Texas House of Representatives absented themselves from the floor of the State House in Austin, Texas, in a proper procedural move to defeat a quorum in that body. Subsequently, on that same date, the Speaker of the Texas House of Representatives, Tom Craddick, ordered the Texas Department of Public Safety, the troopers, to locate the absent legislators and return them to the capitol. The DPS thereupon took steps to locate the lawmakers and contacted the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, charged with defeating terrorism, and asked for Federal assistance. They have now had to admit and acknowledge that they contacted the Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center, a department within DHS, seeking information; and they acknowledge they used Federal resources to respond to this request in spite of the fact that it is a State political matter. In fact, in violation of the law, a criminal tracking system was used. The Department of Homeland Security has now admitted that the department has in its possession certain audiotapes, transcripts, and other documents concerning its contacts with Texas DPS officials. In spite of this admission, the department has failed and refused and still fails and refuses to release this information. Disturbingly, Mr. Speaker, now the Secretary of Homeland Defense has admitted that there is an ongoing criminal investigation into this matter. But it only gets worse. Now we learn the FBI has been involved. Initially the FBI denied involvement. Now they have admitted otherwise. On May 13, the Houston Chronicle reported, ``Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the FBI indicated those agencies likely would have no reason to assist the State officers in apprehending the Democrats.'' On that same date, ``A Justice spokesman said Tuesday he knew of no role for the department.'' Later on that date, ``FBI spokesman Bill Carter said he was unaware of any request for that agency to assist. `I don't know of any authority that would allow us to even contemplate getting involved.' '' But, Mr. Speaker, the story begins to change. A couple of days later, on June 5, the FBI denied participation but they did not know what was about to come out, because State Representative Juan Manuel Escobar reported he got a cellular phone call from Corpus Christi-based FBI Special Agent David Troutman asking whether State Representative Gabi Canales was with him. ``The FBI was conducting no surveillance at all,'' said Special Agent Bob Doguim. But listen. He said, ``I'm not saying no call took place.'' Later they said, ``An FBI spokesman said agency action was nothing really uncommon.'' Dallas Morning News, June 6. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we learned that phone records for Deputy Attorney General Jay Kimbrough show a 5 minute 16 second phone call at 4:24 p.m. May 12 to an Ardmore, Oklahoma, FBI office. That is after State officials learned that the Federal Aviation Administration had tracked the plane of one of the missing lawmakers. A half hour later the records show a return phone call, 2 minutes 16 seconds, from the FBI office to Mr. Kimbrough. Mr. Kimbrough is head of Homeland Security in Texas. After the FBI saying they had nothing to do with it, now we have got the phone records. Now we are getting to the truth. Additionally, at the State level, on May 14, the Texas DPS ordered the destruction of all notes, photos, correspondence and other records relating to the members of the House of Representatives and the order specifically contained the words ``retain no copies.'' In brief, it is our position that any effort to use Federal law enforcement or Homeland Security resources to participate in a State political matter is improper and illegal. Further, the destruction of records by DPS, which limits the ability to determine the extent of Federal involvement, coupled with the refusal by the Department of Homeland Security and Tom Ridge to produce its records, are matters of great concern. Mr. Ridge, stop the cover-up. Release the information. We want full and complete audiotapes of all conversation, full and complete copies of all communications, tapes, videotapes, recordings, letters, notes, documents, schedules, summaries, indices, written records of every sort, full and complete copies of all communications, full and complete original files, full and complete records of telephone calls and contacts, full and complete records of any and all persons, Federal officials, State officials, law enforcement personnel, agencies or entities that have contacted or been contacted by Homeland Security. Mr. Ridge should be advised further that the U.S. Congress may request the production of additional information as a result of his testimony. We will expect him to acknowledge under oath that no records have been altered, deleted, destroyed, redacted or otherwise withheld in whole or in part. It is critical that we request a subpoena and a subpoena duces tecum be issued forthwith and this information be brought before the United States Congress. The Department of Public Safety destroyed records. Homeland Security has admitted to possessing and withholding audiotapes and other information. They have now admitted that a criminal investigation is ongoing. The FBI claimed to be not involved in any way. Now we learn of telephone calls to and from the FBI. Mr. Speaker, is this just what we might call another third-rate burglary? Mr. Ridge, stop the cover-up. Release the information. Come clean with the United States Congress and the American public.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, unlike many of my colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means, I only knew Al Davis well for a brief period of time, although now I am in my fourth term. I had previously met Al, but I recently became a member of the committee. It did not take me long to learn that Al was an invaluable resource to all of us. Al's mastery of economics, his vast institutional knowledge and patient demeanor, combined with the rare ability to simplify and explain complex data, helped ease my transition and the transition of many others to the committee. It served committee Democrats well during crucial tax debates. As several poignant columns have pointed out this past week, including these that have been referred to in The Washington Post and in Tax Notes, Al worked tirelessly to shed light on the ways in which data and statistics can be and often are manipulated and misrepresented to serve narrow purposes. At the same time, Al was proudly partisan and used his extensive knowledge to influence public debate on economic and fiscal policy. Whether one agreed or disagreed with Al, everyone who was familiar with him acknowledged the accuracy of his data and the sincerity of his motives. He never stopped fighting for economic justice, and he was especially passionate in his criticisms of the increasing inequities in the Tax Code. He clearly stood for the working men and the working women of this country. His charts, graphs, spreadsheets and memos were highly regarded on the Hill and among fiscal and budget policy experts, and his research and presence will be greatly missed. As many speakers here today are aware, Al's office space was a study in controlled chaos. I met with Al in his office shortly after I joined the committee in January, and I was impressed with both the volume of material in his office and the fact that he was able to quickly locate seemingly obscure information with very little effort. As committee members and staff know, Al typically carried much of this material with him at all times, carried it with him to the floor; and he always had relevant information handy. During our heated debates, he was a constantly reassuring sight to all of us on this side of the aisle and could always be counted on to clearly and concisely refute arguments on fiscal and budget policy made by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Simply put, Al is irreplaceable, a reality check for both Republicans and Democrats; and his friends and colleagues will feel his loss for years to come. Al's friend and a friend to the committee, Janice Mays, is the Democratic staff director and Al's most recent boss. On the issue of going forward from this point, she recently said, ``Al would want us to keep fighting. He would not want us to stop just because he is not one of the troops anymore.'' There could be no better memorial than that; and Mr. Speaker, there could be no better compliment.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, to quote a popular Republican President, ``There you go again.'' With no apparent sense of irony, the Republican leadership scrambled to complete an irresponsible, unaffordable tax package during the same week that the other body will consider a $984 billion increase in the public debt, the largest in American history. The House leadership pushed a massive increase of $450 billion in the debt limit not even 1 year ago; and here they go again, with a debt limit increase that is more than double the size of last year's record increase. We have about $7 trillion in debt. We pay over $1 billion a day in interest in this country, and it is outrageous. The Democratic motion to instruct conferees attempts to restore at least some sanity to Congress' fiscal mismanagement of the country by insisting that the tax reconciliation conference report should increase neither the debt nor the deficit in this country. Further, Mr. Speaker, the Democratic motion to instruct recognizes the necessity of relief to our States. Under the Senate tax bill, Texas would receive approximately $1 billion in fiscal relief, including $571.4 million in increased Medicaid funding. This is especially necessary at a time when the Texas House approved a budget that would slash Medicaid and eliminate coverage under CHIP for 250,000 low-income children. If the passage of an irresponsible tax cut is inevitable, despite the highest projected budget deficits and a record national debt, the very least we could do is aid our States.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, as you know, we are here tonight to discuss a very chilling issue, the intentional destruction of evidence by a government agency and the subsequent stone-walling and coverup by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, as has been discussed here previously, Members of the Texas State Legislature recently properly excused themselves from the floor of the Texas statehouse in order to break a quorum, a proper procedure provided for by the House rules and by the Constitution. This angered partisan Republican interests in Washington, and thereafter the Homeland Security Department, charged with fighting terrorism in this country, used Federal Government assets for political purposes, trying to track the plane of former Democratic Speaker of the House Pete Laney. Embarrassingly, Secretary Tom Ridge and the Department of Homeland Security has now been forced to admit that they have an audiotape and a transcript of communications between Homeland Security and Texas law enforcement; and, despite that admission they were forced to make, the Department of Homeland Security has said they will not release the tape, thus taking part in this improper coverup. This morning, further disturbing news came out of Austin, the State's capital. As I mentioned earlier, there is an admission of communication between Homeland Security and law enforcement in Texas. When the Department of Public Safety learned that inquiries were being made to obtain this information, they went into high gear, presumably at the direction of higher-ups, because, Mr. Speaker, as we were all shocked and dismayed to learn, the information held by the Department of Public Safety was intentionally destroyed, another part of the coverup. Here is the quote from the DPS Commander of Special Crime Service, Tony Marshall, in an e-mail uncovered by the Fort Worth Star Telegram under an open records request. The DPS got caught with this e-mail. ``Any notes, correspondence, photos, et cetera, that were obtained pursuant to the absconded House of Representatives members should be destroyed immediately. No copies are to be kept.'' In an attempt to cover up this coverup, DPS exacerbated the problem with this statement. ``This is why DPS destroyed the records. We are prohibited under the Code of Federal Regulations, 28 CFR part 23, from keeping intelligence information that is not related to criminal conduct or activity,'' and it goes on. There are only two problems with that statement. First, it simply is not true. Nothing in the regulations suggests, demands or requires the destruction of evidence. Secondly, it is improper and in violation of the law to collect this information in the first place. You see, as with most cover-ups, they failed to tell you the whole story, and each new story makes the last story worse, because the truth is the very regulation that the DPS incorrectly cites as the reason to destroy this evidence states that there must be ``a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaged in criminal conduct or activity as a condition precedent to entering this information in the data bank in the first place.'' In other words, to even collect this information, there must be a reasonable allegation that a crime has been committed. This data is for tracking criminals. The regulation specifically mentions crimes such as drug trafficking, loan sharking, trafficking in stolen property, gambling, extortion, smuggling, bribery, corruption. Homeland Security and DPS, in one of their many stories, claimed that they were merely looking for a plane that they thought was missing or may have crashed. Now, of course that is not true either. But missing planes are located through the FAA and law enforcement, not by using criminal databases improperly in violation of the law. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive. Homeland Security, produce the tapes. Homeland Security, produce the transcripts. Department of Public Safety, do the same. We respect DPS in Texas. They are a great agency. We know they were not doing it independently. They were doing it at the direction of others. They were following orders. You know, Sharon Watkins blew the whistle on Enron. Arthur Andersen got caught shredding documents. Cover-ups just do not work. Is this a serious problem, or is it just a third-rate burglary, as we learned about in our history lessons? Mr. Speaker, only time will tell.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Rural Healthcare Access Improvement Act of 2003. Our rural Medicare providers need help. For too long they have suffered the consequences of inadequate Medicare reimbursements that hurt physicians, hurt hospitals and most of all hurt patients. My constituents in East Texas have shared their concerns with me and I know full-well that we don't finally start acting to change this, our Nation's healthcare delivery system and our Nation's fellow citizens will suffer irreparably. Last week Senator Grassley bravely stood up during the Tax bill debate and offered an amendment that would help our rural providers. It passed in an overwhelming bi-partisan vote of 86-12 in the United States Senate. I applaud his efforts and the support from his colleagues in making the unique needs of our rural communities a priority. We should not waste any more time in the House of Representatives in meeting the needs of our rural providers. Today, I offer the Rural Healthcare Access Improvement Act of 2003. This bill, similar in scope to Senator Grassley's amendment offers real opportunities to assist our rural health care providers. As my colleagues know, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services uses a reimbursement formula that favors urban areas over rural areas. This formula is deeply flawed though and fails to allow our providers to even break even on many of their expenses. My legislation will directly assist our hospitals by equalizing Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments, by equalizing urban and rural ``standardized payment'' levels, by assisting Critical Access Hospitals, and by establishing a floor on the geographic adjustments of payments for doctors' services. It will also improve reimbursement for home health services, ground ambulance services and hospital outpatient procedures. We can not wait any longer. Our rural communities are desperately in need of help and we must answer their call.

Mr. SANDLIN

Mr. SANDLIN. I thank the very articulate gentlewoman from Houston. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire about the time remaining.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Houston makes a good point, and it is important to note that these were not people fleeing from a responsibility but people fleeing to exercise and claim a responsibility that they had under the Constitution and under the rules of the House. These are the rules that I read from previously. They were doing what the rules required to make sure that they had an opportunity to represent their constituents. So they were fleeing to responsibility. They were fleeing and taking the hard road. It would be easy to stay. It would be easy to stay and lose the vote and lose rural representation and make sure that children were kicked off of CHIPs and that Medicare had no funding. It would be easy to say we are not going to respect what the voters did in the election. That would be easy to do, to show up and to vote and to get outvoted. But these legislators knew the rules, they knew their responsibilities, they knew how to act; and that is exactly what they did. And they should be commended for their actions. Now, Mr. Speaker, it has worked out. It did exactly what it was intended to do. It stopped a runaway train. It made sure that something that was about to happen that was improper would not happen. It gave time for cooler heads to prevail. And as they left the floor of the House and broke the quorum, now the Governor, the Speaker, the House, the Senate, and others have had an opportunity to get together. They are back in Austin taking care of the people's business, things that are very important. I think it is important as we look at this to see what has driven it. Partisan politics makes people do strange things. The problem with all of this is the very foundation of it is a disrespect of the Constitution, a disrespect of the people, a disrespect of the law and putting politics above all. Let me read in closing, Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans' own witness said about the plan presented for redistricting. This is the expert witness hired by the Republicans to testify in the court proceeding the last time. He testified on behalf of the Republicans and their plan. And when he saw the current plan recently, this is what he said. This is Rice University Professor John Alford, the Republican witness. He referred to the current plan, the attempt being driven down the throat of the Texas public, he called it this: A pro-Republican partisan gerrymander on top of an already pro-Republican existing plan. It is raw politics at its worst. Mr. Speaker, we are asking that the tape, the transcripts be made available, and that transparency be the word of the day in the United States Congress dealing with the issue of redistricting. We congratulate those members at the State House who have been named here tonight for the principled stand they took for their constituents and for the constitution of the State of Texas.

Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the issue of redistricting has been before the Texas public now for several weeks. I think it deserves some attention here tonight. I hope we have several speakers to talk about the issue of redistricting and how it has played out in our State, the confusion it has caused and the public and political high-handedness that has occurred from the power brokers from the Republican Party in Washington. Mr. Speaker, from 1800 on, we have redrawn our congressional lines every 10 years. That is to comply with the requirements of reapportionment. The first House, the U.S. House of Representatives, had 65 Members which reflected the population guidelines set out in the Constitution. Each 10 years thereafter, after the constitutionally mandated census, seats were added to the House to reflect the growing numbers of our population and the numbers set out in the Constitution. By 1910, the numbers in the House had grown to more than 400. At that point, the House decided to cap the Members at 435 Members, which required a different set of criteria for redistricting from that point forward. The census would count the population leading to a formula to divide up the 435 seats among the States to fit the numbers. Then each of the States except those with only one House Member, such as Alaska or North Dakota or South Dakota, the Sunshine State, would redraw the lines to fit population shifts. According to Norman Ornstein, who wrote ``Congress Inside Out'' in Roll Call on Wednesday May 14, ``Frequently the fights in the States over redistricting have been fierce and bloody and as partisan as any in American politics.'' He writes, ``The stakes are high. The problems are not new. Remember the term gerrymander, referring to the skewed and twisted lines of congressional districts to fit partisan ends, came from Eldridge Gerry, a signer of the Declaration of Independence from his efforts in 1811 as Governor of Massachusetts to draw lines to favor Democrats over Federalists. But as a rule, the fierce fights would take place only once a decade. That has been the process from that point forward.'' Once a decade, Mr. Speaker, we reapportion, we divide the lines, and we go forward. That did not happen in Texas this year. In Texas in 2001, we had a redrawing of the lines. We had a redistricting by court order. That is because it was not done by the legislature. The court held a hearing and after extensive evidence, after a trial, after experts from both sides, from the Republicans and from the Democrats, after members of the public and elected officials testified, a map was drawn by a three-panel Federal court in Texas that has since been approved that meets the voting rights standards and was in effect during the last election. However, due to the fact that the Republicans took control of the House and the Senate in Texas in the last election, Tom DeLay has now taken it upon himself to rewrite history, to do something unprecedented, to say, we are not going to just redistrict every 10 years, we are going to redistrict when I say we should. We are not going to respect the election of the Members of Congress. We are not going to respect what the voters said. We are not going to approve who they decided to elect for themselves; but since I, Mr. DeLay, do not like who was elected, I am going to decree who the elected officials, who the congressmen are in Texas by my own design. I do not like what happened in Texas and so I am going to change the rules. This is unprecedented, Mr. Speaker. This has never happened before. And this is not proper. And everyone in the State and everyone in this Congress knows it. As a result of those efforts, the news has been full recently of the 51 Members who went to Oklahoma and the 53 brave members total that left the State legislature in Austin and made themselves absent from the floor to break a quorum so redistricting could not come forward in the regular session. I think it is important to look at the rules. In the State Senate, article IV, rule 4.03 talks about interruption of a member speaking; and it says: ``No member shall interrupt another Senator who has the floor or otherwise interrupt the business of the Senate, except for the purposes of making a point of order,'' and it goes on. Basically that is the rule, Mr. Speaker, that allows for a filibuster in the State Senate. That is a procedural rule in the Senate that allows for the stopping of certain pieces of legislation when it is offensive. Our Texas House, Mr. Speaker, does not have that rule. The Texas House does provide procedurally, though, for a way to stop proceedings, for a way for the minority to stop the tyranny of the majority. There is a way to put a stop on procedures, to say, let us stop a minute, let us discuss this, let us negotiate it, let us let cooler heads prevail, let us look at what the majority is doing and see what we can do to do a better job. Rule 5 in the Texas Constitution, this is provided for in article 3, and rule 5 of the floor procedure of the House says they must have a quorum in the House to act, and that is 100 members by their definition. There are 150 members of the House. But the rule goes on to say: ``Until a quorum appears, should the roll call fail to show one present, no business shall be transacted, except to compel the attendance of absent members or to adjourn. It shall not be in order to recess under a call of the house.'' Mr. Speaker, this is the procedure in the Texas House that allows the minority to call attention to, as Thomas Jefferson would say, the tyranny of the majority. And this is not something new. This has been used before. The ``Killer Bees'' used it in Texas, the Senate, to stop a quorum. Our Speaker of the House right now, Mr. Tom Craddick, Republican, he was a member of the ``dirty 30'' who absented themselves from the House floor. They did not break a quorum, but they absented themselves from the House floor to call attention to the high-handed maneuvers of the then Speaker of the House. Also, in about 1990 or 1991, this happened again as 30 members left the floor and attempted to break quorum but were not able to muster the numbers necessary to do so. So it is a common and well-known and well- respected procedural maneuver that is contained within the rules of the House. Let us look at what some of the Republican members in the Statehouse said about this maneuver. Not Tom DeLay, not the Republican power brokers in Washington dictating to our State legislature, not the folks in the United States Congress telling the Republicans and the Democrats in the Texas State legislature what to do. Let us look at what those in Texas in the legislature say. Let us look at those that were elected by their constituents that have respect for the Texas State legislature, that have respect for the elections, that have respect for the procedures of the Statehouse. Let us hear what Representative Charlie Geren, a Republican from Fort Worth, said about the Democrats breaking quorum in accordance with the rules that I just mentioned, the proper procedural rules. Mr. Charlie Geren, Republican from Fort Worth, said the Democrats were doing what they believed they needed to do in order to represent their constituents. ``I understand what they're doing. It's just really the only tool in their toolbox,'' Geren said. ``They're passionate about the map that's in front of us not being good for their constituents.'' Later Representative Pat Haggerty, a Republican from El Paso, again in the Statehouse, elected in the Statehouse, who is familiar with the rules of the Statehouse and knows how the House operates, he said: ``It's the smartest move they could have made. Under the circumstances, it was the only alternative they had. It's been done before. It's in the rules, and they are playing by the rules.'' So, Mr. Speaker, members of the Statehouse are familiar with the rules of the Statehouse, and they know breaking a quorum is the proper procedural move to make under the circumstances to defeat the tyranny of the majority. Let us look forward, and the media has been replete with instances criticizing the moves of the Republicans in shutting out the Democrats from the process. And, Mr. Speaker, I was there for the committee hearings. I have never seen anything like it. We talk about in this body partisanship. We talk about the lack of getting along. We talk about a political division between Republicans and Democrats. I was at the hearing, Mr. Speaker, and as the Republican chairman of that committee held the committee hearings when the Democrat said, ``I would have a question, Mr. Chairman,'' he said, ``You are not recognized.'' ``I have a Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.'' ``You are not recognized.'' It was the most outrageous procedure that I have ever seen in any legislative body. And, Mr. Speaker, editorials from throughout Texas, I want to take just a minute to read some of those. This is from the Waco Tribune. ``Craddick,'' and that is referring to the Speaker of the House in Texas, ``Craddick has no one to blame but himself. He helped write history when he was one of 30 members of the Texas House who disappeared during the 1971 legislative season. Craddick and his `dirty 30' colleagues were protesting the heavy-handed actions of then House Speaker Gus Mutscher and his cronies who were involved in the Sharkstown bribery conspiracy scandal. What Craddick has done is to put his friendship with U.S. majority leader Tom DeLay over the lessons of history and his own promises to run a bipartisan house.'' The Corpus Christi Caller Times said this: ``Instead of seeking conciliation and appeasement of opponents, Craddick and Governor Rick Perry have chosen to run roughshod over their opposition, all but ending any semblance of bipartisanship. The other heavy in this drama is Tom DeLay, the U.S. House majority leader, whose attempt to muscle a redistricting bill through the legislature triggered the revolt. Doesn't DeLay have more pressing business in Washington?'' The Dallas Morning News: ``House Speaker Tom Craddick can halt the work stoppage in Austin. Mr. Craddick should resist pressure from Congress to contaminate a generation's old census-based exercise by converting it into an ill-considered purely partisan power grab. He should commit to leave Texas's political boundaries alone, and protesting Democrats should promptly return to the house.'' The Houston Chronicle: ``If they,'' referring to the house Democrats, ``believe their principles are worth fighting for and they have only one means to fight for them, it's difficult to fault them for it, particularly in a fight that was thrust upon them by Washington-driven partisan politics. At the very least, Republicans pushing the redistricting effort bear a large share of the responsibility for this legislative standstill. We and many others have been saying since before the session began that Texas has too many important pieces of business to conduct to get bogged down in a needlessly partisan and divisive political and legal cat fight over redistricting.'' The San Antonio News: ``The Gingrichian hubris of the Republican-led House prompted Monday's revenge of the house flies.'' The Austin American Statesman: ``It's sad that it came to this, but the Speaker has been tested and found wanting on a number of issues. The one that sent the quorum buster toward the exits was the grossly partisan congressional redistricting bill and how Craddick let it advance in the hasty backroom way that it did. The villain in the Democratic statement is not Craddick but U.S. majority leader Tom DeLay of Sugarland, an extremely partisan Republican who wants more members of his party elected to the U.S. House from Texas. Refusing to show up for a legislative session is a desperate measure, and the fact that more than 50 Democrats, one third of the house's total membership of 150, did so is a sign of just how trampled they feel. This isn't a few disgruntled members sulking in their tents.'' Mr. Speaker, thank God we have principled legislators in Austin such as Barry Telford, such as Mark Homer, such as Chuck Hopson who stood up for the Constitution, who stood up for their constituents. Thank God we had a leader in the committee such as Richard Raymond. Thank God we had organizers such as Jim Dunnam. Thank God for Garnet Coleman. Thank God for all of these members who stood up and said, we respect the Texas legislature. We respect the rules of the Texas legislature. We respect the House, and we will not be dictated to by power brokers in Washington, D.C., for purely partisan gain. Mr. Speaker, the State of Texas has many pressing problems right now. Right before the elections it appeared that Texas had plenty of money to maintain and finance our State. Magically, after the elections were over, we came up with what was estimated to be a $5 billion to $7 billion deficit. That quickly grew, the next estimate, to $10 billion, and some have said now it is even $13 billion. Who in the world knows what it is? I certainly do not. But I do know this: We have a deficit. I do know that the governor has proposed knocking a quarter of a million children off of CHIPS. I do know that there are talks of cuts in transportation, Medicare, essential services. I do know that we have education problems in Texas. We have many challenges that are faced by other States across the Nation. And in the waning days of the legislature, rather than take up these pressing issues, rather than deal with the schoolchildren of Texas, rather than help our schoolteachers who were I think in about the 30th or 36th in their pay, rather than help them, rather than take care of this budget, rather than make sure the children of Texas have health insurance, we have decided to move forward with a partisan redistricting bill, taking up the time of the legislature. That is why it is important these principled members stood up and said enough is enough. The rules are made to protect our constituents. The rules are made to comply with the Constitution. The rules are made to make sure that the legislative body in Austin properly represents Texas citizens. We are not to be dictated to by people in the U.S. House of Representatives who say we want another seat, who say we want to get rid of every rural representative in the U.S. House from Texas and make them urban/suburban representatives. We want to make sure power is vested in the few in the urban areas and to heck with water rights, to heck with timber rights, to heck with agriculture rights. This is to protect our constituents, and I congratulate those members that did that. I think all of Texas owes them a great debt of gratitude for standing up for the Constitution and standing up for their constituents. Another thing has come forward, Mr. Speaker, that is very, very troubling, and this should be of concern to all Americans, regardless of where they are from, regardless of their political party, regardless of political persuasion. All Americans should be concerned about the Homeland Security cover-up that is occurring in Texas, California, and Washington, D.C. Because, Mr. Speaker, it has now come to light that Homeland Security, the agency charged with fighting terrorism in this country and protecting our family from terrorism and protecting our borders, the Department of Homeland Security has used government assets for a political investigation, and it is now engaged in covering up the facts and refusing to release the information. Mr. Speaker, as the Members know, efforts are now under way to find out why and how Homeland Security took part in a hunt for the Texas legislators that absented themselves from the floor and went to Oklahoma, a hunt that continued even after everyone in America saw on television that those legislators were in Oklahoma, a hunt that continued by Federal authorities while they coordinated with State authorities to terrorize the families of the Texas legislators, to follow their wives, to go into the hospitals, to go by their homes, to search their cars, when everyone in this body, everyone in the state legislature, everyone in America knew exactly where they were. Now, what is the coverup? It has come to light as we have talked about this issue that a full transcript and a complete audiotape exists of contact between the Homeland Security Agency and law enforcement agencies in Texas. Let me pause and say this: we have absolutely no quarrel with the Department of Public Safety. We have the finest and most professional Department of Public Safety in the Nation. These fine agents were not acting on their own. They were not acting on their own volition. They were acting at the instructions of higher-ups. They were acting at the insistence of the Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick. They were acting at the insistence of power brokers in Washington, D.C. and had to do their jobs. But, Mr. Speaker, it is just wrong when Department of Public Safety officers follow the wives of State legislators in their car. It is wrong when they go into the homes of State legislators, when their children are there alone, and insist on finding their father and say they are committing a felony. It is wrong for them to go forward and tell staff they are committing a felony by not saying where the members are. It is wrong of them to stake out homes when they know very well where the legislators are. This abuse of power is chilling, and it should upset every American. Now, when it came to light that a tape existed and a transcript existed, you would think that would clear it up. And what has been Homeland Security's response? They will not release the tape, they will not release the transcript, and, Mr. Speaker, they cannot even get their story straight. On May 13, 2003, just a few days ago, AP reported that ``Tom DeLay consulted an attorney in his office who formerly worked with the Justice Department to determine for Texas Speaker Tom Craddick whether FBI agents and U.S. marshals could be used to arrest Democratic lawmakers out of state.'' Well, now, is that not special? On that same day, the Fort Worth Star Telegram quoted Tom Delay as saying, ``The Speaker asked the FBI and/or U.S. Marshals to go up and get these members.'' But the Speaker, who a day earlier had suggested the possibility of Federal involvement, said he made no calls to Federal agencies. Someone did not get their story right or straight. On the same day, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Antonio said he had no ``official comment,'' but a source confirmed that an unidentified person had called to inquire about federalizing an arrest warrant. On May 15, the AP reported ``An agency within the Homeland Security Department said Thursday it helped search for a plane believed to be carrying Texas lawmakers because a State law officer made it seem as though the plane had run into trouble and might have crashed.'' Mr. Speaker, that is just not credible. Homeland Security first reported that day that they had been requested to find a missing aircraft. Whoops. Later that day Homeland Security issued another statement, a second statement, saying that they received an urgent phone call that a plane was missing and a State rep was on board. Which was it, the first statement, or the second? Who knows? But we do know they cannot get their stories straight, and we do know that that story just does not pass the smell test. Do they expect us to believe that someone just called and said there is a plane missing, we think it may have crashed, and they got no details? Mr. Speaker, it just does not make sense that law enforcement called and talked with Homeland Security and said a plane is down, and they got no more information about it than that. They had to make two statements they issued. They are not consistent with each other. If in fact there is no problem, and if in fact it is, as is now claimed by the Department of Homeland Defense, they can fix it, they can cure it, they can clean up the inconsistencies. They can make sure that everyone in Texas and everyone in the State House and State Senate and U.S. Congress and the public knows exactly what happened. This is easy to do. All they have to do is release the tape and release the transcript. Mr. Speaker, I am calling upon them today to do that. Release the tape; release the transcript. We want to know what happened in Austin, we want to know what happened in Washington, we want to know what happened in California, Houston, San Antonio and everywhere else. We want those records. Today, Tom Ridge appeared before the Select Committee on Homeland Security and was asked by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) to turn over the tape. He claimed not to know that there was a problem, that only portions of it had been turned over, and he pledged to check on it. Mr. Speaker, that is not enough. There is absolutely no legal authority to allow Homeland Security or Mr. Ridge to keep those tapes from a legitimate investigation. If those tapes are not turned over, they should be subpoenaed by the committee, and we should be looking at the Freedom of Information Act to get that information. Quit hiding the information. Quit covering it up. Quit keeping from the American public exactly what happened in the use of Federal Government assets for a political purpose. Now, after the two stories came out of Homeland Security, on May 17 the Fort Worth Star Telegram Austin Bureau reported, ``Officials in Washington have said the Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center, a Customs Agency that is part of Homeland Security, was merely responding to an ``urgent plea'' for help from the Texas Department of Public Safety. It said the DPS indicated that an airplane carrying legislators might have been ``missing, lost or possibly crashed.'' The California-based AMICC made phone calls to the Federal Aviation Administration offices in Fort Worth and to airports in Mineral Wells, Texas, and Plain View, Texas. However, as I mentioned, and importantly, Homeland Security has now acknowledged the existence of an audiotape and a transcript.'' According to The New York Times, on May 16, the Department of Homeland Security said that it would conduct an investigation ``to see if there was a misuse of Federal resources when the Department helped Texas law enforcement agencies in a politically inspired search for the private plane of a prominent Democratic State legislator.'' Mr. Speaker, they are saying they are conducting an investigation to see if it is improper when they did help law enforcement agencies in a politically inspired search for the private plane of a Democratic State legislator. They are saying we are trying to figure out if this is improper. We are admitting that we helped law enforcement agencies in a politically inspired search. We are admitting that. But we wanted to see if it is a misuse of Federal resources to do so. Now, however, on May 19, I guess it was May 18 when it was written and May 19 when it was printed, 2 days later, the story changed. This is becoming a habit. The story changed. The Associated Press reported, ``The Bureau said it at no time used any Federal planes to find the Democrats, and ultimately told the law officer it could not locate the aircraft.'' So by May 19 they did not use any Federal planes. Just what is the story? What assets were used? What do the tapes say? Who knows what? When did they find out what they found out? What Federal assets were used for politically motivated purposes, as reported in the press? Why, why do we have a coverup of this, and Tom Ridge and Homeland Security changing their stories and going mum? It has not gone unnoticed in Texas or in the Nation. Let me read what was printed in the Star Telegram on May 18 about this travesty, about this coverup, about this admission with no explanation. Let me read what someone thought when they examined that: ``To meet the threat of global terrorism, the United States is assembling enormous Federal resources focused on activities in American cities, neighborhoods and countrysides that could endanger those citizens. If we are to have this security apparatus, it must be contained to its designated purpose. There must be every safeguard, so that it does not cross the thin line between protecting innocent citizens and spying on their private lives. That these security resources were used, no matter in what manner or way, in a Texas political dispute should be alarming to us all.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what the press had to say about the use of Federal assets, the use of our security capabilities, to track private citizens, and the use of law enforcement to terrorize the families of our legislators. And I find it quite interesting that they were able to terrorize and track the wives of our legislators, but not the husbands of other legislators. I find it very interesting they were able to go where children were, but not where the head of the household was. We all know what they were doing. We all know it is improper. We all know it is illegal. Today, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress is calling on Homeland Security to release the tape, to release the transcript, to tell America what happened. If in fact there is a defense, bring forth the defense in the tape. If in fact they want to go with their third or fourth or fifth or sixth or tenth story, bring forth the tape that tells us exactly what happened. If in fact they are as innocent as they now claim, bring forth the tape. Bring forth the transcript. Tell this Congress that they are acting with the authority given them by the United States Congress to prevent terrorism in this country; not for political purposes, not to attack political enemies, not to control the State legislature in the State of Texas, not to redraw congressional lines. Tell us, tell us, Mr. Ridge, tell us Homeland Security. Bring forth that tape. Bring forth that tape now. We deserve it. We are entitled to it. There is no legal defense not to produce it. Homeland Security admitted involvement. Then they did not. Then they had a tape. Now they will not release it. Transparency is required. Stop the coverup. Transparency is the word of the day. Release the tape. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).