Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, there are cases starting to come to the surface. For example, in the State of Florida or Georgia, a Jewish citizen, perfectly qualified for a job, was denied the right to a job simply because he was Jewish. Now, again, I differ with the idea that the Title VII exemption of the Civil Rights Act allowed faith based groups to exercise religious discrimination or, in the worst cases, religious bigotry. But I at least want to clarify, at least the gentleman is saying, for whatever reasons he mentioned, groups ought to be able to do with public tax dollars whatever they want; the gentleman is saying that it is okay for a faith-based group running a federally funded jobs training program to say to a Jew or a Catholic or a Christian of one denomination or another, we are not going to hire you even though you are perfectly qualified for this job, simply because of your religious faith. I think most Americans would think that type of religious discrimination is absolutely wrong, especially when we consider we cannot fund religious programs. We all agree that is prohibited under Federal law. So what we are doing is we are funding social programs. Why should your religious faith have an affect on whether you can ladle soup at a soup kitchen or train a 5-year-old child? Perhaps we have just an honest disagreement. I think it is wrong for a group to say with tax dollars we are not going to hire you because of your personal religious faith. Perhaps the gentleman feels that these groups ought to be able to discriminate in that fashion. And if he does, then at least that is an honest debate and we will let the American people decide which side they come down on. One other point. I would challenge the gentleman. Other than the gentleman's tremendous knowledge as the chairman of this committee, there were not 10 Members out of 435 in this House that knew the discrimination language was in there in 1998. I have gone back and chronicled the first 3 or 4 times that we passed charitable choice language like this. The first time was the Welfare Reform Act. Virtually no one in the House, other than maybe the conferees, some of them, knew it was in there. The second time we passed it was at about 1 o'clock in the morning. The third time was at about 12:30 in the morning with 2 or 3 Members on the floor. Every time we passed it Members would say, We already passed this before. People did not know it was in there. So I think all of that is irrelevant. The fundamental question is should an American citizen be discriminated against for a tax-funded job simply because he or she is exercising their deeply-felt personal religious faith. In my opinion, that kind of subsidized Federal bigotry based on religious faith is a prescription for disaster in this country. And President Clinton, when he signed this legislation and other legislation with charitable choice language in it, made it very clear he did not support that kind of discrimination, and he only signed the bill because of the other good things in it, and his administration had no intention of letting that kind of discrimination occur. With this administration, the present Bush administration, they have said no, it is okay to discriminate against someone based on their religion.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I could respond to that, then I would be glad to yield, because I appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion on this, I think if the gentleman would go back and look at the debate, including Senator Sam Irvin's comments on the Title VII exemption to the Civil Rights Act and the amendments thereto, you would find that the focus there was saying that Baptist churches with their own money should have the right to hire Baptist pastors; a Jewish Synagogue with its own money ought to have the right to hire a Jewish rabbi, rather than a Baptist pastor. I think there is a real serious question about suggesting that Title VII said it is perfectly okay for a faith-based group to take Federal tax dollars and say, ``Mr. Boehner, I am not hiring you today because you do not pass my personal religious test.'' Let us put Title VII aside for a moment. There might be differences of opinion about what is in it. Let us discuss the direct principle. Why should any American citizen have to pass another American citizen's personal religious test to qualify for a Federal education program or a job training program? Why should it be legal for a group to accept a $5 million Head Start or job training grant from the taxpayers and say we are not going to hire Jews or Catholics? Or it might be a Muslim group that says we are not going to hire Christians. In the land that cherishes religious freedom, do you really believe that that is a good public policy?

Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, I will be glad to answer that question, and then I will give the gentleman time to answer my question. I would say, first of all, I disagree with the gentleman that the Title VII exemption gave faith-based groups a carte blanche to use public tax dollars to discriminate in job hiring. The second thing is, when they accept Federal money, they already, under long-standing law, agree not to proselytize. So when you accept taxpayer money, there are certain standards you accept. My question back to the gentleman is does he think it is okay for a faith-based group to receive a $5 million job training grant and say we are not going to hire you because you are Jewish or Catholic? Is that okay?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 423, which recognize the fifth anniversary of the signing of the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Religious freedom, without a doubt, should be a fundamental right of every citizen of the world. And I want to commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for their tireless leadership in defending that right for all. This resolution urges ``a renewed commitment to eliminating the violations to the internationally recognized right to freedom of religion.'' I strongly agree that we should make that renewed commitment. Earlier this morning, a number of House Members, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) in the last few moments rightly criticized religious bigotry and discrimination in Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, China and other nations around the world. I applaud my colleagues for saying that the world should not tolerate torture, imprisonment or murder of people because of their personal religious faith. I also I am deeply grateful to live in the United States, where we do not imprison citizens because their religious faith is different from others. I belief perhaps America's greatest single contribution to the world, from our experiment in democracy, is our model of religious freedom and tolerance. The foundation of that religious freedom here is the principle of the separation of church and state embedded in the first 16 words of our Bill of Rights. ``Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' In his letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802, Thomas Jefferson expressed his belief that the principle of church-state separation is one of the most sacred of our founding principles. Unfortunately, many Americans today have come to perceive that separation of church and state implies disrespect for religion. Nothing could be further from the truth as Jefferson said so eloquently over a century ago. Separation of church and state does not mean keeping people of faith out of government. It does means keeping government out of our faith. By passing language saying ``Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion'' known as the establishment clause of the Bill of Rights, our Founding Fathers were putting religion on a pedestal so high that no hand of politicians or government could reach it and control it. Our Founding Fathers were right, separation of church and state in America has led to more religious freedom, vitality and tolerance than any nation in the world, perhaps throughout the history of the world. Most nations have gotten it wrong because they have tried to use the power of government to fund religion or to emphasize one religion or faith over another. With government funding has come government regulation of religion, and, ultimately, the result has been intolerance against those whose faiths are not in the majority of that country. While I am profoundly grateful for our religious freedom in America, I am also deeply disturbed by recent Bush administration regulations and proposed laws that would limit religious freedom right here at home, the religious freedom of American citizens. It would be ironic and tragic for Members of Congress to be pushing today for more religious freedom abroad while allowing religious freedom to be limited here in America. Let me be specific. This resolution says, ``Whereas the right to freedom of religion is expressed in the declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief.'' Instead of eliminating all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religious belief, the Bush administration actually supports using Federal tax dollars to subsidize religious discrimination. This is known as the so-called Charitable Choice proposals. Under Bush administration proposals, an American citizen can be fired from a Federally-funded job solely because of his or her personal religious faith. Now, let me repeat that. Under Bush administration proposals, an American citizen can be fired from a Federally-funded, tax-supported job for no other reason than that person's religious faith. The administration, for example, would allow a group that associated with Bob Jones University to accept $1 million in job training funds and $1 million tax dollars, your dollars and mine. And then with some of that money put out a sign that says, no Jews or Catholics need apply here to this Federally-funded job. That is offensive, and it is outrageous, and it should not be allowed in America. To allow and to actually subsidize such religious discrimination when using American tax dollars is wrong, and it is unconstitutional. We all know why, for example, a Baptist Church can hire a Baptist minister with their own money to carry out the church's own spiritual mission. However, long-standing Federal policy has been when organizations receive Federal tax dollars to run social service programs, not religious programs, they cannot discriminate in job hiring based simply on a person's religious faith. Yet, President Bush's administration wants to change that policy for billions of tax dollars and for potentially hundreds of thousands jobs. For example, the administration wants to contract out, privatize up to 850,000 present Federal jobs. And in that proposal, they say a group accepting millions of dollars, totaling billions if you add them all up, for hundreds of thousands of jobs, that those groups receiving our tax dollars, and say I am not hiring you because you do not pass my personal religious test. I believe the administration position flies in the face of this resolution today, the Bill of Rights and Americans' personal religious freedom. No American citizen should have to pass any other person's religious test to qualify for a tax-funded job. Mr. Speaker, it is right for House Members to stand up for religious freedom in other nations as we are today, but I would suggest we should more carefully examine how Bush administration policies will lead to religious discrimination right here at home. If Americans are denied the right to a Federally-funded job, the opportunity and effect to feed their families simply because someone else did not like their personal religious faith, then those Americans are clearly being denied the free exercise of their religious freedom. Perhaps most Americans to date have not been concerned about these so-called charitable choice provisions, first because they probably were not aware that these proposals have been made by the administration; and, second, most Americans think that the 1st amendment protects our religious freedom so no one can threaten it. But in the years ahead, if the Bush administration charitable choice proposals continue to be implemented as they are being done right now, dozens, then hundreds, and ultimately thousands of Americans will be denied a tax-funded job single my because of their personal faith. I project that Americans will be outraged to find out that this United States Congress, the same Members who are voting to push religious freedom in other nations, the right thing to do, are voting to deny religious freedom and to subsidize with tax dollars job discrimination against Americans based on their religious faith. While we are right to condemn religious discrimination in other nations, we should stop subsidizing religious discrimination here in America. Religious freedom is a cherished right for all American citizens. Congress has a responsibility on a bipartisan basis to stop the Bush administration proposals, which would put that right at risk for thousands and thousands of American citizens. If we are going to preach religious freedom to other nations, perhaps we should also practice it here at home.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the gentlewoman from California for her leadership in this very, very important area. I also want to congratulate my colleague and neighbor in Williamson County (Mr. Carter) for offering this important piece of legislation. Just as oil and gas was the economic engine for Texas in the 20th century, the availability of water will be the economic engine to Texas in the future in the 21st century. As someone who represents part of Williamson County, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) represents about 80 percent of that county, it is one of the largest, fastest-growing counties in the country. Water usage there is increasing dramatically. Yet our water supply is limited. I was very glad to cosponsor this bill with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter) and will look forward to working with him to try to see that we find the appropriations to fund this important piece of legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, one of the most time-honored traditions of America's servicemen and women is to keep their promise to leave no troops behind on the battlefield. This revered tradition is based on the principle that it would be wrong to leave those behind who have served in sacrifice for their country. Our Nation should honor this tradition, this principle of respect when it comes to the treatment of veterans. No veterans should be left behind when it comes to providing them the benefits they have earned. Unfortunately, the Republican compromise on the disabled veterans tax known as concurrent receipt leaves over 397,000 veterans behind, 397,000 veterans, most of whom have served our Nation in uniform 20 to 30 years. They would not benefit whatsoever from this so-called compromise that represents a lot of broken promises and a lot of patriotic veterans left behind. Many of the military retirees who might be benefitted from this compromise will never see its benefits because it is phased in over 10 years. How many World War II veterans will even be alive 10 years from now? When Republicans passed a $230,000 tax break just earlier this year for wealthy Americans making over $1 million a year in dividend income, those massive tax benefits were made effective this year. Why then are veterans forced to wait 10 years to see a limited reduction in the disabled veterans tax? Where is the fairness in that? One hundred sixty Republicans in this House have co-sponsored the Bilirakis bill to fully repeal the disabled veterans tax. Unfortunately, only two of those 160 Republicans have signed the discharge petition to require a vote on that bill. Well, today there is a second chance to do what is right for veterans. By voting yes on the motion to recommit we can repeal the disabled veterans tax. If just a few of the 160 will join with Democrats, we can repeal the disabled veterans tax and we can do it fully and we can do it today. We can keep the promise we made to veterans when we co-sponsored the Bilirakis bill. Keeping promises and leaving no troops behind, those are quintessential American values. On the eve of Veterans Day, let us apply those American values to the treatment of our veterans. Our promise to veterans should be more important than Republican Party loyalty. Vote yes on the motion to recommit. Vote yes to keep our promises to America's veterans.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for his leadership.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to keep the record straight. I believe the record will show that the House passed H.R. 1307, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, on March 20. The Senate passed it on March 27, and since that time period the bill has been sitting in the House. The House leadership could have brought that bill to the floor of the House for a vote literally months ago. We would need to accept the one major Senate amendment in that bill which said we ought to pay for tax benefits for our service men and women and their families by closing the loopholes on Benedict Arnolds who turn their backs on America and renounce their citizenship to keep from paying taxes. I think there was a delay on this bill, but my main focus today is to say thank you to the gentleman for his leadership in getting it to the floor today and on to the President for his signature. And let us work together better in the future to see that our veterans and service men and women do not have to work so hard and beg to get even meager benefits. And I know the gentleman with his distinguished career of service to our country would not disagree with that.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of representing over 42,000 Army soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas. At present, 17,000 of those soldiers are fighting for our country in Iraq and risking their lives. By the end of next year, over 30,000 of my constituents will have served in Iraq. There is no way our Nation or this Congress can repay its debt of gratitude to those troops, to all of our servicemen and -women, any more than we can repay our debt of gratitude to our friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), for his service and sacrifice to our country during time of war. But this is a good and significant downpayment on that debt of; gratitude, and I commend those who have worked on a bipartisan basis to pass it, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who have fought for this issue, improvements in death gratuity payments, for so very long. I think the question I would like to raise in a few moments is not why is this good bill passing today, but why did it take so much effort and time to pass it over the past year. This bill, these benefits to our servicemen and -women, could have passed and should have passed 7 months ago. The House passed the bill unanimously in March. Seven days later, on March 27 to be exact, the Senate passed the bill. It came back. Unfortunately, the House leadership chose to sit on the bill for 7 months, apparently because the bill was being paid for by closing the tax loophole for Benedict Arnolds who turn their backs on our country and renounce their citizenship to keep from paying American taxes. Despite the good news of this bill today, I have continuing concerns that our veterans and servicemen and -women seem to have to work so hard and to beg for very meager benefits, even those in this bill. Why did it take the Military Officers Association running a radio ad over the last several weeks to get the attention of the House leadership on this bill? Why did it take a press conference with me and others, many veterans groups and military family groups, several weeks ago to get the attention of the House leadership to bring this bill forward? A Congress that passed quickly this year a $230,000 tax break for wealthy Americans making $1 million a year in dividend income, a Congress which can do that should have been able to pass this bill months ago. Mr. Speaker, it is of concern to me that we continue to have a disabled veterans tax, to actually, in effect, tax disabled veterans for their disabilities by reducing their military retirement income. We continue to underfund VA health care. I hope today is not considered a final payment, but a first payment on our debt of gratitude to our servicemen and -women. With the leadership on both sides of the aisle who played such a key role in this bill, I am confident that it will be. But I am going to continue to raise concerns in this House when our veterans have to beg for a $1 billion benefit over 12 years, or 10 years, whereas the Committee on Ways and Means can pass out a $60 billion corporate tax break just last week and dividend tax cuts that help our wealthiest Americans. We need to make our servicemen and -women and their families and America's veterans a first priority, not an afterthought. I salute the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) for this positive step forward. Let it be the first of many other steps forward in honoring our servicemen and -women and veterans with our words and our deeds.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. It does many good things for our service men and women, providing better housing, health care clinics, day care clinics, training facilities, not only here in the continental United States, in our 50 States, but throughout the world as well, wherever American troops might be training or serving their country. I want to especially compliment the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman, in his first term as the chairman of this important subcommittee, a committee that does work that makes such a difference in the quality of life for our service men and women to whom we know we can never repay our debt of gratitude to them. At all times the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) put as his first priority what is best for the service men and women. He was fair. He was thorough. He fought hard for military families, our service men and women, as well as their families, and did a magnificent job in working with the other body and kind of working our way through a maze of very difficult issues; and I really salute the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for his leadership along with his very fine staff. I also want to join with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), chairman, in thanking the chairman of the full committee for his involvement and support in this effort to see that we not only fight for quality of health care and training facilities for our troops here at home but that we also should not forget about the sacrifices made by our service men and women serving overseas that are thousands of miles away from their families, oftentimes in harm's way, risking their lives in duty to country; and I thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his many years of leadership in the area of national defense but particularly his deep personal commitment, aside from his title, his deep personal commitment to our service men and women. Mr. Speaker, I also want to send a message to the administration about this bill today. While the leadership of this committee did a tremendous job in making the most good out of a budget that was underfunded, I would remind the administration for next year that there is an old proverb, I believe it is a Chinese proverb, ``Be careful what you ask for because you just might get it.'' What happened is the administration, probably with a heavy hand from OMB, asked for a $1.5 billion cut in military construction funding compared to last year. I think that is unconscionable to ask for a 14 percent cut in military quality-of-life and training programs at a time when so many American service men and women are at war and, yes, even risking their lives. Because of the good leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and his staff and our staff, we were able to take those inadequate funds and stretch them as far as anybody could stretch them. The RCI housing program, the Residential Community Initiative, is an example of trying to take a limited amount of dollars and stretch them a long way to improve quality of life in terms of housing for our service men and women. But I hope the administration and the Pentagon and OMB are on notice. Do not play this game of sending to Capitol Hill what they know is an unfair, inadequate budget for military construction with the assumption that somehow magically we are going to find an extra $1.5 billion. We did not find an extra $1.5 billion. Had it totally been up to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and me, I think we would have somehow found that money; but that was above our pay grade, that decision on how much money we had to deal with. And I think as someone who has the privilege of representing 42,000 Army soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas, 17,000 of which are presently serving in Iraq, I think it sends a terrible message to them if next year we were to inadequately fund military construction once again. So all of that having been said, not a word of it takes in any way anything from the tremendous leadership of the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) and the bipartisan effort with which he led this effort. If anything, being given such an inadequate funding request from the Pentagon and the administration and OMB, it even adds more respect from me to him for the leadership he showed to get this bill passed, as it will pass in just a few minutes.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, there's something wrong when the administration says we can afford to build new hospitals in Iraq, but we cannot afford to keep open six veterans' hospitals here in America. It would be shameful, during a time of war, to be cutting medical services for American veterans, even as we are improving health care for Iraqi citizens. As we make new promises to Iraqis, let's not break old promises to our veterans. Vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit to increasing VA health care by $1.3 billion. Our vets deserve no less.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous, it is unbelievable, but it is true. The House Republican leadership has kept at the Speaker's desk, since March of this year, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Bill. Several months ago, they said we could afford to give a $230,000 tax break to American citizens living safely here at home making $1 million in dividend income; yet the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) say we cannot afford to provide modest tax help to brave service men and women, many of whom are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yesterday, the leadership said we had time to rename three post offices around the country; yet we have not had the time to consider the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. Why? Because it is paid for by closing the Benedict Arnold loophole that lets American citizens renounce their citizenship to keep from paying taxes. It is shameful the Republican leadership seems to be more interested in protecting Benedict Arnolds than in helping our service men and women.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, the House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), said this, and I quote: ``Nothing is more important in the face of war than cutting taxes.'' As someone who represents Fort Hood in Texas where 17,000 soldiers have left, now fighting in Iraq, I find the gentleman's priorities to be somewhat bizarre. I think he is wrong, and I think the American people would agree that he is wrong. In a time of war, nothing is more important than supporting our troops and our military families. I find it shameful that the same majority leader who said, ``Nothing is more important than cutting taxes during a time of war,'' has actually, along with the Speaker of the House, kept bottled up right here in the well of the House for 7 months the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act, an act that would provide some meager tax benefits for brave servicemen and -women and their families, including our military personnel now in Iraq, in Afghanistan. The same House Republican leadership who earlier this year fought so hard to pass a $230,000 tax break to American citizens making $1 million this year in dividend income cannot seem to say we can afford to pass a modest tax benefit bill for military servicemen and -women even though our Nation is at war. I find it amazing that that same House leadership today thought that we had enough time in the Congress to rename three post offices this afternoon; but they have not had time in 7 months, in 7 months, to grab the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act and bring it to the floor of the House, which they could do tomorrow and we could pass by unanimous consent. I think it sends a terrible message to our military families and to those in combat, in harm's way, that we can pass a $230,000 tax break for people making $1 million in dividend income this year sitting safely in their homes and offices in America, but we cannot afford or we cannot find time to help out a little bit with real estate tax benefits, with gratuity tax benefits, which we will partly deal with tomorrow with the Renzi-McGovern bill, but also with benefits to help Guardsmen and Reservists pay for the cost of their travel and overnight stay and meals when they are doing training for our country. Mr. Speaker, I think the House Republican leadership should explain to the American people why they would hold up the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act simply because the Senate added an amendment, and then passed the bill unanimously, to pay for that military benefit by shutting the loophole on Benedict Arnolds who turn their backs on our country, renounce their citizenship, just to simply avoid paying American taxes. It seems to me that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) should explain why, at least in their actions, they are saying, in effect, that protecting Benedict Arnolds is more important than providing tax benefits for our brave servicemen and -women. Now, I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) originally introduced this bill back in September, but I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi) for his leadership tomorrow on the bill to provide increased death benefit gratuities, as someone who just received two death notices from Fort Hood soldiers in my district today. That is the right thing to do, although, frankly, I am not sure we should be too proud of the fact that we are increasing the military death combat benefit to surviving family members to $12,000. Families whose loved ones lost their lives in the September 11 tragedy received on average over $1 million from various sources, and yet we are increasing the death gratuity to $12,000. Now, even that death gratuity benefit, as important as it is, and I will vote for it and we will probably pass it unanimously tomorrow; but let us keep it in perspective. If we assume approximately 300 deaths so far in the Iraqi war and in Afghanistan and in that whole combat arena, that is going to cost the American taxpayers about $1.8 million, million. Yet the House Committee on Ways and Means today found time and the affordability to pass a $40 billion tax cut to multinational corporations and, overall, a $60 billion tax cut. Mr. Speaker, we should pass the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. Our servicemen and women deserve no less.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, first I want to commend the gentleman. He has been courageous in standing up for military families and veterans, one of only two Republicans to sign the discharge petition on concurrent receipt. The gentleman was mistaken in that the Senate has taken no action on the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. They passed that unanimously 97 to 0 in March, 7 months ago. It has been sitting here at the Speaker's desk, and if the House Republican leadership would bring it to the floor tomorrow, we could pass it unanimously. Apparently, what they object to in passing the bill is closing the Benedict Arnold tax loophole.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful that the House Republican leadership has passed a $230,000 tax break this year for people making over $1 million in dividend income, but that same leadership has bottled up for 7 months the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. The House and Senate passed this bill unanimously in March. It seems the House Republican leadership objects to the fact that the Senate paid for the bill by closing the egregious tax loophole that lets Benedict Arnolds renounce their American citizenship in order to avoid paying American taxes. It is outrageous that the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), and the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), seem to be more interested in protecting the Benedict Arnolds who turn their backs on America than helping patriotic Americans who are fighting for our country in time of war. It is insulting that the House leadership says today that we have time to rename three post offices in bills today, but they do not have time to schedule a final vote on the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. I believe military families and veterans all across America will be deeply offended if Congress finishes its work this year without passing the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong to be making promises to Iraqis while breaking promises to America's veterans. It is wrong to say Americans can afford to build new hospitals in Baghdad, but we cannot afford to keep open veterans hospitals here at home. This motion is about doing right by America's veterans, veterans such as Robert Armstrong. I met this brave American, a constituent of mine, recently at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Sergeant Armstrong was protecting a children's medical center in Baghdad when a grenade went off close by. He was badly wounded and near death. Army doctors were so sure that he would die that they ushered him out of the Army in order to help his family receive higher death benefits. But Sergeant Armstrong did not die even though his heart flatlined five times and he lost an eye and a leg. In and out of consciousness, Sergeant Armstrong kept repeating the name Mary, Mary, Mary. It turns out that Mary was his 15-year-old daughter, and he had promised her he would come home alive. My wife was with Mary at Walter Reed Hospital when she saw her loving father for the first time in 5 months. His first words to his daughter were, ``Mary, I always keep my promises.'' Mr. Speaker, this motion is about America saying to Sergeant Armstrong that we will keep our promise to you, the promise to provide you with quality health care because of your service and sacrifices for our Nation. The truth is the proposed VA health care budget does not even keep up with inflation, even during the time of war. It would require cuts in services that are already stretched to the limit. It is $1.8 billion below the VA health care budget promised by Republicans in this House earlier this year in their budget resolution. The Senate provides $1.3 billion more than the House bill, coming much closer to keeping our promise to veterans. And we should support that higher level of funding for our veterans hospitals and we know it. Our veterans deserve no less. Sergeant Armstrong kept his promise to his daughter. Now, it is time for America to keep our promise to him. Let us, in a bipartisan fashion, support this motion to instruct. Let us, on a bipartisan basis, vote to increase funding for veterans hospitals by $1.3 billion and then let us mean it, because to vote for this resolution and then not to push it through conference committee would be breaking a promise to our veterans one more time. They deserve better than that.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, during floor votes 535, 536 and 537, I was unavoidably detained meeting with representatives from Fort Hood. Fortunately, these bills were passed overwhelmingly, but had I been here to vote, I would have voted ``aye'' on each.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose all late term abortions, but when a mother's health is at risk, that decision should be made by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians in Washington, D.C. If there is one frivolous later term abortion, that's one too many. That's why I want to pass legislation that bans all late term abortion procedures, not just one. This bill is not a serious attempt to save babies. It is a cynical attempt to make political points. Do you know what? There is a dirty little secret about this bill that is starting to get out, and that secret is that this bill does not outlaw late-term abortions. Let me repeat that. Under this bill, late-term abortions under Federal law, will still be perfectly legal. Why do I say that? Very simply, because this bill only outlaws one late-term abortion procedure, while allowing all others to remain perfectly legal. For 8 years, I have asked on this floor the supporters of this bill to explain why they did not want to put in this bill an outlaw of all late-term abortion procedures like I helped do in the Texas legislature 13 years ago. I think probably the honest answer to that was given by Ralph Reed a number of years ago when he said, ``the partial-birth abortion bill is a silver political bullet.'' And I think the people in America who should truly be upset about this bill and the effort to pass it for 8 years, are not just the pro-choice people. It should be the genuine, decent pro-life people who in their own heart have been misled to believe that this bill would actually outlaw late-term abortions. It does not. And that is a dirty little secret that is starting to get out, even in the pro-life community. In fact, let us go to a statement made just 2 weeks ago by Randall Terry, who is the founder of Operation Rescue, an ardently pro-life organization. This is what Mr. Terry, a pro-life citizen, said, ``This bill, if it becomes law, may not save one child's life.'' Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dirty little secret is getting out. There is another little secret that is getting out about this bill, and that is that it is absolutely, patently unconstitutional. So those who have pushed this bill have pushed a false promise on their pro-life constituents. Why is it unconstitutional? It is as clear as the Supreme Court can say. When it puts a decision in italics, I think it is trying to make it a very clear point to those who would read it; but for those who cannot understand it, let me read Justice O'Conner's statement from the Stenberg v. Carhart decision in 2000, which outlawed a bill almost exactly like this. ``States may substantially regulate and even prescribe abortion, but any such regulation or prescription must,'' not maybe, ``must contain an exception for instances,'' and this was in italics, ``where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of life or health of the mother.'' Well, guess what, unlike the constitutional bill I passed in the Texas legislature 17 years ago abolishing all late-term abortion procedures, but constitutional because we had a health exception, this bill refuses to have a health exception, even when the mother's health is at risk. This bill is a false promise. It will harm good decent women in this country, and it should be defeated.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not a serious attempt to save babies. It is a cynical attempt to make political points. Do you know what? There is a dirty little secret about this bill that is starting to get out, and that secret is that this bill does not outlaw late-term abortions. Let me repeat that. Under this bill, late-term abortions under Federal law, will still be perfectly legal. Why do I say that? Very simply, because this bill only outlaws one late-term abortion procedure, while allowing all others to remain perfectly legal. For 8 years, I have asked on this floor the supporters of this bill to explain why they did not want to put in this bill an outlaw of all late-term abortion procedures like I helped do in the Texas legislature 13 years ago. I think probably the honest answer to that was given by Ralph Reed a number of years ago when he said, ``the partial-birth abortion bill is a silver political bullet.'' And I think the people in America who should truly be upset about this bill and the effort to pass it for 8 years, are not just the pro-choice people. It should be the genuine, decent pro-life people who in their own heart have been misled to believe that this bill would actually outlaw late-term abortions. It does not. And that is a dirty little secret that is starting to get out, even in the pro-life community. In fact, let us go to a statement made just 2 weeks ago by Randall Terry, who is the founder of Operation Rescue, an ardently pro-life organization. This is what Mr. Terry, a pro-life citizen, said, ``This bill, if it becomes law, may not save one child's life.'' Yes, Mr. Speaker, the dirty little secret is getting out. There is another little secret that is getting out about this bill, and that is that it is absolutely, patently unconstitutional. So those who have pushed this bill have pushed a false promise on their pro-life constituents. Why is it unconstitutional? It is as clear as the Supreme Court can say. When it puts a decision in italics, I think it is trying to make it a very clear point to those who would read it; but for those who cannot understand it, let me read Justice O'Conner's statement from the Stenberg v. Carhart decision in 2000, which outlawed a bill almost exactly like this. ``States may substantially regulate and even prescribe abortion, but any such regulation or prescription must,'' not maybe, ``must contain an exception for instances,'' and this was in italics, ``where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of life or health of the mother.'' Well, guess what, unlike the constitutional bill I passed in the Texas legislature 17 years ago abolishing all late-term abortion procedures, but constitutional because we had a health exception, this bill refuses to have a health exception, even when the mother's health is at risk. This bill is a false promise. It will harm good decent women in this country, and it should be defeated.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I support this substitute. We have the largest deficit in American history which just 2 years ago was the largest surplus in American history, and we ought to do something about it, and this substitute helps pay for the cost of this bill. Let me just say that I think, Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in this House has very misplaced priorities. I think the American people would agree with me. If you in America this year make $1 million sitting safely at home here in the continental United States in dividend income, you will get a $230,000 tax break. But under this bill the Republican leadership would say to servicemen and women serving in Iraq and to their families that if you are killed in Iraq this year and in service to your country and if Congress happens to increase deaths benefits to your family, to your widow, then we want to tax those benefits. The bill on the other side of this Capitol did not do that. I am puzzled and perplexed and, frankly, deeply disappointed and somewhat angered that the Republican leadership would be willing to give a $230,000 tax break to somebody making $1 million a year in dividend income, but they want to have higher taxes on death benefits for servicemen and women who might be killed in Iraq. Secondly, those same folks who want to give that huge tax break, $230,000 worth, to someone sitting here safely in the U.S., actually wants to put a cap on the amount of money that can be deducted for tax purposes for National Guardsmen and Reservists, the costs that they incur trying to serve their country as they travel to and from places where our Nation has asked them to travel to, they will only be able to deduct $1,500 in taxes under this bill, according to the Republican leadership. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are at war today, a war on terrorism, and I think it sends a horrible message to our servicemen and women in harm's way today that if you are in the Guard or Reserves we will be stingy on letting you get tax benefits to cover your cost of serving the country, but let us help those folks making $1 million a year on dividend income.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I support the substitute because I think we ought to be sensitive about the largest deficit in American history. I would also like to go back to something mentioned that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) responded to. I said I have a concern about this bill. It limits the amount of money that National Guardsmen and Reservists can charge off as tax deductions when they have expenses serving their country, such as going overnight to their local reserve location. I also object to the fact that this bill will actually provide increased taxes on military death benefits if we increase those benefits, for example, for our Iraqi troops today. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) responded by saying that bill we have sent to the Senate. I would like to clarify the rest of that story. That bill, to my knowledge, is sitting at the Speaker's desk today, and it has been sitting there since March. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman if he would be willing to work on a unanimous consent basis to bring that bill from the Speaker's desk today, and before we leave because of the impending rain, we could actually provide increased tax benefits to our servicemen and -women. If the gentleman would agree to a unanimous consent request, we could do it that way; or the Republican leadership can vote for our motion to recommit, which would provide those increased military benefits today. What bothers me is the reason that bill is being held up there is it seems some in the Republican leadership have more interest in tax breaks for people who renounce their citizenship than in tax benefits to Guardsmen and Reservists and men and women serving very patriotically and at great risk to their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan today. I do not think that reflects the values of the American people.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this issue is simple, but important, to our military families. If you want to support increased tax benefits for the loved ones who have lost a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine in Iraq, then you should vote for this motion to recommit. If you want to help Guardsmen and Reservists who take money out of their own pocket to serve our country to travel over 100 miles and stay in hotels to do the duty that our country asked them to do, if you want to help those people with tax benefits on those expenses, then you ought to vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I think the American people would be offended to find out why we have to support this motion to recommit. For 6 months there has been a bill sitting in this Chamber at the Speaker's desk that would provide these benefits, earned benefits, to our servicemen and - women and to the families of servicemen and -women killed in combat. But do you know why that bill has been held up by the House Republican leadership? Because the military tax benefits are paid for by closing the loophole of tax benefits for those who leave this country and renounce their American citizenship in order not to pay taxes. Let me repeat that. A bill has been held up for 6 months at the Speaker's desk. We could pass it by unanimous consent today if the Republican leadership would work with us on it. But for 6 months it has been held up. We are holding up military benefits because the Republican House leadership is more interested in protecting tax benefits for those who would renounce their American citizenship. Mr. Speaker, that offends every American value that I have ever been taught. I think that goes against the grain of every patriotic speech that has been given on the floor this year saluting the sacrifices of our servicemen and -women. I know we all intend to support our servicemen and -women, but in Congress we should be judged not by what we say, but by what we do. Right now, on a bipartisan basis, we can vote to provide increased military tax benefits to those who have not only served our country, but the families of those who have died for our country.

Mr. EDWARDS

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