Veterans Entrepreneurship and Benefits Improvement Act of 2003

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.

168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.

197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I supported the Department of Homeland Security back when most Republicans still opposed it, and I served on the Select Committee that created the new Department last year, so I expect to vote for this bill to fund the Department on final passage.

But before we get to that point, Members will have the chance to address several serious weaknesses in America's homeland defense system.

First, we need to pass the amendment of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the committee, to increase security at our ports, our airports, and our northern border, and to meet other vital security needs identified by the Bush administration. As it stands, the base bill does not address major holes in homeland defense, and the Obey amendment would plug some of those. And to do it, all we have to do is ask millionaires to take slightly smaller tax breaks than they are already getting next year. It is a reasonable trade: about 200,000 millionaires would give up just $5,000 of the over-$88,000 in tax breaks they are getting next year, and all Americans would get critical homeland security investments.

Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is not willing to ask millionaires to accept an $83,000 tax break next year rather than an $88,000 tax break, so they blocked the Obey amendment.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, addressing the second issue does not cost a dime, but it is fundamental to the success of the new Department of Homeland Security. As my colleagues will recall, when the Congress created this powerful new domestic security agency last year, several Members, Republicans as well as Democrats, expressed concern that its powers could be abused and turned against law-abiding American citizens. The former House majority leader, Dick Armey of Texas, was particularly outspoken on this issue.

Unfortunately, we have already seen an example of the danger that concerned Mr. Armey.

And that is why it is absolutely critical that the House act to protect the Department of Homeland Security from ever again being used as the Department of Political Security, as happened just last month.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Homeland Security became involved in a partisan political dispute last month when it helped Texas Republicans hunt down law-abiding Democratic State legislators. Specifically, the Homeland Security agency charged with tracking terrorists was enlisted to help Texas Republicans trying to track Democratic lawmakers who had stood up to the Republican leadership in Austin. These Democratic legislators violated neither State nor Federal law. They simply used a legal parliamentary tactic, breaking a quorum, in a legislative battle to stop an unprecedented bill to unnecessarily redraw Texas's congressional districts. They employed a legitimate parliamentary tactic that Republicans have used at other times and in other places.

But when Abraham Lincoln broke a quorum in the Illinois legislature in 1839, his political opponents did not have the option of using the Department of Homeland Security to track him down. Neither did the officers of the U.S. Senate in 1988 when Senate Republicans tried to break a quorum.

Today, however, the Department of Homeland Security has enormous domestic intelligence powers. And somehow, on May 12, 2003, America's homeland security resources were employed to help Texas Republicans against their political rivals.

There is really no disputing this, Mr. Speaker. According to a report by the Department's own Inspector General, the Homeland Security Department's Air and Marine Interdiction Coordination Center spent its resources helping the Texas State police and the Texas Republican leaders directing the manhunt trying to find the plane of former Texas Speaker Pete Laney, a Democratic legislature who had flown to Oklahoma, to break the quorum. Many of my colleagues will remember Mr. Laney as the Democrat who introduced George W. Bush to the Nation on the night that he was declared President by the Supreme Court.

If my colleagues can believe it, Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security officials maintain that the 40 minutes they spent assisting in the Texas Republican's manhunt was only a ``minimal'' amount of work. That is a troubling excuse.

If the Department of Homeland Security spent just 1 minute in a domestic political dispute, then it was 1 minute too long. But they spent 40 minutes, which is longer than it took for terrorists to carry out their September 11 attack on the World Trade Center.

Even the office of a Republican member, Representative Ken Calvert, who represents the Riverside area where the AMICC is based, called to express shock at their involvement, at the Homeland Security Department's involvement in this political matter.

Mr. Speaker, Homeland Security officials also contend that they were tricked into getting involved. The report issued by the Department's Inspector General indicates that ``several individuals'' were instructing the Texas State police officer who got homeland security involved in the manhunt. According to a partial and heavily blacked-out transcript released by the Homeland Security officials, the officer was taking direct orders from a ``State representative.''

The Texas State police refused to identify who was directing them, and they quickly destroyed most of the documents relating to the episode. As a result, Homeland Security referred this case to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but the FBI says it has no interest in investigating.

Fortunately, some Texas State police field notes survived the document purge and they indicate that Texas Republicans, Governor Rick Perry, State House Speaker Tom Craddick and others, personally instructed the State police during much of the manhunt which was run out of Speaker Craddick's office.

So as my colleagues can see, Mr. Speaker, a lot of disturbing questions remain unanswered about how homeland security resources were used to help the Texas Republicans track their political rivals.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear: my goal here today is to protect the Department of Homeland Security. Its mission, safeguarding Americans against the threat of terrorism, is too important to risk undermining its credibility with the public.

But even if homeland security officials were misled, and the available facts do not clearly support that excuse, the entire episode still reveals the Department of Homeland Security's dangerous vulnerability to abuse.

Unfortunately, Homeland Security officials have refused to even acknowledge the Department's vulnerability or the threat it poses to their mission. Secretary Ridge has refused to release the complete tapes of the Department's communications with Texas officials or anyone else involved in this episode, despite legitimate requests from numerous Members of Congress, including the ranking members of the House and Senate committees that oversee the Department.

And the Department's Inspector General declared that its own agency's actions were ``appropriate.''

Mr. Speaker, that is so wrong that it is frightening. It is never appropriate to use homeland resources for partisan purposes, no matter how many minutes Homeland Security officials spend helping one political party, or which party they help. On the contrary, it is a dangerous abuse of power, one that threatens the liberties of all Americans, and one that risks public support for the Department of Homeland Security.

That is why the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, submitted amendments to the Committee on Rules last night to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security never again finds itself being used for partisan purposes.

Republicans on the Committee on Rules, however, seem not to understand the seriousness of the Department's vulnerability or the importance of closing this loophole immediately, because they blocked both amendments.

As a result, there is only one way to protect the Department of Homeland Security against political abuse: by opposing the important procedural vote known as the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider these two amendments to restore public trust in America's homeland security officials.

Mr. Speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. I urge my colleagues to put politics aside and oppose the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining on each side?

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

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

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that Members on the other side of the aisle and their colleagues in Texas sought to misuse Federal resources. Now, the Inspector General said, oh, but it was only 40 minutes, so it is no big deal. I would remind the gentleman on the other side of the aisle that the attack on the World Trade Center occurred in less than 40 minutes, and so Republicans in Texas sought to divert homeland security resources for 40 minutes.

What did they also seek to do? They also contacted the Department of Justice, tried to involve the FBI, tried to involve the U.S. Marshals Service, tried to involve the U.S. Attorney's Office in Texas. This was a blatant misuse of Federal resources, even if it were one minute. But it was not just one minute, and it was not just the Department of Homeland Security. It was other agencies of the Federal Government. They know it. It should never have happened and, hopefully, it will never happen again.

I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order two very important amendments that were submitted to the Committee on Rules last night and rejected by the Republican majority. Both of these amendments seek to protect the Department of Homeland Security against the type of political abuse it suffered when it ended up helping Texas Republicans hunt down their political rivals in a legislative dispute.

The first amendment, by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), a member of the Committee on Appropriations, would require the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to implement written procedures for the use of personnel and resources for any nonemergency use of homeland security services; and would prohibit the Office of Air and Marine Interdiction of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement from supporting Federal, State or local law enforcement or humanitarian efforts until that is done.

The second amendment, by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee), a member of the Department of Homeland Security, would prohibit the Department from using funds for political purposes or for any other purpose not relating to protecting homeland security.

I am confident that all Americans and all Members of this House support this sentiment expressed in these two amendments. So I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let me emphasize a ``no'' vote will not stop the House from taking up the Homeland Security appropriations bill. It will not prevent other amendments from being offered under the open rule. However a ``yes'' vote will preclude the House from considering these two very important amendments that are critical to protecting the Department of Homeland Security's ability to protect Americans against terrorism.

Also, assuming that the previous question passes, there will then be a vote on the rule, and I would urge Members at that point to vote against the rule so that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) will have the opportunity to offer his amendment to put money back in this legislation to do the things that should have been done originally.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2297, as amended, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003. I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for their leadership on the full committee and their successful negotiations with the Senate. I also would like to personally thank my good friend, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), for his leadership and bipartisan spirit shown in considering these bills assigned to our subcommittee. It definitely has been a pleasure working with Chairman Brown and his staff.

The Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 includes provisions drawn from many bills introduced by Members of both sides of the aisle. Our Nation's servicemembers and veterans have earned and their families deserve all the benefits provided under H.R. 2297 and, indeed, they certainly deserve much, much more.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a sponsor and cosponsor of many of these measures that have been incorporated in H.R. 2297, including provisions aimed to make the home loan benefit for members of the Guard and Reserves permanent, to improve veterans education benefits, enhance self-employment opportunities, and expand employment counseling and job search assistance for servicemembers returning to civilian life after separating from military installations overseas.

H.R. 2297 provides for more equitable and rational treatment for surviving spouses and Filipino World War II veterans, of which I also fully support. It allows former prisoners of war to qualify for certain presumption of service connection and adds sclerosis of the liver to the diseases considered presumptively disabling for POWs. The Gold Star wives will benefit from our efforts to allow them to remarry after age 57 without losing the dependency and indemnity compensation, educational, and home loan benefits that they currently receive. This measure is long overdue and represents substantial progress.

I also support provisions brought forth by the other body which will increase education benefits for the spouses, surviving spouses, and dependent children for totally and permanently disabled and deceased servicemembers.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this package will benefit servicemembers and veterans from my State of Maine as well as their families. It will help others all around the country as well. I fully support H.R. 2297, as amended, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2297, as amended, the Veterans Benefits Package of 2003.

I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Lane Evans for their leadership on the full committee and their successful negotiations with the Senate.

I would also like to personally thank Chairman Brown and his staff for the cooperative manner shown in introducing and considering bills assigned to our subcommittee. It has been a pleasure working with him and his staff.

As is the custom of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs, a large number of bills considered by the Subcommittee on Benefits have been included in the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003.

I am pleased that H.R. 2294 which I introduced to extend the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Education is included as section 307 of H.R. 2297, as amended. The Veterans Advisory Committee provides useful information to the Congress and should be continued.

I am also pleased that H.R. 3239 which I introduced to extend the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans is included as section 703 of H.R. 2297, as amended. This committee brings to the attention of the Congress specific issues of concern to African- American, Native America, Hispanic American, and Asian-Pacific Island American veterans. I know that the Native American veterans of Maine, as well as all minority veterans, will continue to benefit from the counsel and advice provided by this committee.

I am original cosponsor of H.R. 761 introduced by our ranking Democratic member of the full committee, Lane Evans, to permit seriously disabled servicemembers to apply for grants to adapt their homes before being discharged from military service. This provision included as section 401 will enable seriously disabled servicemembers to begin the process of obtaining suitable housing while on active duty.

I joined our Ranking Democratic Member Lane Evans in introducing H.R. 1257 to make the home loan program of the Department of Veterans Affairs for members of the Select Reserve a permanent program. This provision is included as section 403 of H.R. 2297, as amended. That bill also provided for an equalization of the fees paid by reservists and active duty veterans. Although the fees were not equalized in the final bill, I note that the rates have been reduced to a nominal amount of 0.25 percent above that charged to active duty servicemembers and veterans. As we know, reservists are an integral part of this Nation's total force. Making their home loan benefits permanent and reducing the fees they must pay acknowledges their service in a tangible way.

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 1460 introduced by Mr. Renzi to provide additional opportunities for service-disabled veterans to contract with the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the record of contracts awarded to service-disabled veterans by Federal agencies is dismal and getting worse. Provisions from H.R. 1460 are included in section 308 of H.R. 2297, as amended. I hope that Federal agencies will take seriously their responsibility to contract with small businesses owned or controlled by service-disabled veterans. Under the provision, the committees expect that the Small Business Administration will accept the determinations of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with respect to the definition of service-connection.

I joined my good friend and neighbor Mr. Bradley in introducing H.R. 2164 to provide an extension in the period of eligibility for educational benefits provided to certain children of disabled and deceased veterans, when those children are called to full time duty in the National Guard. This provision is included in section 303 of H.R. 2297, as amended.

I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2285 introduced by Mr. Simpson to require the Secretary of Labor to provide staffing at overseas locations to servicemembers who are separating from active duty. This provision is included as section 309 of H.R. 2297, as amended. It is unfortunate that the Secretary of Labor has not followed the lead of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in making these services available at overseas locations. This bill will require the Secretary of Labor to do so.

I joined our chairman on the full committee, Chris Smith, our ranking Democratic member on the full committee. Lane Evans and our subcommittee chairman, Henry Brown, in introducing H.R. 2297 which provided the basis for this larger bill. I appreciate the efforts made by the chairman of the full committee as well as Chairman Brown to operate in a bipartisan manner.

Although H.R. 3392, introduced by our Democratic Ranking Member Lane Evans and myself to improve the adjudication of claims for benefits was not considered by the House committee during this session, I note that provisions similar to that bill are included as section 701 of H.R. 2297, as amended.

I am also a cosponsor of many other bills included in H.R. 2297, as amended. As a freshman Member of Congress, I am proud to have been able to introduce and cosponsor legislation which will improve the lives of our Nation's veterans.

The House Committee on Veterans Affairs has a reputation of serving veterans in a bipartisan manner. This bill reflects that spirit of cooperation.

Our Nation's servicemembers and veterans have earned--and their families deserve--all the benefits provided under H.R. 2297, as amended.

Indeed, they deserve so much more.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions in this package will benefit servicemembers and veterans from my State of Maine as well as their families. It will help others around the country as well.

I fully support H.R. 2297, as amended, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), who has fought for veterans for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), who has fought for veterans issues for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would like to once again thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for all their work, as well as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Benefits, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown). I think our servicemen, our veterans in this country, can be very proud of the way the Committee on Veterans' Affairs has handled itself this year in a bipartisan manner, looking out for veterans in this country for all the work that they do as well.

I would also like to thank staff on both the Republican and Democratic side for working together in a bipartisan way. The only way we are ever going to move forward and get veterans issues addressed in Congress is by working together in a bipartisan manner. I wish actually some other committees here in Congress would look at the way the Committee on Veterans' Affairs operates and act as bipartisanly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1460) to amend title 38, United States Code, to permit the use of education benefits under such title for certain entrepreneurship courses, to permit veterans enrolled in a vocational rehabilitation program under chapter 31 of such title to have self- employment as a vocational goal, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin discussing our bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note with great sadness the passing of the former chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, Bob Stump. Bob was a great friend to all of those who served in the Armed Forces since his own Naval experience as a Navy corpsman serving in the South Pacific during World War II. Although you did not see Bob making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, his words, and especially his actions and deeds, spoke volumes about his dedication to all those who serve and have served our country in the United States military.

Bob served in Congress for 26 years. He was chairman of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs from 1995 to 2000, and then chaired the House Committee on Armed Services until his retirement in December of 2002. He has left a lasting legacy of service to our country, and he will be dearly missed.

On behalf of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, I want to express our condolences to his wife, Nancy, his children, Karen, Hoot, and Bruce, and to his grandchildren as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1460, as amended, the Veterans Entrepreneurial and Benefits Improvement Act of 2003. The Committee on Veterans Affairs reported H.R. 1460 unanimously on May 15 as a result of the initiative of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), who introduced the bill. This bill was introduced following a hearing on the state of veterans employment on February 5 at which the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) highlighted the seriously inadequate performance of Federal agencies in reaching out to disabled veteran- owned businesses. Since then, the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), and I have worked closely with the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), of the Committee on Small Business with respect to section 3 of the bill on which the Committee on Small Business had jurisdiction.

I am pleased that we have been able to formulate language agreeable to both committees, and I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) for their cooperative efforts.

Mr. Speaker, disabled American veterans deserve a full opportunity to participate in the economic system that they fought so hard to defend. Section 2 of the bill would make improvements to the veteran and service-disabled veteran's small business opportunities by authorizing for the first time the use of VA education benefits to pay for nondegree/noncredit courses. These courses are offered by the Small Business Development Center and the National Veterans Business Development Corporation.

Section 3 of the bill has been, if you want to look at it one way, almost 23 years in the making. It contains a disabled veterans contracting preference provision derived from the 1980 White House Conference on Small Business convened by then-President Jimmy Carter.

The 1981 consultant report of the SBA Veterans Project and the 1999 report of the bipartisan Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance made similar-type recommendations.

This provision for the first time would authorize Federal agencies to create sole-source contracts for disabled veteran-owned and -controlled small businesses. It would also furnish Federal agencies discretionary authority to restrict contracts to disabled veteran-owned and - controlled businesses if at least two such concerns were qualified to bid on the contract. This is the first time Federal contracting officers will have such authority.

Section 3 would also create a 4-year pilot in the Department of Veterans Affairs, service-disabled veterans-controlled businesses, and would have the same contracting priority as SBA's 8(a) program for socially and economically disadvantaged small business.

For all other Federal agencies, service-connected disabled-veteran- owned and -controlled businesses would be accorded priority to be awarded procurement contracts above the women-owned and HUBZone priorities, but just below 8(a) priorities.

In all cases, to be eligible for these procurement preferences, veterans who own and control small businesses would need to have at least a 10 percent service-connected disability.

The Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, contracts for about $235 billion in goods and services annually. America's sons and daughters who became disabled in their service to the Nation will

now have some of the same types of contracting preferences accorded to other deserving groups.

Section 4 of the bill, Mr. Speaker, would extend VA's specially adapted housing grant to severely disabled service members prior to separation from active duty service. Under current law, an otherwise eligible servicemember may not apply for home modification assistance until he or she is actually separated from the military or placed on the temporary-disabled retirement list.

I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his leadership in putting together this important provision.

Section 5 would reinstate the Department of Veterans Affairs' vendee loan programs, which the VA administratively terminated last January. I want to thank the gentleman for joining me for authoring this provision.

When a purchaser agrees to buy a foreclosed VA home, VA often offers to finance the sale by establishing a vendee loan to encourage the prompt sale of a home. Vendee loans are made at market interest rates and often require a down payment. Borrowers are assessed a 2.25 percent funding fee that is paid in each case. The vendee loan program is based on sound business principles, and there is an ample body of empirical evidence to suggest that offering vendee financing is highly cost effective to the government. In March, for example, of 2002, a Booz, Allen, Hamilton study found that cost effectiveness of vendee loan financing, their report said that the government would save $16 million a year starting in 1999.

Finally, section 6 of the bill would repeal the existing 2-year limitation on accrued benefits so that a veteran survivor may receive the full amount of an award and of benefits and may not be penalized if VA does not process the claim in a timely manner. This section is derived from H.R. 241, legislation that I introduced earlier this year.

Finally, I want to thank especially the good leadership that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) has provided in shaping this legislation. As always, I wanted to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for his work on this, as well as the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) who is representing the minority in presenting this bill to the floor today and for his good work as ranking member of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional minute.

I again want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for their good hard work on this legislation, and I especially want to thank the extraordinary work by the author of it, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi). This is a bill that will help so many of our veterans who are service-connected disabled who are in the business realm to get the kind of government contracts that they are deserving of and hopefully will lead to greater wealth and a capability on their part to provide for their families and for their loved ones.

This is a good bill. It is pro-business, it is pro-veteran, and it deserves the support of everybody in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank our subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), and again, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud), who is the ranking member, for their work on this bill, for marking it up and bringing it forward to the full committee where we marked it up and passed it unanimously.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of our time.

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

The yeas-and-nays were ordered.

Mr. Speaker, will the Chair notify me when I have used 5 minutes?

Mr. Speaker, this bill should not even be here at this time. The Committee on Appropriations chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), knows his stuff. And he demonstrated that last year when he did very heavy oversight of the Transportation Security Administration, which was totally screwed up at the time.

The problem we have with this bill being before us today is that this new agency was extremely reluctant to provide useful information to this Congress so that we could make intelligent judgments about how to allocate money to this new agency. And we have a specific problem, because the reorganization bill that passed with much ballyhoo last year is not what it is cracked up to be. Before the passage of that legislation we had 133 agencies that had something to do with homeland security. And what the bill finally did was to take 22 of those agencies, not including the FBI and the CIA, the two gut agencies in our fight against terrorism, so they took 22 agencies, put them in the department that they called ``Homeland Security,'' and we are supposed to stand up and sing Hosannas. The problem is that left 111 other agencies uncoordinated, outside the tent.

So we had that basic confusion to begin with, and now we have even more confusion at the agency. This new agency, for instance, we are told still has not prepared a telephone directory for its employees so people can reach who they are supposed to reach if they have a problem.

Now, there is nothing wrong with this bill if you think it is perfectly okay to proceed on the status quo, because this bill provides a meager 1.8 percent increase over last year's budget for the agencies meant to protect us against terrorism. But because of inflation that means there will be on a per capita basis less security provided to each and every citizen of this country this year than was the case last year. And yet we hear many stories about deficiencies in securing this country.

Example, we had over 60 uncleared aircraft that flew from Canada into the United States last year. We have no assurance about what was in those planes or who was in those planes. We have $4 billion that the Coast Guard has told us that we need to provide over time to our port facilities for security purposes. We are only inspecting 2 percent of all of the cargoes that come into our national ports; and we have what was supposed to be the brain of the agency, the information analysis division, having a terrible time getting off the ground after the reorganization.

So I want to put the House on notice now. I intend to offer an amendment that would add $1 billion to key security functions. I would add $400 million for port security grants. The Coast Guard has told us that we need $4.4 billion, and this will speed up that timetable a bit. My amendment would also bring to 25 percent the Federal contribution of port facility security needs. That leaves a huge percentage of the bill still in local hands. If we do not do this, it will take close to 20 years before we are providing half the cost of meeting that security. That is a little bit too long to wait, I think.

Thirdly, we would add $100 million to the Coast Guard to effectively implement the Maritime Security Administration Act, which was created in order to improve our ability to analyze vessel threat information. And my amendment would also provide $100 million to increase the number of Customs inspectors now inspecting container ships into the United States. This would allow 1,300 additional Customs inspectors to be brought on. That is still a drop in the bucket in comparison to what they need.

We would also provide $200 million to improve security on the northern borders, some 5,500 miles long; and we have virtually no capacity to cover large sections of it. During Operation Liberty Shield, there were 10 aircraft that came across that border without a

clearance, even though that border was being patrolled by air for 30 straight days. I would say that is a problem.

People will say how do we intend to pay for this amendment. We would intend to pay for the amendment by reducing the size of the tax cut that this Congress just provided for people who make over $1 million a year. We would reduce that average tax cut from $88,300 to $83,300. That is hardly crippling the most well-off people in this country, but that tiny adjustment in their windfall would enable us to significantly enhance the security of the United States. It would inure to their benefit as well as citizens who do not get that fat a tax cut. I think it is perfectly rational.

I know some people will say, ``Oh my goodness, you must not do that because you will be invading the jurisdiction of another committee.'' I would point out that if you go back just a few months ago on the omnibus appropriation bill, we had a whole slew of proposals that the House leadership insisted that we put into that appropriation bill. Most of those items were under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. So all we are doing is what the leadership of this House itself did last year, and it seems to me that we ought to put the welfare of the country, ahead of what Dick Bolling, my mentor from Missouri, described years ago as being jurisdictional dung hill politics. We should not worry about jurisdiction. We should worry about what kind of a job we do on the substantive level.

So basically, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules did not allow my amendment to be made in order. What is happening is this: when the budget resolution process was first established by the Congress, the purpose was to make Congress face up to choices and to recognize what the trade-offs would be when you made those choices; but the way the House leadership is running the budget process today, they are guaranteeing that there is never any linkage between actions and consequences.

What this House did on the budget resolution, what this House did on the tax bill has now dictated to this committee the limitations under which we bring this bill to the floor, and that is why this bill is woefully inadequate in terms of meeting the security interests and needs of the United States.

So I make no apology for trying to do something a little different in order to try to get more resources into this area. I think any American concerned with our security would understand why we do it; and I think it is about time that we demonstrate that there are costs, there are costs to the tax action that was just taken in Congress. Those costs mean that we have less money available to make the crucial investments we need in homeland security and, for that matter, also health care, education, science, you name it.

What I am trying to do is to demonstrate what those real trade-offs are, even though it is apparent that the majority leadership in the House wants to hide those trade-offs from the American people. I think the public has a right to know what services they are going to be denied on the security front because of that tax action.

I thank the gentleman for his time.