Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rafael Palmeiro of the Texas Rangers for hitting 500 home runs and to thank him for his outstanding contributions to the local community.

Known both for his powerful swing and golden glove at first base, Raffy, as he is known to many fans, joined an elite club on May 11 when he became only the 19th player in baseball history to hit 500 major league home runs.

Mr. Speaker, Rafael Palmeiro has been a constant example of hard work and quiet dedication to his sport. He is a four-time All-Star and was awarded three consecutive Gold Glove awards from 1997 to 1999. Known for his rock solid dependability, he has never spent a day on the disability list and has missed astoundingly few games each season. With the exception of the strike-shortened 1994 season, he has played an average of 157 games in each 162-game season of his career.

He is currently three home runs short of tying Jimmie Foxx's record of 9 straight years with 35 or more home runs. Since 1993, only Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa have hit more home runs.

Mr. Speaker, Rafael Palmeiro has become a role model for people of all ages. Having fled Cuba with his family in 1991, he remains a hero within the Cuban-American community. Additionally, his dedication to the local community, as we have already heard, for his work with foster children and families in Ft. Worth has made him a leader both on and off the field. My wife, Kathy, and I just recently attended a reception at the ball park sponsored by Raffy on his Shoes for Orphans program, a program that he has spent a great deal of his time on recent years.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the honor of watching Rafael Palmeiro play at the ball park in Arlington in my congressional district. He deserves special recognition for his tremendous achievement and I look forward to the day when he will join the likes of Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Roberto Clemente in Cooperstown at the baseball Hall of Fame. I know my colleagues will join me today in congratulating him and in wishing him continued success in all of his future endeavors.

I would like to add and note to the management of the Texas Rangers ball club. I hope that the management of our great club will find a way to extend Raffy's contract when it runs out at the end of this year so that he may finish his career as a Texas Ranger.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the late Mother Teresa of Calcutta for her many years of dedication to the world's poorest citizens.

Ordained as a sister in 1928, Mother Teresa originally served as a teacher at St. Mary's High School in Calcutta from 1929 to 1948. In 1948, the poverty outside her convent inspired her to leave her school and begin working to help the country's most vulnerable citizens.

In 1950, she founded the Sisters of Charity with a mission to serve the poor, the suffering, and the dying in whatever place they called home. Today Mother Teresa's order has over 5,000 sisters and brothers and over 50 different relief efforts to help the ``poorest of the poor'' in India. In her later years, she worked to establish hospice programs for AIDS patients.

Mother Teresa has been recognized worldwide for her devotion to the poor. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Foundation for Hospice and Homecare in 1985.

Mr. Speaker, few people have served humanity with more compassion and love than Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa was a perfect example of love and compassion to people of all nations and all religious backgrounds. Once quoted as saying, ``Let no one come to you without leaving better and happier,'' Mother Teresa lived her faith. While her work lives on today in the work of her order, she deserves special recognition for her tremendous achievement. I know that my colleagues will join me today in honoring Mother Teresa's life and wishing her religious order the greatest success in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor and recognize Dallas Southwest Osteopathic Physicians Inc., as it celebrates its 20th anniversary.

In 1983, a group of doctors at Stevens Park Osteopathic Hospital decided to form a social welfare organization with the noble intention of investing in charitable causes in the Dallas community. With $7 million in hand, the doctors invested their money, the returns on which led to large contributions to medicine, education, and community development initiatives. Over 20 years, the organization doubled its assets and has since contributed more than $12 million in grants, scholarships, and financial assistance, to numerous community projects.

The Dallas Southwest Osteopathic Physicians have granted gifts to organizations and individuals in nearly every facet of life. Among their many gifts to the community, the Physicians have granted gifts to build a community center at the Oak Cliff YMCA; construct a playground for the handicapped; establish a Fire Safety House for the Dallas Fire Department; start a Bookmobile for the Dallas Public Library; and establish the Endowed Chair in Clinical Geriatrics at UNT Health Science Center at Fort Worth.

By benefiting the truly needy and encouraging philanthropy in Dallas, the physicians have made a significant and indelible imprint on Southwest Dallas.

Mr. Speaker, Dallas Southwest Osteopathic Physicians Inc. has helped over 150 beneficiaries over 20 years. I know my colleagues will join me in honoring them today, and wishing them the very best in their continuing efforts.

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 believe that the Committee on Appropriations has done the best it could with this spending bill, but the actions of the Republican leadership have created major holes, failures that will leave Americans vulnerable to terrorist attacks at home and to political abuses here in Washington.

First of all, this bill is yet another example of how Republicans are mortgaging America's security in order to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest few. Simply put, Republicans have spent trillions of dollars on tax breaks, and now they do not have enough money for law enforcement. They gave expensive tax breaks to the small, elite group of Bush Pioneers and Rangers who fund Republican campaigns, and now this bill shortchanges local law enforcement and the successful COPS Program.

Mr. Speaker, local police officers are on the front lines of homeland defense, so the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has an amendment to give police the support they need. To pay for it, all you 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 benefit from critical law enforcement investments.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the bill leaves America's preeminent law enforcement agencies subject to partisan political abuse. Fortunately, Republicans will not have to ask millionaires to forgo further tax breaks in order to solve this problem, but they will have to stand up to the growing threat America faces from misuse of power by this one- party government.

Last Friday, a Republican Member of this House used his power as a committee chairman to send the police after Democrats, Members of Congress who had done nothing more than ask for more time to read a brand-new piece of legislation.

For many of us, that recalled an incident just 2 months ago. Then, Texas Republicans in Austin and in Washington tried to use Federal security officials as their own personal political police force. The Homeland Security agency, charged with tracking down terrorists, was enlisted to help Texas Republicans trying to track down Democratic lawmakers who had done nothing more than employ a parliamentary tactic in a legislative dispute, a tactic used by Republicans in the U.S. Senate, as well as Abraham Lincoln, in order to defend their constituents against an outrageous political power grab.

The FAA, whose core mission is to keep airplanes and their passengers safe in the air, was misused to track down a Democratic legislator's private airplane. And once Republicans found the Democratic legislators, they urged the FBI and the U.S. Marshals to arrest them despite the clear fact that they had violated neither State nor Federal law.

Justice Department officials say they did nothing wrong, but newspapers reported that an FBI agent in Corpus Christi, Texas, tried to find the Democratic legislators and spoke of ``ongoing surveillance.''

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this was not the first evidence of Republican misuse of the Justice Department. In May, a distinguished member of the Texas House of Representatives, Representative Richard Raymond of Laredo, withdrew his voting rights complaint from the Justice Department after receiving reliable information that a powerful Republican in Washington had interfered with it. Instead, Representative Raymond had to go to a Federal Court to defend the voting rights of his Hispanic constituents.

Mr. Speaker, we face a serious problem when the Department of Justice has been so politically abused that Americans no longer trust its ability to defend their voting rights; and there is only one way to restore the integrity of the Justice Department, through a comprehensive investigation that lays out all the facts before the American people and then acts to ensure the Department can never be abused again.

That is what the Department of Transportation did this month. They quickly conducted a thorough investigation and released to the Congress their full 800-page report. And, just as importantly, they strengthened their rules, instituting a new regulation, that at least one newspaper has named after one of the Texas Republicans, to

ensure that politicians could never again misuse America's air safety resources.

In contrast, the Homeland Security officials released only a partial, heavily edited report, less than 100 pages in length, and they are still stonewalling with the help of Republicans on the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Unfortunately, the Justice Department and some House Republicans have followed that sorry example. It has been 10 weeks since Texas Republicans tried to misuse the FBI, the U.S. Marshals and the Department of Homeland Security for partisan purposes. For several weeks, Justice Department officials tried to keep secret their internal investigation, and they still have not released any information to Congress.

Meanwhile, the Republicans on the Committee on the Judiciary, many of whom often led the charge to investigate a Democratic administration, have turned a blind eye to the Justice Department's stonewalling.

Mr. Speaker, this entire episode has brought discredit to the House of Representatives and to many of America's premier Federal security agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, the FAA, the FBI and the entire Department of Justice.

In Ohio, the Columbus Dispatch has written of an ``egregious'' misuse of Federal resources. The San Antonio Express-News has called it ``offensive for a Member of Congress to manipulate a Federal agency to track down political foes in a strictly political situation.'' And as the Houston Chronicle wrote today of Chairman Thomas' attempt to use the police against Democratic Members last week, ``The latest incident again betrays a particularly disturbing tendency of the party in power, the Republicans, to regard police agencies as enforcers, not only of the law, but of the majority's political will.''

That is why I have offered an amendment to this bill that would institute a new rule at the Department of Justice to protect it against political abuse. Unfortunately, Republicans on the Committee on Rules blocked it last night.

So, once again, the Republican Members of this House face an important substantive choice on the critical parliamentary vote known as ``the previous question.'' They can stand with their leadership and vote ``yes'' and protect Texas Republicans who misused Federal law enforcement earlier this year. That is basically what happened last Friday, when Republicans refused to vote for a resolution, saying it was wrong to call the police against your political opponents. But I am hoping that today Republican Members will follow a different role model and begin to restore some integrity to the House of Representatives.

More than 30 years ago, a Republican, Senator Barry Goldwater, went to Richard Nixon and told him the hard truth, that he had abused his power in the Washington scandal and that it was time for him to resign the Presidency. Today, on the previous question vote, Republican Members can follow that courageous example. They can stand up against abuse of power and they can say that the Justice Department belongs to the people of America, not to any political party.

All it takes is a ``no'' vote on the previous question. I urge my Republican friends to do the right thing.

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

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear, what the amendment is all about that I sought to offer, but which the Republicans ruled out of order in the Committee on Rules last night.

We had this situation in Texas involving a dispute, a partisan political dispute, over the attempt by Republicans in our legislature to redraw congressional district lines a second time in the decade. They had been drawn, of course, 2 years ago by a Federal Court after the legislature refused to act.

What happened was that a powerful Member on the other side of the aisle, one who is often seen on this floor, contacted the Justice Department and inquired, would it be all right, would it be appropriate, for the Justice Department to dispatch U.S. Marshals and to dispatch the FBI to track down Members of the Texas legislature who had broken a quorum?

Now, when a powerful Member of this institution makes an inquiry like that to the Justice Department, it is a suggestion, a very strong suggestion, that the Justice Department should get after it and should use the assets and the resources of the Justice Department.

In fact, we do know that an FBI agent in Texas made a phone call up to Ardmore, Oklahoma, perhaps he was encouraged in this inquiry by a powerful Republican on the other side that the Justice Department should be involved, to find out about the status of the legislators, to find out whether they were there and what was going on. We do know also that an inquiry was made to the U.S. Attorney's office in San Antonio, Texas, about the propriety of the U.S. Attorney's Office being involved.

Now, these are matters that have been in the public domain. This is not something anyone is making up. A very powerful Republican on the other side tried to involve the Justice Department in a partisan political dispute, and that is what my amendment would go to. After all, the FAA just recently had to change its procedures because that same powerful Republican Member contacted the FAA and caused the FAA to have 13 of its employees over an 8-hour period use Federal resources to try and track down those same Democrats who had gone to Oklahoma.

Now, what did the FAA do? They did the right thing. They instituted a rule saying, Well, it was a little gray area in the past, but we will make sure we never do this again; and no powerful person on the other side of the aisle will be able to pick up the phone and cause us to be involved in a political dispute and use our resources for that purpose.

That is all we are asking be done by the Justice Department, to take the same actions the FAA has already taken, the Department of Transportation has already taken. But, no, my friends on the other side do not want to encourage the Justice Department to do the right thing.

We cannot, Mr. Speaker, become a police state. Just as a powerful committee chairman called the police to track down and to break up a meeting of Democratic Members of this body last Friday, and just as another powerful Member on that side tried to use the FBI and the Marshal's Service and the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FAA and the Department of Homeland Defense to become a police state. That should not be permitted.

We are not some Third World power. We are not some ``banana republic'' where we use the police to settle political disputes. Shame on the other side of the aisle.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a Member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

As I explained at the beginning of this debate, Mr. Speaker, today Republican Members have the opportunity to begin to restore some integrity to the House of Representatives. All they have to do is vote no on the important parliamentary procedure known as the previous question.

If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to vote on my amendment to ensure that the Justice Department can never again be abused for partisan political purposes.

I wish this were not necessary, Mr. Speaker. But earlier this year Texas Republicans tried to treat the Justice Department as the enforcement arm of the Republican Party. And so it is vital to the integrity of the Justice Department that we force it to do what the Transportation Department has already done, institute what at least one newspaper has called the ``DeLay Rule'' to protect it from future political misuse.

To be clear, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not block the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill. It will only allow the House to ensure Americans that Federal law enforcement belongs to the people and not to a political party. But a ``yes'' vote will stop my amendment and it will send the signal that this Republican House refuses to protect the Department of Justice against partisan misuse.

So I urge my Republican colleagues to join Democrats in opposing the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote 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 rise today to commend Brent Berryman for his many years of dedicated service to Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas, Texas, and to congratulate him on his retirement from the company.

During his tenure with Lockheed Martin, Brent has managed the company's employee and company contribution programs, coordinated employee volunteer efforts, and served as the company's lobbyist for state and local issues. He served as Lockheed Martin's Constituent Relations Manager for local relations with federal officials in the Dallas area and has served as executive director of the LTV Foundation and manager of the company's political action committee.

As a devoted employee and civil servant, Brent Berryman complemented his many business activities at Lockheed Martin with service to the Dallas Assembly, the Dallas Urban League's Board of Directors, the March of Dimes, and the President's Task Force of the State Fair of Texas, among others. In addition, Brent volunteers as a Mentor and Tutor in three different elementary school programs and serves as a member of the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Amelia Earhart Learning Center.

In 2002, Brent received the Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control Excellence Award for his consistent success in community outreach. He has also received awards from the Women's Center of Dallas and the Dallas Urban League for his outstanding community service and support.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the good fortune to work with Brent on many issues important to the defense of our nation and the economic well- being of North Texas. He deserves special recognition for his tremendous achievement and dedication to his company and its mission. I look forward to continue working with Brent, post-retirement, and I know my colleagues will join me today in wishing him success in all of his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend Mr. Alfonzo Torres Martinez for his many years of dedicated service to Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas, Texas, and also to congratulate him for completing over fifty years of service with the company and its predecessors.

Following two and a half years in the Army, including a year in the Philippines, Al Martinez began his career at then-Chance Vought Aircraft as a Wiring Serviceman Helper at a starting wage of $1.34 an hour. Through the years, Al has left his mark on numerous missile programs and continues to lend his resilience and determination to MFC programs at the age of 82.

Mr. Speaker, the celebration of fifty plus years of service is a remarkable feat, and I know that the other members of this body will join me in extending our warmest congratulations to Al Martinez on his incredible accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to discuss what happened in the House Committee on the Judiciary. The Committee on the Judiciary on a straight party-line vote rejected the resolution of inquiry presented by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) asking that the Congress investigate the Department of Justice activities in Texas regarding the Texas legislators who broke a quorum several months ago.

Why is this so important? Because to restore the integrity of the Justice Department, Congress must investigate the Department's involvement in helping Texas Republicans in a strictly partisan political matter. Congress must unveil the facts and clear the air quickly because if the redistricting scheme of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) somehow succeeds, these same Texas Republicans will be asking the same Justice Department to certify that its new plan does not disenfranchise African Americans and Hispanics in my State of Texas.

Earlier this year, as I mentioned, Texas Republican leaders abused Federal law enforcement for political purposes in a manner Americans had not seen since Richard Nixon and Watergate 30 years ago. In May when Texas State legislators blocked the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. DeLay) unprecedented redistricting scheme with a legal parliamentary maneuver, breaking a quorum which Republicans have done in the U.S. Senate and which Abe Lincoln did in the Illinois legislature in the last century, they violated no State or Federal laws.

In their response, Texas Republican leaders treated Federal law enforcement as their own personal political police force. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) acted as if the Department of Justice was an arm of the Republican Party. The majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, which is charged with overseeing the Justice Department, publicly urged the FBI and the U.S. marshals to arrest these legislators in Oklahoma and drag them back to Texas. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) privately contacted the Department of Justice, a fact that he denied at first.

Mr. Speaker, an FBI agent in Corpus Christi, Texas, tried to track down the Texas Democratic legislators and indicated they were conducting surveillance. The Justice Department is stonewalling, and so Congress must investigate and do so immediately.

Mr. Speaker, what happened in the Committee on the Judiciary today on a party-line vote was wrong and should not stand.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of Mr. Roy Orthmor Bohner, who recently celebrated his 51st anniversary working with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas, TX.

Roy Bohner has been a dedicated employee of MFC since he began working there many years ago as an Engineering Trainee and a junior hydraulics design engineer. Some of his notable accomplishments include a design of an autopilot for a radio controlled drone aircraft, a successful R&D program to do flight control analysis, and design studies for a ``fly-by-wire'' control system named Electro-RAM. In addition to his service in Dallas, Roy spent some time at the General Dynamics plant, now Lockheed Martin Aeronautics in Fort Worth, as part of the Industry Assist program.

Prior to joining MFC, Roy served our country in World War II as a member in the 11th Army Division, and he continues to contribute to this Nation through his loyalty and dedication to his projects at Lockheed Martin. A man of ardor and great humor, Roy's objective is to be the oldest living employee at Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas.

Roy is an exemplary model of the American worker who is dedicated to continue serving this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, Roy Bohner deserves special recognition for his tremendous achievement and dedication. He serves as a role model to the rest of us, and I wish him success in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service of Arthur Duane Schaezler, a gentleman who has recently celebrated his 51st anniversary with Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in my district.

Duane Schaezler served this country as an Air Force navigator for three years before he obtained his BS in Aeronautical Engineering from the University of Texas in 1949. Duane joined what was then-Chance Vought Aircraft in 1951 and has since applied his vast experience and expert technical knowledge in the areas of guidance, navigation, flight dynamics and control systems.

Duane is an excellent example of a dependable and deliberate American whose positive work ethic and loyalty are so important in today's society.

Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Duane Schaezler on his incredible accomplishment of fifty-one years with Lockheed Martin and wish him continued success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to recognize an outstanding engineer from my district. Mr. William Guy Redmond, Jr., recently celebrated the remarkable accomplishment of over 50 years of service to Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control in Dallas, Texas.

Guy Redmond came to what was then-Chance Vought Aircraft Company as a young man after serving in the U.S. Navy and receiving degrees from SMU and MIT. Over the years, Guy has amassed over 20 patents. He is highly respected by all for his integrity and technical expertise and unwavering dedication to his organization.

In 1983, Guy was recognized through a nomination for the coveted IEEE Pioneer award for his contributions to the company and the community.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Guy Redmond again today for his enormous accomplishments at Lockheed Martin and offer my heartiest congratulations on his 51st anniversary. I'm sure the members of this body will agree with me that 50 years of constancy and dedication is a feat not accomplished by many, and I wish him great success in his future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Let us be very clear about what is happening on the floor today. The United States Senate has a procedure called a filibuster where Members can get up and talk and fill time. Up until today the House does not have a filibuster. What we are doing is to pass a

bill, a change in our rules, that would create a filibuster on the floor of the House and prevent Members from having the opportunity to debate substantive matters.

Why do I say that? We are going to add an extra day of suspensions. Why do the Republicans want to add an extra day of suspensions? They want to use our valuable floor time for minor noncontroversial matters. Why do they want to use our valuable floor time for minor noncontroversial matters? Because they do not want to provide full debate on matters like changing Medicare and the new prescription drug plan. Why do they not want to provide full debate on Medicare and prescription drugs? They do not have enough time. There is not enough time for us to do this. Why do not we have enough time? Because they are bringing more noncontroversial bills to the floor.

It is very interesting. This is of course the oft remarked case of the young person who killed his parents and throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan.

Let us be very clear what the Republicans are doing. They do not want to debate the key substantive issues that face this country. What did they do in the rule last night, this morning? We were here until 5:15 a.m. this morning. Why were we here until 5:15 a.m. this morning in the Committee on Rules? Because our meeting did not start until 12:50 a.m. this morning. Why did it not start until 12:50 this morning? Because the Republicans did not want a meeting that would be widely covered by the press and it would be easily accessible to our Members to come and testify. A lot of very good Members, a lot of conscientious Members on both sides of the aisle stayed up. They were there at 12:50 a.m. and they testified until 5 a.m. this morning, and what did the Republicans on the Committee on Rules do? They told them thanks for coming but no thanks, they are not going to give them any time on the floor, they will not give them an amendment. They did this to some of their own Members as well as to Democrats. Why are they doing that? Because they do not want their own Members to have to vote on things that might be embarrassing for them when they go back to the next election.

So that brings us to where we are today. We are going to create a filibuster rule in the House. We are going to permit the Republican leadership to filibuster, to use our time, our valuable floor time, by bringing noncontroversial bills commending people for things they have done, naming facilities, all kinds of things. We used to just do those in a day or two. Now we are going to have 3 days of those bills and now, ``Oh, by the way, we will not have any time for you to offer your amendment on Medicare, we will not have any time for you to offer your amendment on prescription drugs. We have used up all our time. We have created another suspension day.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to call attention to the House to a racist piece of literature currently being circulated by the Harris County Republican Party to its e-mail subscribers. There is going to be a redistricting hearing in Harris County, Houston, on Saturday and so the Harris County Republican Party is right now e- mailing this information to all its regular subscribers. It says:

``She will be there to express her views. Will you be there to express yours?''

Who is ``she''? She is the gentlewoman who is here with us right now, Sheila Jackson-Lee. There is a very nice colored picture of Sheila, whom everyone can see is African American. Sheila is one of four Democratic Congress Members from Harris County. The other three are white. One African American, three whites. Of course, the gentlewoman appears in this e-mail and there is no picture of Gene Green, who is white, there is no picture of Chris Bell, who is white, and there is no picture of Nick Lampson, who is white, there is only a picture of the one African-American Member.

And so what does it say? ``She will be there to express her views. Will you be there to express yours? Reminder: Redistricting Hearing in Houston this Saturday.'' Then it gives the time and the place and the details. I would ask the gentlewoman from Houston, what does she think about this e-mail posted by the Harris County Republican Party on their Web site?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

I thank the gentlewoman for her eloquent statement. I would only observe that this type of racist appeal is something that we saw in our State 20 or 30 years ago. I thought we had moved beyond that. I am ashamed for the State of Texas and I am particularly ashamed for the Harris County Republican Party that they would stoop to racism in the year 2003.

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

Mr. Speaker, I support the idea behind the association health plans. Helping small businesses has been a priority of mine for a long while. At the same time, I strongly believe that we have a moral obligation to help every American get the health coverage they and their families need.

So I am glad that the Democrats on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, particularly the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from new Jersey (Mr. Andrews), have written the Democratic substitute. It is a sensible and affordable plan to ensure health coverage for small businesses and their employees that is at least as good as Federal employees get. If you think small businesses deserve the same health coverage that Members of Congress get, then the Democratic plan is for you.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives. That gives them the power to block important priorities, and they have no problem using it.

For instance, they are still blocking tax relief for millions of military and working families. Six times Democrats have tried to give the child tax credit to these families because we believe that they deserve at least a fraction of the tax breaks that Republicans gave to millionaires last month. But six times, House Republicans have used their power to deny these families. Today, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership is using their power and this restrictive rule to undermine patient protections.

Now, perhaps Republicans will say that we should not be surprised. More than 90 percent of the rules in this Congress have been restricted, a shameful record of stifling democracy and blocking critical American priorities. But the rule on the floor today perfectly illustrates how the Republican majority has operated during this Congress.

In the Committee on Rules, Democrats offered 14 amendments on issues that are critical to the health of the people who might participate in these plans, but the Committee on Rules Republicans voted down all but one of them, the Democratic substitute.

Consider patients' rights, for example. Republicans have successfully blocked a national Patients' Bill of Rights for the past several years, and the base bill would undermine the patient protections that various States have passed, making it a kind of anti-Patients Bill of Rights.

So the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) went to the Committee on Rules with an amendment to ensure that these new association health plans comply with State patient protections, like prohibitions on doctor gag rules and access to emergency rooms, OBGYNs, and specialists. But Republicans on the Committee on Rules defeated their amendment on a party-line vote.

Or take prostate cancer and breast cancer. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) tried to ensure that these new health plans cover screenings for these deadly diseases, but Republicans refused to allow the House to vote on her amendments.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) each tried to protect Americans with autism.

The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) tried to ensure maternity and well-child benefits continue to be covered in States that require this coverage.

And the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) tried to protect small businesses and their employees from discrimination based on race, gender or age. Each of these is an important issue when you are creating a new system that could affect the health of millions and millions of Americans. But Republicans refuse to allow the House to even vote on their amendments. As a result, Mr. Speaker, if the Republican-based bill passes the House, millions of Americans will lose out on important patient protections, and that is just one example of how Americans are harmed by what the Republican leadership does on the Committee on Rules.

Of course, none of these amendments would have been necessary in the Republican bill were they not so deficient, but it is. In fact, the Republican plan is opposed by more than 475 organizations representing State governors, insurance commissioners, attorneys general and State legislators, as well as physician groups, consumer organizations, Chambers of Commerce, farm bureaus and small business associations. The American Nurses Association, for example, wrote that it ``would undermine the protections provided by State laws while doing little to provide coverage for the uninsured.''

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that premiums would increase for 80 percent of small employers, while as many as 100,000 of the sickest people would lose coverage altogether.

In my home State of Texas, more than 1.5 million people would pay higher premiums if the Republican bill passes, according to an analysis of a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Despite this, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership refused to allow votes on the Democratic amendments to fix their bill. That means that the Democratic alternative is the only way to protect patients and increase coverage for small business employees.

It sets up a Small Employer Health Benefits Plan that would work like health plans that now cover Federal employees. It covers all small businesses and their employees, offers affordable premiums, and ensures that people get coverage at least as good as what Members of Congress gets. And unlike the Republican bill, it preserves State patient protections.

To pass the Democratic alternative and provide affordable and comprehensive health coverage to small businesses, we need Republicans to stand up to their leadership and vote ``yes'' on the Democratic alternative. But before that, Republicans have yet another opportunity to stop blocking tax relief for millions of military and working families. To do that, all they have to do is stand up to the Republican leadership on the important parliamentary vote on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, the Democrats can amend the rule to allow the House to vote on the child tax credit and the Armed Forces Fairness Act. The President could sign both of these bills tomorrow if only Republicans would finally stop standing in the way.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the Republicans to put the American people above their leadership today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that immediately after the House passes the Small Business Health Fairness Act, it will take from the Speaker's table the Senate passed version of H.R. 1307, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.

Additionally, my amendment will add to H.R. 1307 the text of H.R. 1308 as passed by the Senate, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was removed from the Republican tax bill. This will allow the House to combine these two Senate passed bills and immediately send them back to the Senate and then hopefully on to the White House for the President's signature. If this happens, we can begin helping America's low and modest income working families right away and we can give tax relief to those brave members of the military who are in combat overseas.

As my colleagues know, this is the seventh time we have tried to bring the child tax credit to the floor for a clean up or down vote. The reason we have continued to persevere is because this is so important to America's families, particularly those making at or near the minimum wage, families who struggle every day to get by. They have no one else to fight their battle for them. They cannot afford to hire expensive lobbyists, and they cannot afford to be a Bush pioneer. We are here for them and we will keep fighting for their voices to be heard.

Vote no on the previous question so we can finally consider these two Senate passed tax plans, tax plans which will help those most in need of relief. I would like to stress that a no vote will not stop us from considering the Small Business Health Fairness Act. However, a yes vote will once again, for the seventh time, block the House from having an opportunity to vote to restore the child tax credit that was unceremoniously stripped from the Republican reward-the-rich tax bill that was passed last month. Again, vote no on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous materials be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote 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 rise today to commend the faculty and students of my alma mater, Paschal High School in Fort Worth, Texas for being ranked among the nation's finest schools by Newsweek magazine. Officially, Paschal placed No. 12 in Texas and No. 200 nationally based on advanced placement test scores. This year alone, the senior class included 11 National Merit Scholarship semifinalists.

Founded in 1885, Fort Worth's oldest high school has always been regarded as an academic leader. Today, Paschal exists primarily as a large, urban school with a diverse population and student body. The curriculum emphasizes balance, preparing students for college or university life through a variety of academic disciplines, clubs, advanced placement classes, and a host of athletic teams. This preparation enables students to understand and appreciate other cultures, become active participants of their community, and take ownership of their education.

Paschal High School is a terrific example of a successful collaboration between students, community representatives, faculty members, parents, alumni, and the Fort Worth Independent School district. This collaboration is truly remarkable, when considering the awards and accolades that this school has amassed since its inception.

Again, congratulations to the students and faculty of Paschal High School in Fort Worth, Texas for this latest achievement.