Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. EDWARDS. Six thousand new Army homes.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I do. Mr. Chairman, what a difference 1 hour makes. Less than 1 hour ago on this floor the House of Representatives passed a rule for the defense appropriations bill which waives all points of order against that bill, and yet because the House leadership instructed the Committee on Rules and twisted arms to force many Republican House members to vote on a bill that does not protect a point of order on this, because of that decision, inconsistent with a rule we just passed in this House by unanimous vote less than 60 minutes ago, because of that we are basically going to put at risk the most important military housing improvement program in American history, a program that does not only improve housing and show respect in a tangible way to men and women and families, to children who are making incredible sacrifices for our country, but a measure that is saving taxpayers billions of dollars by building these houses more efficiently. In a House that ignores technicalities every single day to carry out priorities much less important than quality military housing for our families during a time of war, we are going to put this incredibly important program at risk. Finally, I want to say this. Let us be clear, this is not today just an action of one person, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). I respect the gentleman. He is a person of principle. I might disagree with the debate on fiscal responsibility when we voted 2 months ago for a $69 billion tax cut that helps Members of Congress and today we cannot afford to take care of a few thousand military families' housing, but I do respect him. He is a person of deep principle. This is not just an action of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). This was an action which was allowed and encouraged by the House leadership by forcing an unfair rule through this House, a rule that was opposed by the Military Officers Association of America, the Association of the U.S. Army, the Air Force Association, and the National Military Family Association. This action is also something that was allowed by 212 votes, a passage of that rule by one vote, 212 to 211. One Member changing his or her vote, and we could have prevented this tragedy from happening today. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to consider not recognizing the technicality raised here that will harm tens of thousands of military families during a time of war.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his eloquent comments and his leadership and strong support for better quality housing for our families. I want to summarize where we are. Basically, the same House leadership that said just 2 months ago on the same day we refused to increase the cap so 50,000 new military families over the next 2 years could get new housing, in the same day they push through a $69 billion tax cut that is going to give me a $2,000 tax break. We could afford the tax break for Members of Congress but we could not afford to take care of our promise of better housing for military families. Now, the gentleman talked about a poke in the eye. The final poke in the eye is this is not the only bad news that the servicemen and women and veterans are going to hear today, because the same leadership that could support the tax cuts for Members of Congress could not find a way to improve housing and fund that program for military families, the most important effective housing improvement program for our military in our Nation's history. Guess what, in the Committee on Appropriations today we voted out a veterans' health care appropriations bill that basically, well, let me tell you what the National Commander of Disabled American Veterans says about it. ``To the veterans of this Nation it is incomprehensive that our government cannot afford to fund their medical care and benefits programs at a time it can afford generous tax cuts costing hundreds of billions of dollars more.'' The American Legion, the DAV, the VFW all went on to say that the leadership-pushed veterans' health care bill today is going to cut, after inflation, real veterans' health care services by $1.3 billion. Now with the action of the leadership yesterday on the rule and one Member of the House today, we will say to 50,000 military families, we will break our promise to you of better housing. I think that is a terrible message for us to send our military families. While we go on a month long recess and vacation they are sitting there looking at veterans' health care cuts and frozen programs.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my Republican colleagues who genuinely supported improving military housing. But today the only vote that counts is a ``no'' vote against the rule, a rule that would allow one Member of this House to put on freeze during a time of war the most important military housing program in American history. Let there be no surprise for anyone who votes for this rule that if our colleague, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), were to use his prerogative under this rule to kill this housing program, then, in effect, regardless of the good intentions, a ``yes'' vote for this rule is a ``no'' vote for better housing for tens of thousands of military families, even families who have loved ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us rise above loyalty to the House Speaker and to the majority leader. Let us once say together during time of war on a bipartisan basis, we are going to do what is right. And if that means voting against a dictate from the Speaker's office on how to vote for this rule so that we can join together to improve housing for military families, then that is the right thing to do.

Mr. EDWARDS. Could I ask the gentleman to make it clear now to all House Members? What the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has said is that if we defeat the previous question, then we can bring back the Military Construction appropriations bill today and pass it out of this House today in a way that protects this vitally important military housing improvement program. Is that correct? We were not talking about a 1- week or 2-week delay.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this rule is a slap in the face to America's military families. They have a right to be outraged, and they will be when they find out what happens on the House floor today. This rule says to our military families, many of them who have loved ones serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, that the House Republican leadership has made tax cuts for Members of Congress this year a higher priority than better housing for military families. With this rule, we put at risk the most important military housing program in American history, the public-private initiative. To do so any time would be wrong. To do so during a time of war is unconscionable. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) owe our military families and all who respect them an answer to one question: Why is it that you can support just 2 months ago on this House Floor a $69 billion tax break that benefits Members of Congress, but today, we cannot afford to continue our military housing program for 50,000 military families? Perhaps the answer was given by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) in his speech to bankers in March of 2003, just 1 week before the Iraqi war began, when he said this: ``Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.'' Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes. I would like to invite the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) to Fort Hood in my district, which has sent nearly 40,000 Army soldiers to Iraq this year alone, to explain why they can bring to the House Floor 2 months ago a bill that cut taxes for Members of Congress making $157,000-plus a year, but they cannot find a way today to protect the most important military housing program ever for service men and women making $20,000 and $30,000 a year. Where is the fairness in that? Is cutting taxes for Members of Congress while freezing military housing improvements for our troops the leadership's new definition of shared sacrifice during time of war? If so, it is a flawed definition. Have our military families not sacrificed enough already? Why should 50,000 military families in 22 States now have to sacrifice their dream of better military housing so we can help pay for a self-serving tax cut for Members of Congress? What is happening today on this floor is an insult to the incredible sacrifices made by our service men and women. Oh, and how times have changed for the worst. Instead of President Franklin Roosevelt asking all Americans to sacrifice after Pearl Harbor, the House leadership, in the midst of our war on terrorism, is saying with its words and its deeds that nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes. We are going to hear a lot of excuses today. We are going to hear that technicalities prevent us from preventing a freeze on the most important military housing program ever. Baloney. The House Committee on Rules, with one phone call from the Speaker, could have done what it has done repeatedly in this Congress on 25 occasions: protect an important provision in this bill from a technical point of order. Unbelievably, unbelievably, that call was not made. Unfortunately, the same House leadership that told the Committee on Rules to bring a tax cut, helping Members of Congress, to the floor 2 months ago, could not make that phone call to protect military families today. We will hear a lot of excuses about how, well, there are other ways to solve the military housing program crisis. Well, that is exactly what they are, excuses. Those same Committee on the Budget members failed to solve this problem in the Committee on the Budget. Then they failed to work with the Committee on Armed Services to solve the problem for fiscal year 2005 in the Committee on Armed Services bill. That was two strikes. Now, when the Committee on Appropriations is trying to solve the problem in a bipartisan way and support our military families, these same folks want to prohibit us from doing so. Three strikes, and they are out. Sadly, though, the people who will be left out in the cold are not Members of Congress who pretend to be fiscal hawks when it comes to funding military housing improvements, but turned into fiscal doves when it came to passing a $69 billion tax break that put money in our pockets. These same people will be leaving 50,000 military families in 22 States out in the cold. We will hear excuses that military families will just have to wait for Members of Congress to have our 5-week vacation in July and August, and maybe the same House leaders we have who have ignored this housing crisis for the last 6 months will find a way to solve the problem, after campaign trips in August and beach vacations. I would suggest that leaders in Congress who found the time to rename dozens of post offices this year and schedule tax cuts, votes on tax cuts for Members of Congress like me, maybe they should find the time to solve the military housing crisis now, before they go on vacation, before they make their dozens of campaign stops and fund-raising events in the month ahead. When it comes to solving a serious military housing crisis, the House Republican leadership has been AWOL. Fortunately, there have been many Members such as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and others who have tried to come together to do the right thing. Let me be clear. I am not asking the House Republican leadership, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to put themselves today in harm's way like so many of the soldiers from Fort Hood in my district are in Iraq today. However, in all due respect, I would hope the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) would support our troops by saying that, Do my colleagues know what? The military housing crisis should be solved before, not after, we take our 5-week August vacation. Perhaps a little bit of shared sacrifice during a time of war is not too much to ask for our military families who have already made incredible sacrifices on behalf of the American family. After all, despite the statement of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) that nothing is more important in the face of war than tax cuts, the vast majority of Americans would agree that there is something far more important than tax cuts, and especially tax cuts for Members of Congress during a time of war. It would be more important to support our troops and to support their loved ones, their families, to allow them to live in decent housing while they are giving up so much for our country. Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me finish with this. There are moments when support for our military families ought to be more important than loyalty, blind loyalty to the House Speaker and the majority leader. I would suggest today is one of those times. During a time of war on terrorism, let us send a bipartisan vote and a message to our military families by saying, we are not going to go away on vacation in August until we solve the military housing crisis; and that, yes, the House leadership is not perfect, and today it is wrong to bring a rule to this floor that would help one person defeat the most important military housing program in American history. The vote is what really counts, not our speeches today, and the vote will say this: What is more important, loyalty to the House Republican leadership or loyalty to the military men and women who are making such tremendous sacrifices on behalf of all Americans?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining 1\1/2\ minutes. This subcommittee worked on a genuine bipartisan basis to provide a better quality of life for military families. It worked on a bipartisan basis to address a looming crisis in military housing. Now the moment has come for us to decide if we want to support our troops, including troops in combat, with our rhetoric and with our hearts and with our deeds. With all due respect to our hearts and our intentions and our goodwill, what matters to the 40,000 soldiers I have the privilege to represent at Fort Hood, Texas, is what Congress does with its deeds. Our responsibility today should be to say that in a time of war, it is of the utmost national priority and responsibility to take care of our military families who are sacrificing so much for all of us. We need to pass this subcommittee bill as it was drafted and passed out of subcommittee, now out of full committee. We need to pass this bill on a bipartisan basis; and for that reason, I ask my colleagues not only to support this bill but to ask all of their colleagues not to be the one person in this House who stops the most important housing program ever for our military. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would ask one question to any Member who would have the gall to stand up and strike out this issue, and that is, 2 months ago, how did you vote on the $69 billion tax cut which included tax breaks for Members of Congress?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, again, I applaud this subcommittee for addressing a very serious crisis in military housing that will occur just a few months from now if we do not include the language that was added in the amendment. To be specific about it, let me just say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, some of the families and the numbers of families, the different locations of military installations that will be affected if a Member of the House were to raise a point of order against this housing measure that we added: In New York at Fort Drum, 2,272 families would have their new housing put on hold. I believe Fort Drum has played an important role in the Iraqi war. In Pennsylvania, 316 families at the Carlisle Barracks would have their new housing put on hold. At Fort Bliss in Texas, 2,776 families would have their housing put on hold. At Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, 2,739 military families would see the promise of new housing for them broken. At Lackland Air Force Base in Texas, 914 families would lose the promise of new housing. At Langley in Virginia, the State of Virginia, 1,268 families would have their new housing denied them. Sheppard Air Force Base, 1,288 families in Texas would lose that improved housing. New Jersey, 2,415 at McGuire Air Force Base in Fort Dix. Those are not numbers. That is 2,415 military families making sacrifices for our country who would see their housing dreams go down the tubes. Let us look at Florida, Georgia and South Carolina, the Southeast and Eastern Navy projects: 6,076 families would have a ``no'' said to them in regard to new housing. How about Twentynine Palms in California, 1,382 families. Well, let us look at Camp Lejeune. Obviously they have made tremendous sacrifices, those machines, that installation as part of our war on terrorism; 3,516 of those families would be told no. Congress could afford to vote in the month of May for a $69 billion tax cut that gave Members of Congress a tax break, but we cannot afford to give you new housing this year during time of war; we have got to put a freeze on your new housing. Well, let us go down to Georgia. People at Fort Benning have made tremendous sacrifices for our country. They would actually lose 4,055 new military housing under the freeze if any Member of this House objects to the amendment we put in the bill. At Fort Benning, actually they would not lose it this year. They are planning on getting their new housing next year. They have been told they will not even get their new housing next year, because that will have to be pushed back a year because of the freeze that would occur on military housing this year. Fort Knox, Kentucky, would be in that similar situation. Their new housing for 3,380 military housing would be pushed back a year if any Member objects to what we did on a bipartisan basis in this committee. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to just say the Military Officers Association of America, the Association of the United States Army, the Air Force Association, the National Military Family Association have all written letters asking this House on a bipartisan basis to protect the increase in the cap for military housing so we can show respect to our military families during time of war, not just with our words and our rhetoric but with our deeds and better housing.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), a very effective and hard-working member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. I would just like to go back to the issue of the military housing program that is being protected in this bill unless a Member of the House objects to it. I want, Mr. Chairman, all Members and all those watching to understand what is going to happen if anyone objects. First of all, 24,000 servicemen and -women and their families will have a promise broken to them. A promise to provide them with new housing is a show of respect for the tremendous sacrifices they are making for our country and the American family. Secondly, and this I do not think has been discussed, while the present bill provides a 1.6 percent increase over military construction spending compared to a year ago, not even enough to keep up with inflation, the fact is that many of those dollars being appropriated in this bill will be prohibited from being spent if one Member of this House stands up and objects to our having solved the military housing cap problem. So, in effect, you are not only saying, no, you are not only going to break the promise to 24,000 military families across this country; you are actually saying that in a time of war it is okay with you if the effect of your action is to actually cut military construction funding this year compared to last year because literally millions and millions of dollars that look like they are being appropriated will be nothing but an illusion, nothing but a false promise to our servicemen and - women, 40,000 of whom live in my district, nearly 20,000 of whom are in Iraq today. No, Mr. Chairman. When our troops are asked to go into combat, they do not have an option of saying I will take care of that later. That is called AWOL. Well, today, let us as Members of Congress not go AWOL when we have an opportunity to step up to the plate, and right now, not a week from now, not a month from now, not some false promise, let us vote now to support our military men and women and the better housing they deserve.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), a tremendous leader in this Congress on defense issues and an important member of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his eloquent comments. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), a senior and respected member of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. ORTIZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I first want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for his dedication to improving the quality of life for our military families. His commitment is genuine, and his work on this bill has been thorough and fair, along with the work of his staff. At every step of the way, the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) has put the interests of our service men and women above all other interests. I commend him for that, and he deserves our thanks and respect for that. Given what I believe is an inadequate allocation for this subcommittee, a 1.6 percent increase in military construction funds during a time of war, an allocation that is nearly a half a billion dollars below what we spent on military construction before the Iraqi war began 2 years ago, given all of that, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the subcommittee, and I have worked together to try to maximize the use of these inadequate tax dollars to benefit our troops, and that is why I intend to vote for this bill. I am also pleased that we have been able to address, as long as no Member of the House objects to it, what could have been a terrible injustice to our military families. Eight years ago, we began a new approach to military housing. We combined Federal dollars with the strengths and resources of the private sector to create public-private partnerships to improve military housing. This innovative program is saving taxpayers billions of dollars and dramatically improving housing for our military families. Housing that would have taken 50 years to build under the old system is now being done in one-tenth of that time, in 5 years. Through this public-private partnership, we are providing military families with housing that they can be proud of, and certainly they deserve no less. Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office changed the scoring on this process. In my opinion, they erroneously are scoring dollars that businesses borrow to help build these new homes, even though the Federal Government is not responsible for those dollars. OMB disagrees with CBO's approach, and so do I. Had we, in this committee, on a bipartisan basis under the leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) not raised the cap on the public-private military housing program, new housing projects would have come to a halt this November, just a few months away, shutting out over 24,000 military families from new houses in fiscal year 2005 and then delaying an additional 25,000 or so, for an impact on almost 50,000 military families in the next 2 years. That would have sent a terrible message to our military families during a time of war. It is also a good reason for no Member to object on a procedural basis, a technical point, against this amendment. As a member of the Committee on the Budget, I would point out that I made an effort this spring to solve this problem. The Committee on the Budget refused to solve the problem. I then talked to members of the Committee on the Budget and urged them to meet and work with the Committee on Armed Services to address the problem. The Committee on Armed Services did address it for fiscal year 2006, but did not do it for 2005. Had we failed to act in this subcommittee on this bill, it would have been the third strike. Instead, this subcommittee took the responsibility on a bipartisan basis to address this housing crisis. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) once again for his strong efforts on this particular important issue. It also could not have been done without the strong leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the Committee on Appropriations and its subcommittee staffs. If any Member of this House who objects to the increase in the cap on military housing and the directed scoring allows that to happen, let me explain clearly, Mr. Chairman, what the impact will be. Tens of thousands of military families that are planning right now on having new housing built starting next year will have those promises broken, those promises dashed, even families who have loved ones fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we do that, it would be a grave injustice to men and women and families who are making incredible sacrifices on behalf of our children. Considering the fact that the Committee on Rules allows protection against technical points of order every week in this Congress, on a regular basis, for unimportant issues as well as important issues, surely if there was ever a reason to put the interests of military families above the interests of technical points of order, today should be the day, and better housing for those families should be the reason. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss not to mention my disappointment concerning the overall funding level in this bill. Our Nation is at war. Our service men and women are risking their lives in Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the world. Military families are making great, great personal sacrifices for the American family. Yet, this bill spends $420 million less on military construction than we spent prior to the Iraqi war. So Congress, in effect, is asking for more from our troops and military families, while spending less on military construction. That does not make sense. It does not pass the fairness test because it means we are shortchanging military housing, day care centers, training ranges, and military work facilities. That is not right. If we can make significant new commitments to defense spending and highway spending and countless other programs, why can we not provide more than a 1.6 percent increase in military construction, which is so important to our troops' quality of life and their training and working conditions, especially during a time of war? In March of last year, as American troops were making the final plans to commence the war in Iraq, the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) spoke to bankers and said this: ``Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.'' In all due respect to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), that flawed ideology would be hard to explain to the nearly 400,000 Army soldiers I represent at Fort Hood, Texas, nearly 40,000 soldiers who have been asked to serve in Iraq just this year. It would be hard to explain to their spouses and children who have to worry every day whether their loved ones will ever return home. I believe most Americans, as they did after Pearl Harbor would say, you know what? Supporting our troops and their families during a time of war is far more important than tax cuts, especially if some of those tax cuts benefit Members of Congress, like us. Unfortunately, the inadequate allocation in this bill reflects the ideology of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) rather than the quintessential American value of shared sacrifice during a time of war. By increasing defense construction spending by only 1.6 percent, not even enough to keep up with inflation, in effect, in that way, it is a real cut in military construction and quality-of-life programs. It spends $420 million, as I said, less than we spent 2 years ago before the Iraq war even began, and even $900 million less in this bill that the administration, the Bush administration, said was needed for military construction just 12 months ago. If anyone thinks this allocation was not decided by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) or me or this committee, but was decided by a higher pay grade in this House leadership, if anyone thinks this allocation we had to deal with is adequate, let me remind them of some of the facts provided by the Department of Defense: Number one, 39,000 Army families live in inadequate housing; number two, 34,000 Army barracks do not meet even basic Department of Defense standards; number three, 16,000 Navy and Marine Corps families live in inadequate housing; number four, 31,000 Air Force families live in inadequate housing; number five, 70 percent of Army facilities are C-3 or C-4, which means mission impaired; number six, 66 percent, two- thirds, of Air Force facilities are C-3 or C-4, again meaning that the mission of those facilities could be impaired. Just a month ago, the House voted for a new $69 billion tax break that will not help our military families, but it will just happen to provide a $1,000 tax credit to Members of Congress such as myself for every child that we have. So I will receive a $2,000 tax credit as a result of that bill that the House voted for, over my objection, 2 months ago. Now, how can we look today in the faces of our service men and women, look them in the eye and say, last month we could afford to pass a $69 billion child tax credit that applies to people making between $110,000 and $250,000 a year, but today, we cannot even afford 5 percent of that amount to provide a decent increase in military construction funding for military families making $20,000 and $30,000 a year. I just do not see the fairness in that. Every one of us, Mr. Chairman, Democrat and Republican alike, genuinely respects the service and sacrifices of our troops and their families. No one, no one should doubt that. But I strongly believe that it is time that our budget priorities in Congress should better reflect that respect. Our service men and women deserve no less. Despite the objections I have to the underfunding of this, despite my concern that perhaps a Member of Congress, for whatever reason, well- intentioned or not, might strike an amendment that would literally freeze the most important military housing program ever, because of the strong leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), because of the bipartisan way in which he worked this bill, because of his deep commitment and our committee's work to spend an inadequate amount of dollars as efficiently as we possibly could, I intend to vote for this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in my 14 years in the House, the introduction of this bill this afternoon is the most cynical charade I have ever seen. This bill, they did not even know what bill number to put on this. They had to mark out one bill number and put another. They had to hand write part of this. What a sorry way to deal with the needs of 24,000 military families, the need to get better housing. I think it is interesting that the gentleman from Iowa, the very person who within the next couple of hours is going to kill our opportunity to solve a military housing crisis, is at the moment trying to get us to pass a bill that a few hours ago had not even been introduced. It is also interesting that the same gentleman who introduced this bill, that says this is the solution to our military housing problem, then spoke on the floor just a minute ago saying the other body cannot pass anything. What reason do we have to believe that this is going to go anywhere? It is probably to go in a trash bin of fig leafs. And that is exactly what this is, and that is what bothers me more than anything. When the House Republican leadership this morning could have stood up for our military families, who deserve better housing, especially during a time of war, they were not only AWOL, they broke arms on the floor of this House for 25 minutes to see that Members voted for a rule that would get us into exactly the quagmire we are in at this moment. Shame on them for doing that. Now the House leadership, when the issue is no longer providing new housing for military families, the issue is far more important than that, a much higher priority than that. It is how do we pass a fig leaf today so that Members of Congress are not embarrassed, 212 of them who voted to get us into the position we are in today? One Republican Member could have added to that vote saying to the Speaker, I am going to put military families' interests today above my loyalty to you, and we would not be here. We can solve this problem. We do not have to pass this fig leaf that is going nowhere. We ought to simply bring back up the military construction appropriations bill and pass it by unanimous consent, a bill that was put together on a bipartisan basis. But, unfortunately, the same leadership that turned its back this morning on the Air Force Association, on the Association of the U.S. Army, on the Military Officers Association of America, and on the National Military Families Association, the same leadership that turned their back on these groups that wanted to really help military families to better housing, that leadership is now saying, gee, we could not do that this morning, but we can pass a fig leaf bill. Why can they pass a political fig leaf for Members of Congress, but cannot do something over the last 6 months that we have been asking to help military families get better housing? This is a sad day for all the servicemen and -women in our country who sacrifice for our Nation. I am proud to represent 40,000 of those great servicemen and -women at Fort Hood in my district. What we ought to do is pass a military construction bill. Let us put military families first, not fig leafs for politicians first.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker has not listened to the debate. We are going to ask people making over $1 million a year to make a small sacrifice during this time of war. That is who is going to pay for investment into America's future. In Congress, our values are expressed more by our budget priorities than by our speeches. And the Obey resolution reflects American values far better than this year's Republican budget, and this is why: the Republican budget continues the same old status quo, a failed philosophy that has led to unprecedented deficits. That philosophy was expressed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), majority leader, on March 12, 2003: ``Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.'' A direct quote. That bizarre philosophy flies in the face of the basic American value of shared sacrifice during time of war. Can anyone imagine Franklin Roosevelt having stood here on December 8 of 1941 saying to the American people it is time to cut taxes, nothing is more important than that after Pearl Harbor? In World War II, fortunately, President Roosevelt did something different. He inspired all Americans to make sacrifices to support the war and our servicemen and -women, and it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, as we now face the war on terrorism, the Republican budget reflects the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. DeLay) flawed philosophy that tax cuts should trump sacrifice and services for veterans and military families during time of war. What is the result of this ideologically driven budget? First, the consequence is that this year's deficit is the largest deficit in American history. With massive unpaid-for tax cuts, we are borrowing billions of dollars to pay for the Iraqi war, and that means that young soldiers from my district at Fort Hood fighting in that war today will have to come home and help pay for it after the war is over. Billionaires living safely here at home, getting multimillion-dollar-a-year tax cuts while young soldiers have to fight for the war in Iraq and then pay for it. Where is the fairness in that? To add insult to injury, the Republican budget pays for its tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans by reducing veterans health care and freezing military housing improvement programs. If the American people find out about this dirty little secret in the Republican budget, they will be outraged, as they should be. And as a representative of nearly 40,000 soldiers who fought in Iraq over the last 18 months, I am certainly outraged. These are the facts: fact number one, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, has said it would take $2.5 billion of increased VA health care spending just to keep from having to reduce veterans health care services because of health care inflation. Fact number two: The Republican budget underfunds present services for VA health care by $1.3 billion. That means real cuts to millions of real veterans. Fact number three: several weeks ago, on the same day the House Republican leadership voted to give Members of Congress a tax cut, they pushed through a Defense authorization bill that will freeze the most important military housing improvement program in American history. Over 24,000 military families will not receive the new housing they deserve. No new housing for thousands of military families, while we get thousands in tax cuts, we Members of Congress. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the American value in that? There is a better choice, a clear choice, a choice that reflects the true values of the American people. The Obey resolution will prevent cuts in veterans health care and will prevent cuts in military housing. It is the right thing to do for America.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I represent the brave men and women of Fort Hood, TX, the installation that has sent more soldiers to Iraq than anywhere else in the Nation. Tens of thousands of Fort Hood soldiers have served in Iraq, and tens of thousands of families have waited anxiously for their loved ones to return home. All of these soldiers and families have made sacrifices for this mission, but this day we take a moment to remember the words of President Abraham Lincoln, as we honor those who have ``given their last full measure of devotion'' for this Nation. Osbaldo Orozco, Narson Sullivan, Rasheed Sahib, Nathaniel Caldwell, Kenneth Bradley, Atanacio Hammarin, Jesse Halling, Christian C. Schultz, Daniel K. Methvin, Jonathan P. Barnes, Wilfredo Perez Jr., Leif Nott, Matthew D. Bush, Steven W. White, Sean K. Cataudella, Richard Arriaga, Anthony O. Thompson, James C. Wright, Robert L. Lucero, James D. Blankenbecler, Analaura Esparza-Gutierrez, James H. Pinkile, Joseph C. Norquist, James E. Powell, Donald L. Wheeler Jr. John R. Teal, Animus D. Brassfield, Steven Acosta, Michael P. Barrera, Isaac Campoy, Karma S. Lau, Anthony D. D'Agostino, Frances M. Vega, Rayshawn S. Johnson, Genaro Acosta, Alexander S. Coulter, Scott M. Tyrrell, George A. Wood, Eddie E. Menyweather, Clarence E. Boone, Gregory B. Hicks, Edmond L. Randle, Larry E. Polley Jr. Cody J. Orr, Gabriel T. Palacios, James D. Parker, Ervin Dervishi, Jason K. Chappell, Randy S. Rosenberg, William R. Sturges Jr., Juan C. Cabral, Holly J. McGeogh, Eliu A. Miersandoval, Roger C. Turner Jr., Henry A. Bacon, Christopher E. Hudson, Sean M. Schneider, Robert R. Arsiaga, Ahmed A. Cason, Yihjyh L. Chen, Israel Garza, Stephen D. Hiller, Forest J. Jostes, Casey Sheehan, Gerardo Moreno, William W. Labadie Jr. Felix M. Delgreco, Justin W. Johnson, Adolfo C. Carballo, Lawrence S. Colton, Wesley C. Fortenberry, Michael A. McGlothin, Edward W. Carman, Stacey C. Brandon, Arthur L. Felder, Patrick W. Kordsmeier, Billy J. Orton, Kenneth A. Molton, Abraham D. Pena-Medina, Kendall Thomas, Adam W. Estep, Ervin Caradine Jr., Jeremy L. Drexler, Bradley G. Kritzer, James E. Marshall, Hesley Box Jr., Rene Ledesma. I send my prayers, my sympathy, and my deep gratitude to their families. Their nation will not forget their sacrifice.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, American military families will be disappointed to find out what the House Republican leadership is doing today. Unbelievably, during a time of war, they will pass this afternoon generous tax cuts for Members of Congress but put a freeze on military children's education funding and a freeze on the most important military housing improvement program in American history. It is shameful that the House Republican leadership is saying that we can afford to give Members of Congress and families making up to $250,000 a year a new $1,000 tax credit per child, but we must freeze education funding for our military kids and put a 1-year hold on military housing improvements for 24,452 military families. The House Republican leadership's misplaced and self-serving priorities make a mockery of the principle of shared sacrifice during time of war. Military families, and Americans who respect their sacrifices, have a right to be outraged.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I can ask the gentleman a question, the staff of the committee has told me, and I have asked repeatedly, that it addresses the housing cap for fiscal year 2006, but does not solve the problem for 2005; and as a consequence, 24,000 military families will have their housing improvements put on hold.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the record. The committee dealt with the housing cap to allow improved military housing starting in fiscal year 2006, but it only adds $1 for the cap in 2005. So that means 24,452 military families will have their housing improvement plans put on hold even as their loved ones are fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Thirteen military bases will have their housing programs basically frozen, even though tomorrow we are going to vote to provide a tax cut for Members of Congress.