Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Chair, I respect the gentleman. He takes a principled position on congressionally sponsored projects, but I strongly oppose this amendment. The Flake amendment, regardless of its intentions, would cut $163 million out of important military construction projects for the National Guard and Reserves, which are playing a key role in our war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This amendment would cut $57 million out of force protection, safety and security forces facilities, including more secure entrance gates at our military installations, fire stations to protect our troops and their families on posts. The Flake amendment would cut $30 million from quality of life facilities--much needed by our troops and earned by our troops, deserved by our troops--barracks, youth and community centers, roads. It cuts 44 projects that are in the Department of Defense's Future Years Defense Program. One of the programs this would cut is $1 million I put in this bill as an earmark to provide for a new Soldier Readiness Processing Center at Fort Hood so those soldiers, over 40,000 serving there, will not have to go through a processing center which was the site of the murder of 12 of their Army comrades and one civilian just months ago. A ``yes'' vote on this amendment will cut these kinds of worthy projects. Now, Mr. Flake will claim and has claimed that DOD will still have the money to spend, but that's not correct because this amendment is flawed in the way it's drafted because--well, first of all, let me say that let's at least get rid of the pretence that cutting earmarks would save taxpayer dollars if he says, well, this money could still be spent by DOD. But the reality is, because of the flawed nature of the way this amendment was put together, it would be the best--the worst, actually, of both worlds. One, it wouldn't save taxpayers' dollars because the appropriations would go to the Department of Defense; but because it would be in an account for programs not authorized, that money could not be spent for all of the worthwhile kinds of projects that I have just mentioned. Let me put in perspective what we are talking about here. This is a $140 billion bill. Less than three-tenths of 1 percent of this bill was designated by Members of Congress working with community leaders, military leaders, military base leaders. If I can ask my staff for a chart, I would just like to show, in perspective, what a small part of this total bill actually goes to congressionally sponsored projects. Now, Mr. Flake apparently has more trust in the Obama administration than I did. I don't think bureaucrats in Washington are right 100 percent of the time, and it's not wrong--in fact, it's right--to say that Members of Congress, working with military leaders and community leaders, ought to have some voice in where their taxpayers' dollars go. Madam Chair, I want to point out this is a chart. This graph shows how much is spent in this bill. The part of the bill that Mr. Flake is objecting to is this red part right here. Probably from that side of the aisle it would be very, very hard to see it. But I just want people to understand that the administration gets a voice on this amount of money in the bill. Members of Congress working with military leaders get a voice on this amount. This is what we are talking about. But I want to talk and say this amount is significant because, if this amendment were to pass, and I hope it will not and I do not believe it will, it would harm important quality of life and protection projects for our service men and women. It would kill a major initiative in this bill to increase funding for the National Guard and Reserves who are playing a vitally important role in Iraq and Afghanistan. May I inquire how much time I have remaining?

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill which will provide our service men and women the vital support they need to carry out their missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. This bill also strongly supports America's veterans by including $13.4 billion in funds for Vietnam veterans exposed to agent orange. And I thank Chairman Obey for his strong support of this provision. Last October VA Secretary Shinseki announced that the VA had found linkages between agent orange and three additional diseases, Parkinson's disease, ischemic heart disease and B cell leukemia. This presumption allows veterans who served in the Vietnam War and who have these diseases to have these benefits expedited. Rick Weidman, director of government relations at the Vietnam Veterans of America, says this bill ``provides some measure of justice to these very ill Vietnam veterans and their families by making the funds available for vitally needed health care and just compensation to replace their lost earnings due to these illnesses.'' Passage of this bill, Madam Speaker, would mean that 86,000 Vietnam veterans or their survivors, at long last, who were previously denied disability compensation, would now be eligible for retroactive payments. In addition, the VA anticipates that approximately 67,400 new claims will be filed. It is important that we pass this bill in support of both our active duty service men and women and our veterans to send a clear message that our country is grateful for those who serve today and will never forget those who served in years past. I urge swift passage of this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I had the humbling privilege of representing Fort Hood, America's largest Army installation, for 14 years, through three combat deployments. It is now next door to my district in central Texas. Fort Hood has sent more troops to Iraq and Afghanistan than any other military installation in America. And despite that sacrifice, sadly, the soldiers and families at Fort Hood had to face an unbearable and unspeakable tragedy at the hands of a terrorist in our midst who killed 12 Fort Hood Army soldiers and one Army civilian just several months ago. The soldier processing center through which soldiers go--often the last building they see before they leave Fort Hood, and it's the first building they see when they come home from being a year away from their family serving in Iraq or Afghanistan--is a soldier development servicing center there. At the request of the Pentagon, I want to thank Chairman Obey for putting our request for $16.5 million into this amendment. First, because that center was old and antiquated, inefficient and too small, but most importantly because the soldiers at Fort Hood who've sacrificed so much for our Nation's defense in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be asked to process through a building where 12 of their fellow soldier comrades in that installation were brutally murdered at the hands of a domestic terrorist. I thank Chairman Obey for putting this in. It is a meaningful, dignified way to show support for our troops. And I support this amendment and ask my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support it as well.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I want to thank Chairman Ortiz for the time today and, most importantly, not only for his service in the U.S. Army as a soldier but for his leadership as a key subcommittee chairman on the House Armed Services Committee. The gentleman from Texas works every day to support our soldiers, not just with his words but with his deeds, and I'm deeply grateful for that. Madam Speaker, this resolution honors the 235th anniversary of the United States Army, and I rise today on behalf of a grateful Nation to say thank you to every Army soldier, past and present, for their service to our Nation. We express our gratitude with the humility of knowing that we could never fully repay the debt of gratitude we owe our soldiers and their families for the sacrifices they have made to protect our Nation. When I drive past Arlington Cemetery each morning on my way to the U.S. Capitol, I'm always reminded of that sacrifice, sacrifice of those who, in the words of Lincoln, gave their last full measure of devotion to country. When I met with several young amputees and double amputees earlier this week at a charity event for wounded warriors, I was reminded that the personal sacrifices of war do not end with the signing of a ceasefire agreement. When I visit the Waco VA hospital in my district, I'm reminded that the mental wounds of war can sometimes be as serious and as long-lasting as the physical wounds of combat. One of the greatest privileges of my life was to represent for 14 years Fort Hood, Texas, which is now so ably represented by my colleague and friend, Congressman Carter. Fort Hood is the Army's largest installation, and I had the privilege of representing it through three combat deployments. When I think about our Army soldiers and their sacrifices, I cannot help but think about the young soldier, probably no older than 20 years old, I met in December of 1995. My wife was just three days away from giving birth to our first son J.T., and as an expectant first-time father, I could not help but be excited as I talked to this young soldier sitting next to his young, pregnant wife, talking about how excited I was to become a father. This soldier, who was about to deploy for Bosnia, said without an air of complaint in his voice: Sir, I missed the birth of my first son because I was serving in Iraq, and I will miss the birth of my second child because I will be serving in Bosnia. He said, Sir, I'm proud to serve my country. Madam Speaker, one cannot put a price on the sacrifice of a young father missing the birth of his two children. There are no makeup days for missed births, birthdays, anniversaries, and graduations. That is why we are so deeply grateful to our soldiers and their families. To the spouses, children, parents, and loved ones of our Army soldiers, I say, you are the unsung heroes of our Nation's defense. Whether you have worn our Nation's uniform or not, you have truly served our country. For those family members who have lost loved ones in combat, we know you continue to sacrifice each and every day of your life. Were it not for the U.S. Army and the magnificent men and women who have served in it and are serving in it today, the world would be a much different place, a less stable, a less free place. Just a few weeks ago, I had the honor of meeting Len Lomell. Most Americans have not heard the name of Len Lomell. He lives in Toms River, New Jersey, with his wife. My wife and I took our two young sons, J.T. and Garrison, to meet with Mr. Lomell because in my book, he is a true American hero. As an Army soldier on D-day in 1944, Len Lomell joined with Earl Rudder and the Second Battalion Army Rangers and climbed up that difficult, life-threatening cliff in the face of German gunfire and grenades to try to knock out the five massive German guns that could have put at risk the entire Allied invasion of D-day. Len Lomell, along with one other soldier, went out scouring for the guns because they had been moved, unknown to Army intelligence, been moved away from that cliff that we know as Pointe du Hoc. It was Len Lomell who found those guns, and while nearly 100 Germans were standing just a few yards away, took thermite grenades and put those grenades in two different trips back to those guns, put thermite grenades in those gear mechanisms of those guns and, in doing so, decommissioned all of them. The great historian Steven Ambrose said that, next to Eisenhower, Len Lomell had more to do with the victory of D-day than any living person in this world. I have to wonder would the world be different today had it not been for that great Army soldier Len Lomell and all the soldiers who served with him and all the soldiers who served before him and those great ones who have served after him. Madam Speaker, we can never repay our soldiers such as Len Lomell, or the young soldier I met at Fort Hood, or Robert L. Howard, who died in my hometown of Waco this past December and was buried just 4 months ago in Arlington Cemetery after earning the Congressional Medal of Honor, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Silver Star and eight Purple Hearts in his five tours of duty in Vietnam. We cannot repay the 82,000 U.S. Army soldiers serving in Iraq today or the 57,000 soldiers serving in Afghanistan, but let us always honor them, not just with our words and resolutions such as this one today, but with our deeds and our budgets every day. Our Nation has a moral obligation to provide quality housing and health care for our troops and their families and first-class education for their children. Our Nation has a moral obligation to stand up for America's veterans because they have stood up for us. A grateful Nation wishes our Army a happy 235th birthday. May God bless all our soldiers--past, present and future--for risking their lives to protect our divine gift of freedom.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, Members, my amendment is a simple, commonsense protection for children and families. It requires anyone seeking to benefit from the terms of an FHA mortgage to certify under penalty of perjury that they have not been convicted of a sex offense against a minor. This amendment ensures that taxpayers will not be on the hook for loans made to convicted child sex offenders. There are 704,000 registered sex offenders currently living in our communities, and experts estimate as many as 100,000 convicted sex offenders are lost in the system. Recent research has shown that there is a high repeat rate for sexual crimes, and even higher amongst those who commit these crimes against children. As a result, in the past 2 years, Congress has passed a series of laws adopting the use of sex offender registries and community notification systems for sexually violent offenders and those committing offenses against children. While we cannot prevent registered child sex offenders from moving into our communities, we do not need to provide them the additional benefits offered by an FHA home loan if they try to do so. With an FHA home loan, taxpayers are liable if the loan defaults. I do not believe, I don't think most Members of this House believe, and I know most Americans do not believe that taxpayers should be on the hook for a home loan of someone who has committed a sex offense against a minor. A quarter of a million children are sexually assaulted every year in my home State of Texas, according to the National Crime Victims Research and Treatment report. There are still private market alternatives to FHA loans, and we want to continue to discourage any kind of federally financed reward or taxpayer-backed benefit to sex offenders reentering our communities. For example, sex offenders are already banned from residing in section 8 public housing. My amendment continues that pro-family stance. The certification requirement in this amendment is a strong enforcement mechanism which will not put additional burdens on small businesses. And so, Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment to protect our communities and to prohibit those who have committed a sex offense against a minor from benefiting from government-backed FHA loans. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking the chairman for his kind comments and for his leadership for our country. Madam Speaker, America is a better country today because of the life and service of Dr. Hector P. Garcia. And we will be a better country tomorrow if every school child hears his story. It is the story of an immigrant child who worked hard, became a physician, and dedicated his entire life to his family and service to country. It is a story that one person can make a difference. It is a story of the timeless values of hard work and service to others. It is the quintessential American story of love of country, expressed through a lifetime of service to others. One of the greatest privileges of my lifetime was to know Dr. Hector Garcia. He left the world a better place, and his life story continues to inspire everyone who hears it. And it is my hope that every school child in America will hear his story, a true champion of our Nation's never-ending quest for equal opportunity for all. As a child growing up in Corpus Christi, Texas, Dr. Garcia's hometown, I lived on the same block. At the time, I did not know he was a World War II hero who earned a Bronze Star and the rank of major. I did not know this champion in the cause of American's Hispanic veterans. Yet as I grew older and learned of Dr. Garcia's heroic lifetime of service on the battlefields of war, in the halls of Congress, and in the offices of his medical practice, his life's story became an inspiration that led me to public service. Had it not been for Dr. Hector, as we called him, I probably would not be in Congress today. For that I am personally grateful. But I am even more grateful for how he made a difference in our Nation's history. May God bless and forever keep in his loving arms Dr. Hector P. Garcia.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Madam Speaker, Americans need and deserve health care reform. Without it, the quality of our health care system will go down and costs will continue to go up. The present trend of fast rising health care costs and increasing numbers of uninsured is unsustainable. If left unchecked, these problems will bankrupt more businesses, hard-working families, hospitals, and, ultimately, state and federal budgets. This is why I had wanted to vote for health care reform, and this bill has a number of positive provisions in it that I support, such as providing tax cuts for small employers offering health insurance, creating a private health insurance exchange, helping seniors with their prescription drug costs and preventing discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions. However, I cannot vote for this bill, because at a time of unprecedented federal deficits, we simply cannot afford all of its new spending. I believe it would have been better to have passed a less expensive bill and less expansive bill, one that could have united, not divided, our Nation. In the long run, for health care reform to work, it must have the support and confidence of the American people. I realize it is easier to criticize than to write comprehensive health care reform legislation. I also realize that some of the criticisms lobbed at this bill are without merit, such as the false suggestion that it contains death panels. Nevertheless, I believe we could have passed a less complicated, more affordable bill this year that would have garnered widespread support across our country. Over the past year I have listened to thousands of constituents from all walks of life across our district on the issue of health care reform. What I have heard is that people generally like the quality of their present health care and don't want big government or big insurance companies to stand between them and their doctors. They also believe we must do something to make health care more affordable for families and businesses. I agree. Above all else, what I heard from my constituents is that they have to tighten their belts in this difficult economy, and they want the federal government to do a far better job of living within its means. There is great wisdom in that observation, and I believe we have a moral obligation to not drown our children and our economic future in a sea of national debt. Unlike the Medicare prescription drug bill that was passed in 2003 without being paid for, I support the principle that health care reform should be paid for. I hope the Congressional Budget Office is right when it says this bill will reduce the deficit, but, frankly, I am skeptical that anyone can predict with absolute certainty the cost of such a complex, far-reaching bill over a period of 10 to 20 years. That is why I had urged that this bill include a fiscally responsible trigger mechanism in it that would cut spending if actual costs exceed projections, if cost savings are not fully realized or if projected new revenues are overestimated. The President mentioned such a trigger in his address to Congress last year, and a trigger was included in some parts of the bill. However, I am disappointed that my common sense proposal for a trigger covering all of the bill's costs and revenues was not included. Today, most Americans simply do not believe this bill will reduce the deficit and health care costs. I hope they are wrong, but I fear that they are right. A less expensive bill, with a fiscally responsible trigger in it, would have also reduced the need for the additional taxes and Medicare reductions included in this bill. Once the new revenues and Medicare savings have been used to pay for the new spending in this bill, it will be that much harder to find ways to reduce the massive federal deficits our Nation is facing for the foreseeable future. If left unchecked I believe huge federal deficits will harm our economic growth and our children's future. Increasing interest payments on our $12.7 trillion national debt will lead to higher taxes and crowd out vital education, health care, infrastructure, national defense and job training programs that are so important for hard-working families and our country. Reining in massive federal deficits will require tough choices, the same kind of choices families and businesses have to make every day. Given this year's deficit will be approximately 1.3 trillion dollars, I simply believe we cannot afford all of the new spending in this bill. If this bill becomes law, my hope is that Congress will protect its positive provisions but reduce its scope and costs to get our country back on track toward a balanced budget that can ensure economic opportunity for future generations of Americans.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay respects to my former colleague and friend, Texas Congressman Charlie Wilson. Charlie Wilson was bigger than life, and he was as real as the Texas day is long. I considered it a privilege and a joy to know him as a colleague and as a friend. Most Americans will forever know Charlie Wilson from the movie ``Charlie Wilson's War.'' I have been asked by people who knew that I knew and served with Charlie whether he was really as colorful as he was portrayed to be in that movie. My answer is that that movie was the only time ever that Hollywood had to tone down reality in order to make it believable. I have no idea whether Charlie ever read Shakespeare, but whether he did or not, the truth is, he personified Polonius' wise observation in Hamlet: ``This above all: To thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.'' It makes me wonder if somehow Polonius didn't know Charlie Wilson. Charlie Wilson was not false to any man, any person or any constituent, not ever. He was the real thing, and I think in this sometimes cynical world, that is what all of us blessed to know him as a friend found so very endearing about him. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a number of Charlie's former colleagues who had served with him, members of the Texas delegation, have asked that we include their remarks with respect to Charlie, his life and his spirit. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record the remarks of Ralph Hall who also served many years with Charlie, and I would only just summarize one statement made by Ralph about his good friend Charlie. He said, He was a courageous and kind man with a strong sense of justice that compelled him to work for the good of others.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Thank you. While he was known as Good Time Charlie--and yes, he did enjoy life-- the truth is that Charlie Wilson spent his entire adult life in the serious business of public service to our Nation. He graduated from the Naval Academy and then served our Nation as a lieutenant and as a naval intelligence officer. At the age of 27, he was elected to the Texas legislature where he was known as the liberal from Lufkin, supporting such progressive causes as the minimum wage, Medicaid, and the Equal Rights Amendment. In 1972, he was elected to Congress where he became known as a champion of a strong national defense, a friend of average working families, and yes, someone who played a key role in bringing down the Communist Soviet Union. Who would have ever guessed, my friends and colleagues from Texas, that Charles Hazard of Trinity, Texas, many years ago, killing his 13-year-old neighbor's dog, would lead to the mighty Soviet Union falling someday. History is an interesting thing, and Charlie Wilson certainly will always be a part of it, as playing a key role in one of the most monumental achievements in our Nation's history. Charlie Wilson did what every one of us, Republican or Democrat, would dream to do and would dream that it be said about us at the end of our public service careers: Charlie Wilson made a difference. He made a difference for his State of Texas, for his beloved constituents in east Texas. He made a difference for America, and, yes, he made a difference for the world. To his widow, Barbara, and to his sister, my dear friend Sharon Allison in my hometown of Waco, Texas, I hope they know that our thoughts and prayers are with them. I thank you and your family for sharing with us and for sharing with the world this great treasure that God brought into this world. His spirit will be with us always. May God bless Charlie Wilson and the great land that he loved.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, getting sailing lessons from the captains of the economic Titanic may be interesting but not very helpful. Let's get serious. Allowing the U.S. Treasury to default on our Nation's debt for the first time in history is not a responsible option. It would devastate our economy, our stock market, and our children's futures. Republicans know it, and Democrats know it. We all know it. The responsible action is to start getting control of our deficits today, and we can do that by passing the pay-as-you-go law. Pay-as-you- go is a principle that citizens understand and live by every day. It's a principle that helped Congress in the late 1990s turn the largest deficits in American history, created by some of those who have just spoken, into the largest surpluses in American history. Unfortunately, the Republican House leadership killed the House pay- as-you-go rule that had worked so well. It killed it in 2002. And what happened? The largest surpluses in our history turned into the largest deficits in American history. The Republican-led Congress passed massive unpaid-for tax cuts and the largest expansion of Medicare without paying for a dime of that. Those two actions alone added $6 trillion to our national debt over a period of just one decade, $6 trillion, most of which was borrowed from the Chinese and other foreign governments. It's time to put some discipline back into our Federal budget processes, and that is what pay-as-you-go is all about. I am proud to have initiated the effort to make this law, this PAYGO, not a temporary law but a permanent law. Had we done that in the 1990s, we wouldn't be facing the terrible deficits that we hear decried today. Pay-as-you-go works for families, pay-as-you-go works for businesses, and then in the 1990s, it worked for the American people in the Federal budget. And when we pass this into law, it will work once again and help us get these intolerable Federal deficits back under control and preserve our children's futures.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, this bill supports America's veterans, our troops, and their families in a meaningful way by improving their health care, their benefits, and their quality of life. Those who defend our Nation have earned and deserve this support. For the first time ever, we provide 2-year funding for VA medical programs. This is an historic achievement and has been one of the highest priorities of our Nation's most respected veterans organizations. The advance funding is a win for veterans and for taxpayers. It will allow the VA to plan its spending more efficiently, which will improve health care for veterans and save taxpayers dollars. This bill funds President Obama's VA request, a $5.4 billion increase, the largest Presidential request for increased veterans' funding in over 30 years. Other major initiatives in this bill include new training barracks for military recruits, homeowners assistance for troops being re-stationed, additional funding for the modernization of National Guard and Reserve facilities, and a robust energy conservation program for Department of Defense facilities. When the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) became Speaker in 2007, she promised that supporting veterans would be one of Congress' highest priorities. Speaker Pelosi, with the strong leadership of Chairmen Spratt and Obey and Filner, has kept that promise. Here are some of the significant results in just 3 years: A 60 percent increase in VA funding; 145 new VA community-based outpatient clinics; 70 new vet centers, 3,384 new VA doctors, 14,426 new VA nurses, 8,300 new VA claims processors, an expansion of middle-income veterans' eligibility for VA health care, more than a doubling of mental health care funding for vets, and a historic new GI college education bill. Ultimately, this is about more than even the importance of better health care and benefits for our troops and vets, it is about respect, respect for the service and sacrifice of those who defend our Nation and their families. I especially want to thank our ranking member on our subcommittee, Mr. Wamp of Tennessee, who was a critical partner in our work on this portion of this bill, and who would once again demonstrate his deep commitment to our troops and our veterans. Finally, but certainly not least, I want to thank and salute our subcommittee staff whose professionalism and tireless work has made possible our unprecedented achievements for our veterans and troops: Carol Murphey, the committee clerk; Mary Arnold, Tim Peterson, Walter Hearne, Donna Shabaz, Martin Delgado, Kelly Shea, and Liz Dawson. In my book, they personify the best ideals of public service.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we keep our promises to those magnificent Americans who have kept their promise to serve our Nation and the American family. The fiscal year 2010 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations bill provides $134.6 billion for projects and programs of critical importance to America's veterans and military troops and their families, including veterans benefits and healthcare, and military family housing, barracks and mission critical facilities. The bill provides $53 billion in discretionary funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and $56.6 billion for mandatory VA programs, $23.3 billion for military construction and family housing, and $1.4 billion for military construction projects in support of the war in Afghanistan. In a major victory for America's veterans, the bill for the first time includes advance appropriations for the VA to ensure a stable and uninterrupted source of funding for medical care for veterans. For fiscal year 2011, the bill includes $48.2 billion for VA medical programs. The bill provides funding to address several significant priorities, including: Renovating surplus building on VA medical campuses to use as housing for homeless veterans; Increasing the number of VA outpatient clinics in rural communities where veterans do not have ready access to VA hospitals; Accelerating the Army's program to modernize troop housing for trainees; Addressing critical unfunded construction requirements of the Guard and reserve; Providing mortgage relief to military families required to relocate during the current mortgage crisis; Expediting environmental cleanup on closed military bases; and Investing in renewable and alternative energy initiatives on military installations. For Military Construction and Family Housing, the bill includes $23.3 billion to support American's military forces and their families at home and overseas, $333.9 million above the request. The bill includes $11.8 billion for such items as barracks, child care centers, installation chapels, and mission critical operational facilities. Of this amount, $350 million is provided to accelerate the Army's program to modernize troop housing facilities for trainees. The Army has a need for $2.2 billion to bring all 115,413 trainee barracks spaces up to standard and the program currently is not scheduled to finish until 2017. Also includes $174 million for the Energy Conservation Investment Program (ECIP), $84 million above the request, to increase the level of investment in renewable and alternative energy resources and to promote energy conservation, green building initiatives, and energy security programs on U.S. military installations. For the Guard and Reserve component, the bill includes $1.6 billion, $601.7 million above the request, to provide readiness centers and operational facilities for the Army National Guard, Air Guard, and Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force reserve forces. Within this amount, the bill includes $200 million in additional construction funding to address critical unfunded requirements. For military and family housing programs, the bill includes $2.59 billion for family housing, $300 million above the request, to further eliminate inadequate military housing, including $323 million for the Homeowners Assistance Program, $300 million above the request, to provide additional funding for the expanded mortgage relief program for military families who are required to relocate during the current mortgage crisis and must sell their home at a loss, as well as to wounded warriors who must relocate for medical reasons and to the spouses of fallen warriors similarly affected by the mortgage crisis. The bill includes funding for base realignment and closure (BRAC) at the level of $496.8 million for the 1990 BRAC round, $100 million above the request, to address the large unfunded backlog of environmental cleanup for bases that were closed during the four previous BRAC rounds, and $7.5 billion for the 2005 BRAC program, the full authorized amount. Finally, for overseas contingency operations the bill includes $1.4 billion, matching the request, to support additional military construction requirements to support operations and previously scheduled troop deployments to Afghanistan. For the Department of Veterans Affairs, the bill includes $109.6 billion, $15.3 billion above 2009 and $747 million above the request. The funding includes $56.6 billion for mandatory veterans benefit programs and $53 billion for discretionary funding. Total discretionary funding is $5.4 billion above 2009, an increase of 11 percent. In addition, the bill provides $48.2 billion in advance appropriations for veterans medical care programs for fiscal year 2011. For the Veterans Health Administration, the bill includes $45.1 billion, matching the request and $4.1 billion above 2009, for veterans' medical care. The Veterans Health Administration estimates that it will treat more than 6.1 million patients in 2010, including more than 419,000 veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan (56,000 more than 2009). A major initiative in the VHA includes $250 million as requested to continue the Rural Health Initiative to which the Congress added $30 million to increase the number of Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs) in rural areas for veterans who do not have ready access to VA hospitals. More than 3.2 million (41%) of enrolled veterans live in rural or highly rural areas. In the area of mental health funding, we have included $4.6 billion, matching the request and $300 million above 2009, to treat the psychological wounds of returning combat veterans, including post- traumatic stress disorder. Also included is an additional $1 million to provide education debt relief as a hiring incentive for mental health professionals. Funding to treat Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) Veterans is at $2.1 billion, matching the request and $463 million above 2009, to meet the healthcare needs of veterans who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The VA estimates that the number of OEF/OIF veterans in the VA healthcare system in 2010 will have increased by 61 percent since 2008. One of the areas of increasing concern is the assistance for homeless veterans, where we have provided $3.2 billion, matching the request and $421 million above 2009, for healthcare and support services for homeless veterans; including $26 million for a Presidential Initiative to combat homelessness, $150 million for the homeless grants and per diem program, $20 million for supportive services for low income veterans and families, and $21 million to hire additional personnel for the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program. The program for medical and prosthetic research is funded at $581 million, $71 million above 2009, for research in a number of areas including mental health, traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, burn injury, polytrauma injuries, and sensory loss; including a $48 million increase for research to address the critical needs of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans. The effort to improve the condition of medical facilities of the Department of Veteran Affairs continues with a construction program of $1.9 billion, $103 million above the request and $232 million above 2009, including major construction of $1.2 billion for major medical facilities, including hospitals and clinics, to enable the Department to implement the recommendations made by the Capitol Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services (CARES) Commission, which was established to look at facilities and determine their construction needs. In addition, the bill includes $703 million, $103 million above the President's budget request, including $50 million for the renovation of vacant buildings on VA campuses to be used as housing with supportive services for homeless veterans. The VA estimates that on any given night, 131,000 veterans are homeless. This program will strengthen the VA's goal of eliminating homelessness among veterans by providing housing and counseling services in settings that are in close proximity for VA hospitals. Funding for grants to states for the construction of extended care facilities is set at $100 million, an increase of $15 million above the request. And $42 million in grant funding for state veterans' cemeteries is provided in this bill. Finally, for the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have included $1.7 billion for benefits claims processors, $223 million above 2009, to enable the Department to hire roughly 1,200 additional claims processors to continue to address the backlog of benefits claims and to reduce the time to process new claims. The most recent VA quarterly status report estimates that nearly 397,000 claims are pending. When added to funding and hiring provided in prior years, this will result in a total of 8,300 new claims processors being hired since January of 2007. With passage of this bill, Congress has provided a 60 percent increase in funding for veterans health care and benefits since January 2007. This funding has resulted in a total increase of 8,300 claims processors as mentioned, 145 community-based outpatient clinics, 70 Vet Centers, and more than 47,000 additional Veterans Health Administration employees. These additional resources will provide our veterans with their benefits more quickly and improve access to health care and other services. Congress has also funded several initiatives to improve the quality of life for our military and their families to include: $3.2 billion for new military hospitals, $1 billion for new child care centers to serve 20,000 military children, and $920 million in additional funding for barracks. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH10DE09.005

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the Congressional Record wise words from Ambassador Lyndon Olson that we would all do well to follow. In a time of such little civility in our public discourse, Ambassador Lyndon Olson reminds us what is best about America. It is the strength of our values, our character, and common respect for our fellow man and woman that make our nation great. We must strive to protect and nurture those values of common respect for one another if we are to grow as a nation. Remarks of Ambassador Lyndon Olson Upon Accepting the Texas Legacy Award From the Center for Public Policy Priorities At the Eighth Annual Texas Legacy Luncheon November 12, 2009, Austin, Texas Thank you very much for this honor. I appreciate the kind remarks of my friend Congressman Edwards. I also appreciate the opportunity today to talk to this distinguished group about a concern of mine. I want to talk with you about civility, both in society in general and in our politics in particular. I encourage you to think back . . . for some of us way back . . . to those report cards we got in first grade. Most everyone had different type cards and categories, but they were pretty much variations on the same basic theme. I'm not talking about your arithmetic or reading or penmanship grades. I'm talking about the comportment column, with things such as Exercises self-control . . . respects the rights of others . . . shows kindness and consideration for others . . . indicates willingness to cooperate . . . uses handkerchief (important even before the H1N1 virus) . . . and, my favorite was usually right up at the top of that 6-week report card and it's of particular significance to our discussion . . . ``Plays well with others.'' We were being taught about and graded on one of the most fundamental skills of our civilization: how to get along with others. There is a reason that plays well with others was one of the first things we were taught and evaluated on. And folks, I don't think we're getting a very good grade on plays well with others these days. Many of us don't even want to play with someone we don't like or agree with. Where did all of this come from? In the majority of my life this hasn't been the case. Those of us in this room over 40 or 50 didn't grow up in anything like this environment. We didn't live like this. Not in our communities . . . not in our politics. We lived in a political world with strong feelings and positions, yes. And we took swings at each other politically. But it didn't come down, to the moral equivalent of street brawls and knife fights. Politics has always been a contact sport, but the conflict didn't permeate every aspect of our society and rise to today's level of social and verbal hostility. It is very unhealthy. And I'm not sure what to do about it. But I know it when I see it and hear it. And I know it is time we focus as much attention on our civil behavior as we do on achieving our personal and partisan agendas. How we do that, I don't know. But I want to raise the issue, ask the questions, and encourage you all to give it your consideration as well. We live in an era of rudeness, in society in general, in the popular culture, and in our political life. Our culture today, in fact, rewards incivility, crudeness, and cynicism. You can get on TV, get your own talk show or reality series if you out-shout and offend the other guy. Everyone screams, no one listens. We produce a lot of heat but little light. The proclivity is to demonize our opponent. People don't just disagree . . . the challenge to the other is a battle to the death. Character assassination, verbal abuse, obnoxious behavior, and an overbearing attention on scandal and titillation--all that isn't just reserved to day-time TV anymore--it's the currency of prime-time, of late night, of cable news, of the Internet, and of society in general. What happened to us? Should this be a sign of alarm? Is the problem selfishness--we won't be denied, we must be immediately gratified? We want everything we've ever seen in the movies? How do we live and get along like our parents and their generation? They had to sacrifice. They didn't get what they wanted when they wanted it. Is today's need for instant gratification a problem? We are more inclusive today . . . and that is a good thing--but has that good made for increased tensions? Is it the 24-hour news cycle? The 24-hour news cycle demands instantaneous news, which feeds off of controversy, scandal, and easy answers to difficult questions. There is scant time for reflection or reasoned analysis. Market forces demand instantaneous information and jarring entertainment values, not sober analysis or wisdom. The news media are more prone to focus on the loudest, the most outrageous, and the most partisan actors. And given the rise of the political consultant class, candidates and campaigns are louder, more outrageous, and meta-partisan. Political consultants have helped create a permanent campaign where politics takes precedence over governance. The political consultants egg on all this for profit, creating controversy where little or none exists so the message, the theme of the day, is played out on TV and the media. They're paid handsomely to cause strife and create conflict in order to raise hackles, money, and attention . . . fomenting issues to suit their agenda. It's all about the message, not the solution, not the negotiation, the debate, the compromise to move forward. It's about who is controlling the message, who is defining the message, who is creating the message, who is keeping the conflict alive often where none existed before the consultant decided one was needed. Is this what keeps us at each other's throats? Is it talk radio, attack TV? Is it the talk shows, the shout festivals where absolute hyperbole is the only currency? Mean-spirited hyperbole and hyper-partisanship breeds cynicism. Citizens are increasingly cynical about politics and about their government's ability to work. The damage to the ship of state, to the fabric of the nation begs repair. Whose job is it to change course and effect the necessary repairs? I'm not sure I have the answer to that, but I propose that in a room full of policy makers and politicians, men and women who talk to the media, who work in the public arena, who hire consultants, who set agendas, maybe we have a role to play in making things better. You know, I can say that there are some people in this room, people I consider dear friends, who understand this problem and I believe share my concern. To those friends I say, you and I both know that we disagree very fundamentally on some very big issues but the truth is that we could care less about our disagreements and are more concerned about where we can find consensus and reasons to work and live together to construct a better future. I consider this kind of commitment to trust and open dialogue crucial to maintaining a sustainable society. And indeed, isn't it about building a better future for our community, for our country, for our children? I say that even on the most intractable of issues, there is room for constructive debate, for consensus building, for the search for some common ground. President Johnson once said to his Democratic colleague, Gov. George Wallace of Alabama, during the crisis of civil rights in the South: ``What do you want left behind? You want a great, big marble monument that says, `George Wallace: He built.' Or do you want a little piece of scrawny pine lying there that says, `George Wallace: He hated' ''? The people I know in this room are builders. But we are confronting a world today where hate seems to be a predominant factor in the crisis of incivility confronting our politics. Where are the rules that govern conduct? What happens eventually after this continuous rancor tears the fabric of our society completely asunder? Can we survive with this tenor . . . taking no prisoners, giving no quarter? I'm asking these questions because you folks here are blessed with skills, talent, experience and a commitment to a positive public policy. You understand the importance of maintaining and protecting our commonweal where we strive to serve our clients, our community, our country, and our state. If civil discourse self-destructs, we cannot move on the issues that matter. Think of this as an environmental crisis . . . the environment being our civil society and our very ability to live and work and prosper together. I don't want to sound pious or preachy here, but if we are to prevail as a free, self-governing people, we must work together. We shouldn't try to destroy our opponents just because we disagree. We have to govern our tongues. The Proverbs tells us, chapter 18, verse 12, ``Death and life are in the power of the tongue.'' How we choose to use words--for good or for wrong--is clearly our choice. The health of our democracy depends upon a robust public discourse. Recognize that I am not saying that conflict in our political life is to be avoided. Hardly so. It is not only proper but necessary for candidates to vigorously debate the issues of our day and examine their opponents' records. Don't let people confuse civility with goody two-shoes niceness and mere etiquette. Civility is a robust, tough, substantive civic virtue, critical to both civil society and the future of our republic. Civility entails speaking directly, passionately, and responsibly about who we are and what we believe. Divisions based on principles are healthy for the nation. Vigorous and passionate debate helps us to define issues and to sharpen positions. Conflict cannot, should not be avoided in our public lives any more than we can avoid conflict with the people we love. But just as member of a household, as a family learn ways of settling their differences without inflicting real damage on each other, so we, in our politics, must find constructive ways of resolving disputes and differences. Our work is here. We build from the base. We will foster change first by our example . . . by working together, respecting one another, and negotiating our differences in good faith and with mutual respect. Civility is neither a small nor inconsequential issue. The word comes from the French civilite which is often translated as ``politeness.'' But it means much more. It suggests an approach to life . . . living in a way that is civilized. The words ``civilized,'' ``civilite,'' and ``city'' share a common etymology with a word meaning ``member of the household.'' To be civilized is to understand that we live in a society as in a household. There are certain rules that allow family members to live peacefully within a household. So, too, are there rules of civility that allow us to live peacefully within a society. As we all learned in 1st grade a long time ago, we owe certain responsibilities to one another. Perhaps we spend a lifetime learning how to play well with others. So be it. It is a crucial goal for a civil society. Thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, after listening to thousands of my constituents and carefully reviewing the legislation, I have made a decision to vote ``no'' on the House health care reform bill. Given the huge federal deficits facing our nation, I believe there is too much new spending in this bill. I am especially disappointed that the bill does not have a fiscal trigger in it to cut spending if actual costs of new programs turn out to be higher than projected. While the Congressional Budget Office predicts this bill is paid for over 10 years, there is no mechanism in the bill to force spending cuts if those complicated projections turn out to be wrong. I also have concerns about a government-run ``public option'' insurance company and question whether this bill goes far enough in actually reducing health care costs for working families and businesses. Throughout this debate I have heard two extremes. Some on the far left would like to see the federal government run a socialized health care system. Some on the far right would get the government completely out of health care, which would mean the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid. I think both extremes are wrong. I believe most people in our district recognize that health care reform is needed to hold down costs and to make health care more affordable and dependable, but they want any reform bill to be fiscally responsible. I agree.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Readiness of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz).

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Reyes), a senior member of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time as I may consume. One of the greatest privileges of my lifetime was to represent the soldiers and families of Fort Hood for 14 years in the U.S. Congress. On behalf of all Americans, we rise today to express our deepest respect and heartfelt sorrow to the soldiers and families of Fort Hood. These great Americans who have sacrificed so much in service to country now face a tragedy that one day ago would have seemed unimaginable. In the hours, days and months ahead, I hope the Fort Hood family knows that the thoughts and prayers of the American people are with them. It is a tragedy beyond words that young Americans who are willing to risk their lives for our country in combat abroad ended up losing their lives here at home. While these soldiers did not die in combat, they surely gave their lives in service to country. And for that, we will always consider them as heroes. The spouses, children, and families of the fallen may not have worn our Nation's uniform; but they have served our Nation through their deep personal sacrifice. Let us be clear today, we will never, ever forget that sacrifice. We cannot bring back their loved ones, but I hope they will forever feel the collective love, gratitude, and prayers of millions of their fellow Americans. To the wounded and their loved ones, our Nation's fervent hopes and prayers are with you in these difficult moments. Please know that you are not alone. Mr. Speaker, in the days ahead, Fort Hood will become known to the world as a place of unspeakable tragedy, but I know it is a place of great triumph, a place where service to country isn't an ideal. It is a way of life, a place where the American spirit is alive and well, even amidst this tragedy. I hope the world will see the Fort Hood I saw as its Representative. When I think of Fort Hood, I think of the 29-year-old Army widow who asked me not long after her husband's death in Iraq, not how I could help her but, rather, how she could help others who had lost their loved ones in combat. When I think of Fort Hood, I think of the young soldier I met at a welcome home ceremony. It was just 3 days before my wife gave birth to our first child. And when I saw him with his wife and his newborn baby, I told him how excited I was, the thought of becoming a father and being there when our son came into the world. Without complaining, he looked at me and said, Sir, I missed the birth of my first child because I was in Iraq, and I missed the birth of my second child while I was deployed to Bosnia. When I think of Fort Hood, I think of the parents I met there this summer who lost their two sons in combat in Iraq just 9 days apart. How can the Nation measure the depth of that kind of sacrifice? When I think of Fort Hood, I think of soldiers, families and their neighbors in nearby communities who care for each other and are proud to serve and, yes, even sacrifice for our Nation's freedom. Fort Hood is known as ``the great place.'' That's what they call it. That's what it is-- past, present and future--and the actions of one deranged person should not and will not change that fact. But with the support and prayers of the American family, Fort Hood will recover from this terrible tragedy. The servicemen and -women at Fort Hood, their families and the neighboring communities are a very special and unique family. They make Fort Hood what it is, a shining star in our Nation's defense, a star that will burn brightly for many years to come. From this tragedy, just days before Veterans Day, I pray that Americans will be reminded how blessed we are to live in a land where a special few, our servicemen and -women and their families, are willing to give up so much for country. Let us all rededicate ourselves to honoring our troops, our veterans, and their families. Let us remember them not just on Veterans Day and Memorial Day or on a day of tragedy but every day. As we ask God's blessings on those whose lives we honor with this resolution, let us remember that we are the land of the free because we are still the home of the brave. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bright), a valued member of the Committee on Armed Services here in the House.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez), who served on the House Armed Services Committee for 8 years.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend and colleague, the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who has been a champion as a Speaker of this House on behalf of a better quality of life, educational benefits, and health care for America's veterans, our service men and women, and their families.