Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall No. 272. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``nay.''

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is time to stop penalizing disabled military retirees for having served our country for 20 or 30 years. It is time to stop the disabled veterans tax that reduces military retirees' benefits when the Veterans Administration determines that they are disabled. This issue is known by veterans as the concurrent receipt problem. I know it as the concurrent deceit problem. Today, through the strong leadership of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), the 300-plus House Members who have year after year cosponsored the Bilirakis bill to deal with concurrent receipt for military retirees can actually do something about passing that bill, rather than just taking credit for cosponsoring it as they speak at home to their veteran service groups. It is time to be honest with America's veterans. It is time to stop the hypocrisy of year after year having a majority of the House cosponsor this bill and we never have a hearing, never have a vote on it. If cosponsors will sign the gentleman from Georgia's (Mr. Marshall) petition today, we can have a vote on this bill before the 4th of July. Let us pass the Marshall discharge petition.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I support the Hoyer-Greenwood amendment for two reasons. First, this amendment makes illegal all late-term abortion procedures, unlike the underlying bill that only outlaws one late-term abortion procedure while, amazingly, allowing all other late-term abortion procedures to be left perfectly legal. Second, passing an unconstitutional bill is not going to save one child's life. Not one. We know what the Supreme Court decision has said. It said it June 28 of 2000. The Supreme Court said, even in italics, that if you do not have a health exception, the bill will not become law. To put it in italics by the Supreme Court makes it about as clear as we can make the English language be. I find it, Mr. Speaker, amazing that those who say their goal, and I trust their convictions, is to save babies' lives, why would you not want to ban all late-term abortions? If you assume these women are such monsters that just seconds before a perfectly healthy childbirth they would want to kill that baby, then I guess you could also assume very understandably she would just ask the doctor to use one of the other late-term abortion procedures. Sixteen years ago, as a member of the Texas Senate, I was not interested in sound bites or partisanship. I was interested in banning all late-term abortion procedures, because no matter how a baby dies, if he dies frivolously late term, that is morally wrong in my book. But we knew then what we know today and that is, if you tonight have a health exception, your bill will not be law. I ask once again, to the supporters of this bill, the question that has never been answered. If you assume a woman wants to kill a baby in the last seconds before a normal childbirth, why are you allowing her to do that under your bill just using other procedures? This bill is a false promise. Vote for the Hoyer-Greenwood amendment and we can stop all late-term abortion procedures.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let me ask and I would like to have an honest debate on this. I appreciate what the gentleman has said. He has been very honest and straightforward about outlining one procedure and not two others. My question is, if we assume a mother is going to take a perfectly healthy baby later term and have that child aborted for frivolous reasons, why would she not go and use one of the other two procedures? What babies have you saved?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if there is one frivolous late-term abortion in America, in my book that is one too many. But this bill is a false promise for two reasons. First, it is clearly unconstitutional, since it has no health exception for the mother. Passing an unconstitutional bill will not save one child. That is a fact. Second, supporters of this bill have misled the American people to think the bill outlaws late-term abortions. It does not. The truth is, this bill focuses on prohibiting one type of late-term abortion while keeping perfectly legal other types of late-term abortion procedures. Let me state a fact that is going to surprise many Americans who have been misled regarding this bill. The truth is, this partial-birth abortion bill will allow late-term abortions to remain legal. Supporters of this bill have never really honestly answered this question. If they really believe a woman is a monster and wants to abort a late-term fetus for absolutely frivolous reasons, then why are Members just banning one procedure? That will just let her tell the doctor to use another procedure. They have not saved one child and they know it. Perhaps the real answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, lies in the statement of Ralph Reed, who said several years ago that this partial- birth abortion bill is a silver political bullet. This bill is about sound-bite politics and campaign attack ads, not saving babies. In contrast, 16 years ago as a Texas State senator I worked with pro- choice and pro-life groups to pass a constitutional bill that did not ban one late-term abortion procedure; we banned in 1987 all late-term abortion procedures. Then we worked with those groups in good faith, put in a constitutionally mandated health exception. We knew that health exception was necessary 16 years ago, and they know it is necessary today. I think it is a shame that the House leadership has put politics above policy. I hope some people will wake up to recognize that had that not been the case, we could have passed a ban on all late-term abortion procedures in this Congress and it would have been signed into law 8 years ago. Instead, we are voting today on a false promise.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, since when did creating the largest deficit in American history become a conservative value? The same House leadership that has led us in just 2 years from the largest surplus in American history to the largest deficit in American history now proudly digs that hole deeper tonight. The dirty little secret of that bill is that every single dollar of this tax cut is paid by borrowing, borrowing from our children's future rather than investing in it, borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund rather than strengthening it. This is a growth bill all right. It will grow our national debt by trillions. It will grow taxes for future generations who will have to pay interest costs on that new huge debt. It will grow the cost of doing business for our family businesses and farmers, for buying a home or a car when interest rates are pushed up by your historic deficits. If our values in Congress are reflected by our priorities, what does it say when the Republicans on the House Committee on the Budget voted just 2 months ago to cut veterans' benefits by $28 billion, Medicare by $262 billion, and Medicaid for poor children by $110 billion? Whoops, tonight they say we can afford a $350 billion tax cut. Is that what compassionate conservatism is all about? In a few hours I will go to sleep knowing that Republican campaign operatives are already happily preparing their attack press releases for those of us who will oppose this irresponsible bill, but, quite frankly, I really do not care. Because when my 5- and 7-year-old sons wake up in the morning, I can look them in the eyes knowing that I did not vote tonight to mortgage their futures. Congress did it in 1981, and it repeated the mistake in 2001. Tonight, our Republican leaders once again make the mistake by offering the false promise of huge increases in defense spending, balanced budgets, and massive tax cuts. It did not work then. It is bad policy now. This is a bad bill for our children and their future.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, withholding of secret taped conversations between government officials and possible wrongdoing, misuse of Federal law enforcement agencies for domestic political purposes. It sounds like Watergate in 1974 and Richard Nixon, does it not? Yes, it does. But sadly, these government abuses have occurred in the last 10 days in our country. The silence of Republic leadership and the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), on these government abuses is deafening. These are the facts: last week, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had to admit it used Federal antiterrorism resources paid for by taxpayers to track down Texas State legislators, hardly a terrorist threat even on their worst days. Fact number two: in a taped telephone conversation last week, the Texas Department of Public Safety apparently asked, unethically if not illegally, for the U.S. Homeland Security Agency to get involved in this political matter. Fact number three: the U.S. Homeland Security Agency refuses to let the public know what was on those taped conversations. Today, we now find out there is destruction of evidence by the Texas Department of Public Safety. The American people deserve answers.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, last week, Central Texas, the City of Killeen and Ft. Hood lost a friend with the passing of Bernice ``Bernie'' Beck. Some people will be known for their accomplishments in life. Others will be known for their strength of character. My friend; Killeen's friend; Ft. Hood's friend, Bernice Beck, will be known for both. Some will be remembered for service to country in time of war. Others will be remembered for service to community in time of peace. Bernice Beck will be remembered for both. I will miss Bernie Beck, because he was a dear friend, but his lasting legacies cannot be missed, not even by those who never knew him--Stillhouse Hollow Lake, Ft. Hood's III Corps Headquarters, the Soldier Development Center, the Soldier Service Center and Army family housing improvement program--these are but a few of the important projects that bear the imprint of Bernie Beck's commitment to the community and soldiers he loved. I'll never forget the first time I met Bernie Beck. It was 1990, and I was campaigning for Congress. I asked for his support. In his typical quiet but firm determination, he said I would have it, under one condition. He wanted to know that I would work to get on the Armed Services Committee because of Ft. Hood. I did. He gave it. I won and a wonderful friendship was started. Somehow, Bernie Beck always seemed to know how to get things done, whether it was business or politics. In the 13 years I knew Bernie, never once did he come to me to ask for something selfish. It was always something for Ft. Hood, for soldiers and their families, and for his beloved Killeen. When I was still trying to learn where the bathrooms were in Congress, Bernie Beck and his fellow patron of Ft. Hood, Tommy Joe Mills, introduced me to the powers to be in Congress and the nooks and crannies of the Pentagon. You see, unknown to many, those two would come to D.C. every year and wine and dine key staffers, Members of Congress and Army officials at their own expense . . . well, usually at Bernie's expense. Tommy Joe's gregariousness and Bernie's quiet determination--what a combination. What Bob Hope and Bing Crosby were to entertainment, Beck and Mills were to Ft. Hood. They were an unforgettable partnership that surely only the Good Lord could have brought together . . . and we are all the better for it. Whether it was General B.B. Bell in Europe last month or the Chief of the Staff of the Army, Rick Shinseki last week, when I met with Army leaders anywhere, they asked about Bernie Beck. They admired him, because he always cared about the Army family. Some people get things done by shouting. That was not Bernie Beck. Some people inspire by their eloquent orations. That was not Bernie. But, when Bernice Beck spoke, often quietly, people listened and things got done. That was the measure of respect he earned from all of us blessed to know him. I'll never forget the last time I saw Bernie Beck. It was in Killeen at our community event honoring Ft. Hood soldiers about to be deployed to Iraq. How appropriate for this World War II combat veteran who spent 4 years in Europe fighting Hitler's forces . . . 58 years later sitting quietly in the crowd, never ever forgetting those who serve our nation. Bernie Beck understood that one day he would be saved by grace, not by good works, but he also knew that helping others was a way to carry out the great commandment to ``love thy neighbor as thyself.'' Now, that day has come and Bernie Beck is blessed to be in that special place that God surely saves for those of faith who walked humbly, while making life's path better for those who follow. May God bless his spirit, just as He blessed us by bringing Bernie Beck into this world and into our lives.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has had to admit that it used Federal resources, Federal tax dollars last week to track the airplane of a Texas Democratic legislator. For the U.S. agency with the responsibility to protect our families from terrorists instead to use taxes, dollars and our resources to track the former speaker of the Texas House Pete Laney, flying from that hotbed of Islamic radicalism, Hale Center, Texas, to Ardmore, Oklahoma, is absolutely outrageous. Now that Federal agency is compounding its mistakes, if not its illegal actions, by refusing to release to the American public and press a tape in which the Texas Department of Public Safety talked to the U.S. Homeland Security agency, that conversation leading to the abuse and misuse of Federal tax dollars in this case. What is the Department of Homeland Security afraid of? What are they hiding? What is on that tape? It sounds to me, Mr. Speaker, like my years in Washington in the 1970s when then President Nixon refused to let the public see or hear the tape of his White House conversations. We know why President Nixon did not want to release the tape, because it basically was responsible for finding him guilty of abuse of office. My question is, why would the U.S. Department of Homeland Security not release its tape? It owes it to the American people to do so.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, most Americans have never visited the little west Texas community town of Hale Center. It is a good community, a little under 3,000 people, the heart of the west Texas Bible Belt. Having not been there recently, I imagine they probably have a local pharmacy and a great little public school. But according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Hale Center, Texas, a town of under 3,000 people, must be a terrorist threat to the United States. Why do I say that? Well, it is the only legitimate reason I can think of as to why last week, while al Qaeda was apparently planning and carrying out murders of citizens in Saudi Arabia, including Americans, and a terrorist attack in Morocco, our U.S. Homeland Security Agency, with the responsibility to protect American citizens from terrorism, was doing what? They were checking a private airplane flight leaving from Hale Center, Texas, that fine little Bible Belt community, a plane that was going to that other, I guess, center of Islamic radical terrorism, Ardmore, Oklahoma. Now, the truth was that on that airplane was former Speaker and now legislator of the Texas House, Pete Laney, a fine American. Even his worst political enemies would never suggest he is a terrorist. Yet our U.S. Homeland Security Agency, working through the forces and offices in California, spent our tax dollars tracking down Mr. Laney as he flew in his own plane from Hale Center, Texas, to Ardmore. Now, I will say, they do have on the 4th of July every year in Hale Center, Texas, a county fiddlers' contest. Perhaps Mr. Ridge and our Homeland Security Agency should go visit Hale Center and see if maybe that fiddlers' contest is a front for al Qaeda. Certainly if there is an al Qaeda cell headquartered in Hale City, Texas, Americans ought to know about it. There is something else Americans have a right to know about. They have a right to know what is on the tape between the Texas Department of Public Safety last week and their phone conversation with the U.S. Homeland Security Agency that led to our using and abusing Federal tax dollars to track down Mr. Laney and his air flight from Hale Center, Texas. There is no justification for that kind of abuse of resources of an agency that ought to be focusing its attention on how to stop terrorism here in the United States. This issue of the Texas legislators going to Ardmore is no longer just a Texas issue. It is the fundamental question of whether American taxpayers can have faith that our U.S. Homeland Security Agency is going to track down terrorists, rather than track down law-abiding American citizens. I voted to create that agency. I voted to fund that agency. But if this agency is going to abuse tax dollars and undermine our ability to fight terrorists by tracking down in frivolous efforts a State legislator who is a great, respected law-abiding citizen of Texas, then something is wrong, something is amiss; and we need to make some changes at the Department of Homeland Security. Now, the question I think American citizens, Mr. Speaker, have a right to ask Mr. Ridge and the Homeland Security Agency is, what are you afraid of? Why are you unwilling to let the American people hear what is on that telephone conversation? In fact, that tape was made with U.S. public tax dollars. Why not let the public, the citizens who paid for that tape, listen to what is on it? Are they afraid it might implicate our Federal agencies and leaders who made the decision to abuse Federal tax resources to track down a law-abiding citizen involved in a Texas political dispute? Are they afraid that perhaps maybe the Speaker of the Texas House, Mr. Craddick, or even the House Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), were involved in asking the Federal agency to get involved in this inappropriate way? Frankly, no one will know the answer to those questions until the Department of Homeland Security lets the public fulfill its right to listen to what is on that tape. If it exonerates these State and Federal officials, why has Mr. Ridge not already divulged the tape to the public? If it implicates Federal officials and State officials, perhaps that is the explanation as to why they have denied us the right to listen to that tape. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. The Texas legislators are back at work in Austin. But this issue will not go away, for one simple reason: the American public and American taxpayers have a right to know whether their tax dollars have been used unethically and perhaps illegally. They have a right to know whether Texas State public officials were involved in asking the Federal agency to put aside its efforts for a moment in their fight against terrorists who might attack our homeland and focus on an internal Texas political dispute where no State or Federal law was broken. When will we know what is on that tape, who is implicated in that tape? We have a right to know the answer to those questions, and the public and press will not stop until our U.S. Homeland Security Agency provides those answers.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, before I discuss some comments I would like to make about the courageous acts of 51 Texas legislators last week, I want to join my Republican colleagues in thanking Congressman Larry Combest for so many years of dedicated public service to the State of Texas and to our country. Those of us who believe that one of the strengths of our country comes from the values of rural America, one of the strengths of our economy comes from the productivity of our family farmers and ranchers, all of us who believe those things owe a debt of gratitude, an everlasting debt of gratitude to Larry Combest for his bipartisan and strong leadership in our country not only as chairman of the Committee on Agriculture but as chairman of the very important Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence through which he served our Nation's security in so many important ways. Mr. Speaker, I do want to talk about the actions of last week where we had 51 Texas legislators who fought to stop U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay from forcing a divisive, partisan and unnecessary congressional redistricting plan through the Texas House of Representatives. Their act of courage was heralded by editorial boards throughout our State of Texas. I salute legislators like Jim Dunnam and John Mabry from my hometown of Waco, Texas. Without their actions on Monday morning of last week, the Texas House would have passed a plan that would have split my 100-year-old historic rural central Texas district into four different congressional districts stretching from Fort Worth to the suburbs of Houston to San Antonio, literally covering hundreds and hundreds of miles without a single bit of input from one mayor or city council member in our district, one school board member, because that plan was only put together on Mother's Day afternoon last Sunday with the intention of passing it through the Texas House starting at 10 a.m. the next day, on Monday morning. That was wrong for that plan to have been pushed and right for Texas legislators to stand up not for themselves, not for me, but for the right of central Texas citizens in my district and Texans, Republicans and Democrats alike throughout our State, to have a voice in shaping their congressional districts and the future of their communities. While the Texas legislators are back in Austin working on State priority issues, there are some questions that will not go away and some questions to which the American people deserve an answer. Outrageously, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the new agency with the responsibility to protect American families from terrorists here and abroad, that agency used Federal antiterrorism resources and personnel to track down Texas Representative Pete Laney of Hale Center, Texas, as he flew his private airplane from his hometown to Ardmore, Oklahoma. To borrow a phrase from former Senator Lloyd Bentsen, ``I know Pete Laney, Pete Laney is a friend of mine, and I can assure you Pete Laney is no terrorist.'' Quite to the contrary, he is the former Speaker of the Texas House, a respected leader in our legislature, respected by members of both sides of the aisle. In fact, Pete Laney was the one individual that President George Bush who then as Governor Bush asked Mr. Laney to introduce for the first time to the public President-elect Bush in his first speech to the Nation and the world once he found out he would be President. I have some questions for the Department of Homeland Security: One, and most importantly, why will you not release the tapes of the conversation between the Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. homeland security agency, the very conversation that led to the possibly unlawful and certainly unethical use of Federal resources, antiterrorism resources to track down the law-abiding citizen Pete Laney? Secondly, do you have something to hide? Why is our U.S. homeland security agency afraid to let the American people and the press know what was in that conversation? Thirdly, does the public not deserve to hear the conversation that led to what does appear to be a gross abuse of Federal resources? Fourthly, to the homeland security agency, our U.S. agency again trying to defend us against terrorism, if the tape exonerates you and your actions, what are you afraid of? Why are you not willing to release that tape now, not weeks, not months from now, not years from now? Why are you afraid to release that tape now to Members of Congress and to the public? Fifth, did Majority Leader Tom DeLay or House Speaker Tom Craddick or any one of their staffs or someone speaking in their behalf ask the Texas Department of Public Safety to make this request to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security? We will not know the answer to those questions until the tape of our U.S. homeland security agency is made available to the public. Mr. Speaker, this is no longer just a Texas issue. It is an issue for all Americans who care about defending our families and our neighborhoods and our communities from terrorists. How horrible it is that during the very week that al Qaeda was preparing the final efforts apparently to attack Morocco and American citizens in Saudi Arabia our homeland security agency was tracking down former State Speaker of the House and present State representative Pete Laney in Hale Center, Texas, a community of just over 2,000 people, not known as a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism or radicalism in little old west Texas.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy. According to the dictionary, hypocrisy is defined as a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not. Mr. Speaker, I think hypocrisy is a good description of the recent statement of the Texas Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick. Americans have watched with interest over the last several days where 52 courageous Democratic legislators left the Texas Legislature, broke a quorum, and went to Ardmore, Oklahoma, in order to allow Texas citizens to have a voice in shaping their new congressional districts for the next decade. They were the ones that stopped a secret plan of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and Mr. Craddick that very few people in Texas had seen; that would have eventually destroyed communities of interest, distorted communities of interest across our State. They stopped that from happening without public input or awareness. I think these 52 Democrats are heroes. But Mr. Craddick, who did not like that walkout by those 52 legislators, called them, in effect, chickens, along with his other Republican colleagues. Whoops. Turns out that the Waco Tribune Herald, in my hometown in Texas, did a little research. Mr. Craddick forgot to tell the Texas people about this. It turns out in 1971, as a State House member, Mr. Craddick was part of a group called the Dirty 30 that did exactly what these members have done this week: He walked out of the Texas House of Representatives to express a protest over issues. Hypocrisy. I find it interesting that Speaker Craddick has referenced the Alamo in regard to this incident. Well, in all due respect, Mr. Craddick is no Davy Crockett, and if he would review his Texas history, Mr. Craddick would remember that the defenders of the Alamo were committed people of conscience, committed to the high principle of fighting to see that all Texans had a voice in shaping their families' and their communities' destinies. That is what these 52 courageous Democrats are doing in Oklahoma today. They are fighting with the courage of their convictions. They are profiles in courage trying to see that all Texans, not just Mr. DeLay and Mr. Craddick, who, with a secret, behind-closed-door map, are trying to shape the future of our congressional districts in our great State. Hypocrisy, I think, is an apt definition for the statements of Mr. Craddick, given what he did in 1971, walking out of the Texas House of Representatives with 29 of his colleagues. Now, one of the other things that I find very distasteful that we have watched in the last several days is that, with glee, Republican House Members in Texas put together playing cards to mimic the liberty cards that were put together to identify terrorists in Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. I find it deeply offensive, and I think most Texans will find it equally offensive, that Texas Republican legislators would try to compare Texas State officials, who have been elected by their citizens to stand up and fight for their freedoms and their opportunities, to fight for their voice in shaping our government, comparing those brave Texans to people such as Hussein's Presidential adviser, the King of Spades; comparing them to the Republican Guard chief of staff, the Jack of Clubs; the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the Iraqi Armed Forces chief of staff, a jack of Spades; the Secretary of the Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard, along with other Iraqi terrorists who have been responsible for the death and murder and rape of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Shame on Texas Republican legislators and whoever developed that cute little gimmick to compare our legislators in our country to Iraqi terrorists. Mr. Speaker, a lot of folks in my district in central Texas are not yet aware of what would have happened had this Sunday night 52 Texas legislators not gone to Ardmore, Oklahoma, to break a quorum. This is the real story: On Sunday, Mother's Day, when most families in my district were with their families honoring their mothers, Mr. DeLay and Mr. Craddick's forces had a different agenda that day. Their agenda was to put the final touches on a secret, unknown redistricting map that the public had never been able to see. It was going to dramatically change the 11th Congressional District in central Texas. I salute these heroes in Oklahoma for standing up to that kind of secret dealmaking that would have destroyed the 11th Congressional District as we have known it for over 100 years.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to review after this hour-long debate we have just finished why virtually every major newspaper in Texas is editorialized in saying that ``what Mr. DeLay is trying to do in forcing a partisan redistricting plan down the throats of 20 million Texas citizens is wrong.'' First they admit and say that what he does diverts the legislature's attention from huge problems facing Texas. A $10 billion deficit, hundreds of thousands of children being thrown off the CHIPs health care program, school finance, it is important to parents all across our State. The editorials are right; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is wrong. The secret back-room deals that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and Texas Speaker Tom Craddick would rip apart historic communities of interest, and they have orchestrated a process that only the Keystone Cops could admire and have drawn a bizarre map that would give modern art a bad name. Let me be specific. First the process. Texas Republican legislators refused to have hearings across Texas, thus violating the legislature's own 2001 guidelines for seeking broad Texas citizen input into something as important as congressional redistricting. Finally, the one hearing they did have was in the Texas capital, but you know what? It started about 9 p.m. on Friday night a few weeks ago, did not finish until 6:30 a.m. on Saturday morning, with some of the capitol doors locking Texas citizens out of those hearings in the dark of the night. Now, the Texas House redistricting committee then started playing the old rope-a-dope game coming up with new plans almost daily, kind of a map du jour to confuse Texas citizens so they would not know which maps were seriously being considered. And, even worse, the House committee chairman had the gall to say that he did not want to have hearings in south Texas because he could not understand Spanish. What a rather crude insult to the millions of Hispanic English-speaking citizens of south Texas. Finally, the Mother's Day massacre plan. Last Sunday, while Texans, including myself, were honoring our families and our mothers, the forces of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) had a different idea that day. They concocted a map for Texas congressional redistricting that no one had ever seen, not a single Texas elected mayor, city councilman, school board member, not any of the 20 million of Texas citizens. Their plan was slick. It was at 10 a.m. the next morning, this past Monday morning, less than 24 hours after that map was put on one Website with no press announcements, they were going to shove that map down the throats of the Texas House. I admire Representative Jim Dunnam and John Mabry from Waco, because had they not stood up and broken that quorum, the people of central Texas and our historic rural central Texas district would have been devastated: one district carved into four congressional districts stretching from Fort Worth to the suburbs of Houston to San Antonio. The process has been wrong, the map is wrong, and I admire these Texas profiles in courage for saying 20 million Texas citizens should not be shut out of having their voices heard when it comes to shaping the future of their communities for decades to come.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. EDWARDS. I have not been to Hale Center, Texas, lately. I think I recall they have a small cotton gin there. I know they have got maybe a drug store, a health center, perhaps known as a center for an al Qaeda cell, perhaps?

Mr. EDWARDS. As I understand the article from the Fort Worth Star- Telegram, the homeland security agency, the responsibility of defending American citizens from terrorists here and abroad, they actually took taxpayer resources to follow a twin-engine plane from Hale Center, Texas, to Ardmore, Oklahoma; is that correct?

Mr. EDWARDS. The same Tom DeLay, the majority leader of the House, who says what is good for Tom DeLay in redistricting is good for Texas is the same person who said just a year ago to Texas parents, do not send your sons and daughters to Texas A&M University or to Baylor University, which is a great university that I am proud to represent in my hometown of Waco. He said those universities were too liberal.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the gentleman's point about respecting others with different opinions. I am deeply offended, and I think Texans and Americans should be deeply offended, that Texas House Republicans have compared these Texas legislators who are standing up for the important American principle that citizens should have a voice in developing their future, that they have been compared to terrorists in Iraq. It was Texas legislators who put together playing cards, laughing all the way in the last several days, with the faces of Texas-elected representatives on those cards, mimicking, they knew absolutely well, mimicking the cards that had the faces of Saddam Hussein's terrorists, rapists, thugs and mass murderers. I find it offensive in our American democracy and Texas democracy that Texas Republican legislators would stoop that low in this process.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in the last 2 days, many Americans have been intrigued by the story of 51 Texas legislators breaking a quorum in the Texas legislature by traveling to Ardmore, Oklahoma. Many may wonder why those legislators, whom I consider profiles in courage, would take such an extraordinarily drastic step. People such as Representative Pete Laney, who several years ago, when President Bush first learned that he would be the President-elect to the United States, was the Speaker of the Texas House, the Democrat that then President-elect Bush asked to introduce him to the Nation. He was a bipartisan Speaker, a great Speaker of the House. Mr. Laney, along with 50 others, are in Ardmore, Oklahoma. I think the issue, to a large degree, revolves around the principle of congressional redistricting. For those that do not understand that process, once every decade, after a census is taken, each State must go back through its legislature and redraw congressional district lines so we have equal populations in districts across the country. In 2001, the Texas legislature failed to do so. So as is the case, the Federal courts step in and draw those districts. Let me mention the facts. Fact number one: prior to this year, no legislature in the last 50 years in America has redistricted more than once in a decade unless ordered to do so by the Federal courts. Fact number two: the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Texas congressional districts, drawn just 2 years ago, are, in fact, constitutional. The fact is those districts are fair. The Republican ticket in Texas in this last election carried 20 of those 32 congressional districts. No one can argue that is not being fair to Texas Republicans. Fact number three: Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, recently gave a report to the legislature saying it is not legally necessary to do congressional redistricting for the second time in 2 years because the law simply does not require it. Fact number four: Why are we even dealing with this push for congressional redistricting for the second time in 2 years in Texas? Well, our majority leader in the United States House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), said it very succinctly. He said, ``I am majority leader and I want more seats.'' Forget the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court said the present seats are constitutional. Forget the fact that no legislature in 50 years has redistricted twice without a court order to do so. Forget the fact that 20 out of 32 districts of our congressional districts were carried by the Republican ticket. Mr. DeLay said, ``I am majority leader. I want more seats.'' Fact number five: the Speaker of the Texas House, now Mr. Tom Craddick, has violated the fundamental right, in my opinion, of Texas Republicans, Democrats, independents, and all of our citizens to have an effective voice in determining the future of their communities, their congressional districts. Why do I say that? Well, to begin with, the only sham hearings that they had basically began at 9 p.m. one night, on a Friday night a couple of weeks ago, went through the night, until 6:30 a.m. the next morning. The fact was that during that time at the Texas capital many of the doors were shut. So in the dark of night, behind locked doors in the Texas capital, we had the hearing to give the people of Texas a voice on what their map should be. And the fact is the maps the Republican leadership laid out at that time in Austin were not even the maps that were seriously being considered to pass through the Texas legislature into law just a few weeks later. That brings us up to Mother's Day. Last Sunday, when most Texas families, myself included, were honoring our mothers and spending time with our families, that was not the agenda of Mr. DeLay, Mr. Craddick and their forces. They had a different agenda on Mother's Day. They were finishing the final touches of a map that no one in Texas had seen: no mayors, no city council members, no State legislators, perhaps with an exception of one or two Republicans, and no business leaders. No one had seen this map. That map showed up for the first time on Mother's Day afternoon, this past Sunday, on the Texas legislative Web site. And guess what Mr. DeLay and Mr. Craddick's plan was? It was a slick one, I give them credit for that. It was to force that map through the Texas House of Representatives starting at 10 a.m. the next morning, this past Monday morning, the day after Mother's Day. Thank goodness for those 51 legislators who stood up and stopped the Texas Mother's Day massacre plan. They stood up for the voice of all Texans, and I salute them.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, because of the courage of conviction of 53 Texas legislators who broke a Texas House quorum on Monday morning, 20 million Texas citizens will have the right to have their voices heard in shaping the future of their hometown communities, to have their voices heard in our democracy. I salute these 53 profiles in courage. They have unselfishly stood up for Texas citizens and open government in our State, members like David Farabee, Patrick Rose; from my district in Waco, John Mabry and Jim Dunnam; Joe Pickett and Pete Gallego. Mr. Speaker, while most Americans were honoring their mothers on Sunday, Mother's Day, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and Tom Craddick in Austin were plotting and planning a secret map that would have destroyed, literally devastated, historic communities of interest all across Texas. This slick plan was to pass out of the Texas House at 10 a.m. on Monday morning after Mother's Day. This Mother's Day massacre plan was only stopped because of the courage of these 53 legislators who said secret government in shaping the future of our State for the next decade was wrong. These Members were right. I salute these soldiers of democracy.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard it before, we can afford tax cuts, large increases in national defense and still balance the budget. This is not a new idea. We heard it 22 years ago from President Reagan and Congress. The result, America's national debt quadrupled in just over a decade. We heard this idea again 2 years ago when House Republicans speaking today proposed a $1 trillion tax cut and said the national debt will be paid off by 2013. The result, last month those same Republicans had to vote to increase the national debt ceiling in 2013 to $12 trillion, a $6 trillion increase. Result: we have gone from the largest surplus in American history to the largest deficit in American history in just over 2 years and 2.5 million workers have lost their jobs. Now those same House Republicans want us to follow their lead once again, asking us to ignore their $12 trillion miscalculation just 24 months ago. It is tempting to be swayed by their siren song of simple solutions, cut taxes by trillions, balance the budget, no sacrifice, no tough choices; and how I wish it were that simple. If it were, we could triple the size of this tax cut today and pay off the national debt tomorrow. The free-lunch philosophy might make for good sound bites, but it is fiscally irresponsible policy. The Congressional Budget Office, headed by President Bush's, one of his top White House economists, just a year or two ago recently concluded that any economic growth in the administration's tax cut proposals would be offset by the long-term drag effect of massive structural deficits as far as the eye can see. This is a growth bill all right. It will grow our national debt and the taxes our children will have to pay in interest on that debt for the rest of their lives. Once the economy gets on its feet, $300 billion annual deficits, structural deficits will stifle business growth by soaking up capital and driving up interest costs for buying new homes, cars, running businesses or family farms. The free-lunch philosophy has not worked in the past, and it will not work today. Vote ``no'' on this fiscally irresponsible bill. Mr. Speaker, we have heard it before: ``We can afford massive tax cuts, large increases in national defense and still balance the budget.'' This is not a new idea. We heard it 22 years ago from Congress and President Reagan. The result? America's national debt quadrupled in just over a decade. We heard this idea 2 years ago when House Republicans proposed a trillion dollar tax cut and said the national debt will be paid off by 2013. The result? Last month those same Republicans had to vote to increase the national debt in 2013 to $12 trillion, a $6 trillion increase. The result? We have gone from the largest surplus in American history to the largest deficit in American history in just over 2 years and 2\1/2\ million workers have lost their jobs. Now, those same House Republicans want us to follow their lead once again, asking us to ignore their $12 trillion miscalculation just two years ago. ``Let's have more massive tax cuts, increase defense spending, rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq, and oh, yes, we will balance the budget.'' It is tempting to be swayed by the siren song of simple solutions-- cut taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars and balance the budget--no sacrifice and no tough choices. How I wish it were that simple. If it were, we could triple the size of this tax cut and pay off the national debt right a way. The free lunch philosophy might make for good sound bites, but it is fiscally irresponsible policy. That philosophy quadrupled our national debt in the 1980s and it contributed to our going from the largest surplus to the largest deficit in American history. The Congressional Budget Office, headed by one of President Bush's top White House economists recently concluded that any economic growth from the administration's tax cuts would be offset by the long-term drag effect of massive structural deficits for as far as the eye can see. I hear supporters of this tax bill say we could pay for the tax cuts with spending cuts. Well, show me the beef. The truth is that the administration is proposing increases in three of the five largest Federal programs: defense, medicare and interest on the national debt. It took House Republicans all of 2 weeks to completely retreat from their proposals to cut Medicare by $162 billion, Medicaid by $110 billion and veterans benefits by $28 billion. And, frankly, I hope the House will reject the administration plan to cut highway spending and education funds for military children even while their parents are deployed to Iraq. The dirty little secret in this process is that the tax cut deal in this bill does not mention the fiscal impact of $795 billion in additional tax cuts proposed by the administration or Congressional Republicans. So, here we go again. Pass massive tax cuts. Talk tough on spending cuts, knowing full well Congress won't pass those spending cuts. The end result? Exactly what it was in 1981 and 2001--tax cuts paid for by massive borrowing from our children and grandchildren. This is a growth bill all right. It will grow our national debt and the taxes our children will have to pay on the interest on that debt. Once the economy gets on its feet, $300 billion annual deficits will stifle business growth by soaking up capital and driving up interest costs on houses, cars, businesses and farmers. The free lunch philosophy has not worked in the past and it will not work today. If we are to have a tax cut, it should focus its stimulus now, not 10 years from now, it should be fair to average working Americans and it should not do damage to our long-term national debt.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if there is any issue in Congress that should rise above partisanship, it should be the principle of religious freedom. I hope every Republican and Democrat in the House before voting on this rule asks his or herself this question: Is it right that an American citizen be denied a federally funded job simply because of his or her religious faith? If you think that is right, then you should vote for this rule because that is what this bill does. It denies American citizens publicly funded jobs simply because of their choice of religious faith. If you agree with the vast majority of Americans that it is wrong to subsidize religious discrimination with federal tax dollars, vote ``no'' on this rule. This is more important than sticking to the sacred alter of partisanship. The issue of religious freedom should rise above that alter of partisanship. And I hope my Republican colleagues will join with Democrats and all of us today to say we are going to stand up for religious freedom during the week we are preaching it to the Iraqi citizens.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman's right to support this bill as written. In my opinion, it would discriminate against American citizens in job-hiring simply based on their religious faith. I think that is wrong. But what I think is doubly wrong is that the Republican leadership in the House denied us the right to even have this honest debate on which the gentleman from Ohio and I would agree is a fundamentally important issue. I would like to ask the gentleman, did he support shutting down our right to debate this issue?