Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. EDWARDS. I think the gentleman makes a good point. I would like to just add to this debate and discussion, if the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) was not necessary to help the Justice Department pursue litigation against the tobacco companies, I am curious to know why the tobacco companies are opposed to the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. I have a hard time believing that the tobacco companies, through the production of their product, which has cost the VA and veterans billions of dollars in this country, not to speak of millions of lost lives, I have a hard time believing that they are getting involved in this debate because they are trying to help the veterans of America. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just point out a fact. The fact is that each year when 400,000 Americans die because of tobacco-related diseases, that is four times as many people, Americans, as were killed in both the Korean and Vietnam wars combined. It seems to me that, when we start the day with our hand over our heart and say the pledge of allegiance to the flag in this room, one thing we ought to agree on when we say liberty and justice for all is that justice ought to apply to everyone in America. All we are saying is the Justice Department ought to be adequately funded to take this lawsuit to the courts of this land.

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a great United States Army officer and soldier, Colonel Carroll F. Pollett, and to thank him for his contributions to the Army and the country. On Friday, June 23, 2000 Colonel Pollett will relinquish command of the Army's 3rd Signal Brigade which is stationed at Fort Hood, Texas in my district for assignment to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, DC. Colonel Pollett began his military career in the enlisted ranks attending basic training and earning his credentials in the Signal Corps from the bottom up with such jobs as Radio Operator, Team Chief, Operations Sergeant and Platoon Sergeant. He was commissioned a Second Lieutenant in the Signal Corps following his graduation from Officer Candidate School and has commanded troops as a Signal Platoon Leader, Company Commander, and Battalion Commander before taking command of the 3rd Signal Brigade. Carroll has served in staff positions from company level to the Department of the Army and along the way found time to earn a bachelor's degree and two master's degrees. He has served at numerous posts both in the United States and Europe during times of peace and war. Carroll is a consummate professional whose performance personifies those traits of courage, competency and commitment that our nation has come to expect from its Army officers. We are saddened that he will be leaving, but we will wish him Godspeed and good luck in his new assignment. Let me also say that every accolade to Carroll must also be considered a tribute to his family, his wife Dayna and their two sons, Derek and Brian. As a wife and mother, Dayna has been a true partner in all of his accomplishments. Carroll's career has reflected his deep commitment to our nation, and has been characterized by dedicated selfless service, love for soldiers and their families and a commitment to excellence. I ask Members to join me in offering our heartfelt appreciation for a job well done and best wishes for continued success to a great soldier and friend--Colonel Carroll F. Pollett.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I was not recorded on vote No. 268. Had I voted, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment Offered by Mr. Young of Florida

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if being fiscally irresponsible and unfair to middle class American families were crimes, passing this bill would be a felony. Under this bill, 90 percent of American families will get nothing, not one dime, except for a larger national debt. But one-thousandth of 1 percent of America's richest will get billions in tax cuts. Republicans are saying on one hand, we cannot afford to get soldiers off of food stamps, but let us give billionaires a massive tax cut. They are saying, we cannot afford to keep our health care promises to veterans and military retirees, but we can afford a $50 billion tax cut to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Republicans say, we cannot afford decent Medicare prescription drug programs for seniors, we cannot afford to enforce nursing home standards, we cannot afford to protect struggling rural hospitals from Medicare cuts in this Congress, but we can afford to give Bill Gates, Ted Turner, and Steve Forbes millions or billions in tax cuts. The Democratic substitute values all Americans, not just a privileged few, by protecting family farms and businesses while paying down the national debt. Those are America's values.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is the passionate and sincere leadership of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) that has forced the Pentagon and the Army to seriously rethink their approach to military and Democratic education for Latin America. However, I would hope that this House would respect the bipartisan plan that has been written into this bill to close the School of the Americas and to open a new institute, a Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. This is why I must oppose the Moakley amendment. The Institute's management would be significantly different from the management of the School of the Americas in several ways. First, it would be under the direct control of the Secretary of Defense, not the Secretary of the Army. Second, Congress would have a direct oversight role at the Institute. Surely, even the cynics among us can trust the Congress not to endorse, year by year, terrorist training in Latin America. Thirdly, a statutory board of visitors would be created with recommendations of House and Senate leaders from both parties, and with leaders from academic, human rights and religious organizations. Fourth, the law would require the institute to teach human rights, due process, rule of law, and civilian control of the military. That is good for Latin America and for the United States. And, fifth, the bill requires an annual report to Congress on the institute's education and training program. I have to believe that with oversight from the United States Congress, with us here in this House, that more American engagement with Latin American military and civilian leaders is good. Less engagement is not wise. Let us thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) for his leadership for change. He has truly made a significant difference. But now is a time for us to move forward in a new day, with new relationships with our allies and friends in Latin America.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I really want to come to the floor to compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking Democratic member. The way this process works is when a bill is put together on a thorough, careful, fair and bipartisan basis, it brings to it very little press attention. We will have to talk about this today because in tomorrow's newspapers and on the evening news tonight, we will not read about the military construction bill. It is sad that Americans will not know what has been done here on the House today and what has led up to this fact, because the fact is that we owe it to the men and women of this country who put on a uniform and put their lives on the line to ensure that they can have a quality of life; education for their children; housing and health care for their children. Quality of life for military servicemen and women and their families is what this military construction bill is all about, and because of the fair and bipartisan leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), in his partnership with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), and the committee, this money, these taxpayer dollars, are being spent wisely in a way that will improve the readiness of our military forces and give the kind of quality of care that our military servicemen and women deserve. Just one final note. I was recently on a trip with several other Members of the House and met a young Army private who had missed the birth, the recent birth, of his first child. I do not know how we can ever repay somebody like that. As a father of a 2-year-old and a 4-year-old, I cannot imagine what it would have been like not to have been there when my wife, Lea Ann, gave birth to our children. What a special moment for all of us in this House that are fathers, to be there with our wives when our children are born. But while we cannot put a dollar value on that sacrifice that that young private of the Army gave, what we can do and are doing, under the leadership of the chairman and the ranking member today, is saying to our service men and women, we do appreciate them. We not only appreciate them with our words, but with our deeds. I want to compliment the committee leadership for a great effort on putting together this fair and bipartisan package that makes sense for the taxpayers and for our military.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, oftentimes the best products of this House pass with very little national attention for the very reason they have been put together on a bipartisan basis, and there has not been a great deal of conflict. This is a perfect example of that. This is an important bill, helping deserving families and children. The Impact Aid program annually helps over 17 million children, Native American, military children, and helps them receive a better education. It is an important program for many reasons. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) for his leadership, along with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), in seeing that this important legislation that is affecting millions of children is here on the floor without rancor, without partisanship. This is a great compliment to the chairman and to the ranking member. I also want to take this time, I was not here on the floor, to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and who has played a fundamental roll over the last several years in ensuring increased funding for these Native American children and military children. We will miss his leadership. But most importantly, millions of children will have a better life for many decades to come because of the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) and all of those on the committee who have worked on this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, as the representative of Ft. Hood, Texas, I have the privilege of representing the largest Army installation in the world. And from that perspective, I would like to take just a few moments to focus my remarks on the sacrifices made by military children, those children we are helping in this bill. On Veterans Day and Memorial Day, our Nation, and rightfully so, honors men and women in uniform who have given so much, perhaps their all, for all of us in this country. What is all too often forgotten is the sacrifices made by our military families and children. Think just for a minute, if you would, about the life of a military child, knowing how proud they are of their mom or dad who are serving in the military. But think for a moment what it is like to move five or six or eight or ten times between their first grade classes and graduating from high school. What is it like to just get elected as cheerleader in their high school or captain of their soccer team or football team only to find out that their mother or father has been asked by his or her country to move to another State? What is it like to have mom or dad deployed for 6 or 12 months at a time, missing baseball and soccer and other events at their school? And what is it like to have mother or father not be there for high school commencement because mom or dad is serving their country? Worse yet, what is it like for millions of young military children who have to face the possible reality of not having their mother or father at their high school commencement because they might have been killed in training or in combat? Just over a year ago, Mr. Speaker, I saw a high school junior in my district in Coleen, a young lady who saw her mother for the first time in 2 months because her mother was in Bosnia serving in uniform, saw her mother over teleconferencing from Ft. Hood. How do we put a value on the sacrifice of that young lady who had not even seen her mom in 2 months and would not see her in person for several more months? Just Easter weekend of this year with Senator Hutchinson and others, I met a young private who missed the birth recently of his first child. Who among us as fathers in this House would not be devastated to be away from our wife upon such an important moment as that? We all know military children rightfully are proud of their parents. While we cannot fully understand all of their sacrifices unless we were in their shoes, what we can do and what we morally must do is say and to ensure that military children deserve no less than a first-class education. That is what impact aid is all about. It is a first-class, quality education for deserving children. It is telling our soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines, if you are thousands of miles away in uniform putting your life on the line for your Nation, then you have a right to know your children are back home getting a good education. Impact aid is about readiness, because we cannot attract and keep the best and brightest in our military unless we ensure that their families can be confident their children will get a quality education. Impact aid. It is not the only way but it is an important way we in this House today on a bipartisan basis can say thank you to the servicemen and women of America.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate a great high school student and basketball player from my Texas congressional district--Shereka Wright--on her selection as the 1999-2000 Gatorade National High School Girls Basketball Champion. Shereka was chosen for this honor out of the 454,000 high school girls basketball players across the country. Past winners of this award include Emmitt Smith, Lisa Leslie, Chris Webber, Peyton Manning, Tim Couch, Kobe Bryant, and Alex Rodriguez. Shereka Wright will graduate from Copperas Cove High School in Copperas Cove, Texas, next month after four tremendous years as a basketball player. Her long list of achievements already rivals many professional basketball players. Just this season, Shereka has averaged 25 points, 10 rebounds, four assists, three steals, and two blocks per game. Over the course of her career, she has scored over 3,000 points. That feat places her in the top-25 scorers of all-time. She has been selected as the Most Valuable Player of the Nike Tournament of Champions in California twice. She has also been named to the Conference AAAAA 1st Team All-State in Texas for four consecutive years. Shereka's commitment to success off the court is equally impressive. she truly is a student athlete and has maintained a 3.6 grade point average. She has also volunteered her time working with the Youth Teen Summit and summer youth basketball camps. Shereka will attend Purdue University in the fall. I feel certain she will continue to be an outstanding player, student, and leader for many years to come. I ask Members to join me and offer our heartfelt congratulations on a job well done and best wishes for continued success, to a student and athlete--Shereka Wright.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, that is my point, I say to the Members.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. EDWARDS. I am trying to, because there was a discussion between the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman about another amendment being accepted on a unanimous basis, and then the gentleman mentioned this amendment, resolve this. Frankly, this Member is a bit uncertain as to what amendment we are including here. I guess, to clarify, this does not have any language dealing with job discrimination. To the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), let me just point out, in response to his comments on this amendment, the gentleman previously said it is his intent with this amendment that these Federal dollars go to pervasively sectarian organizations. That is something that the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 is unconstitutional. I have no problem with faith-based organizations, Catholic Charities, getting Federal money. I have a huge problem with the Federal government directly funding the First Catholic Church, the First Methodist Church, the First Synagogue, or the First Wiccans with direct Federal money. That has huge implications. Because the gentleman said ``pervasively sectarian organizations'' get the money, those pervasively sectarian organizations have special protections under the law where they can discriminate based on someone's religious faith. So based on the gentleman's answer, under this bill, even including this amendment, they could take Federal tax dollars and put up a sign and say, no Jews, no Catholics, no Christians, no Hindus need apply here. I think that is incredibly significant. My problem is that what otherwise is an outstanding bipartisan bill is complicated now by an issue that frankly we should spend days, not just moments, debating. I would urge my colleagues to look at what they are about to vote on. I would urge its rejection. Madam Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, not necessarily to the First Baptist Church of Waco or to the First Methodist Church of New York City. I think Members need to be aware of this. I think it is a shame that we are given just a handful of minutes to discuss an issue that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson debated for 10 years in the Virginia legislature that provided the foundation for the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights. Let me ask the gentleman another question. Let us say that it is the gentleman's intent that dollars go directly to churches and houses of worship under this amendment, which eases my concern, because the Supreme Court would rule that that is unconstitutional. But let us just say that is the gentleman's intent. If money goes to a church associated with Bob Jones University next year under the gentleman's amendment, can that church, can that religious organization put out a sign saying, using your tax dollars, no Catholics need apply for a job here?

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, is the gentleman aware that in 1988 the Supreme Court made a specific ruling that that is unconstitutional under the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights? It says, having direct Federal funding of churches and synagogues and houses of worship is an infringement upon the first amendment. Is the gentleman aware of that?

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, if the gentleman from Indiana would not mind, because this is a terribly significant issue, possibly dealing with protections of the first amendment of the Constitution, I would like to be sure I know what we are voting on. Would funding under the gentleman's amendment be allowed to go to pervasively sectarian organizations?

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, what we are trying to do is clarify what is in the amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. If I could reclaim my time, then, the difference, and perhaps the gentleman from New York did not hear the answer of the gentleman, he said it was his intent with his language----

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, let me just clarify a couple of points, then, under my reservation of objection. First of all, Madam Chairman, it is meaningless to add to any bill that ``this bill cannot be inconsistent with the Constitution.'' That is already implied in the writing of the Constitution. We have no power to pass a bill that is unconstitutional, so let us not be deluded to think that somehow that is adding a protection to this bill. Secondly, I would still point out to all Members who have not been aware of this that this particular amendment, as I now understand it, still would allow someone to take Federal tax dollars and put up a sign saying ``no Catholics need apply here for a job, federally-funded job; no Jews need apply here for a federally-funded job.'' Is that correct, the gentleman's amendment that we are talking about does not address the employment discrimination using tax dollars? Or does the gentleman have a separate amendment that I can see a copy of?

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, I would like to ask the question, has the gentleman dealt with the issue in this amendment or other intended amendment of using Federal tax dollars to discriminate against people based on their religious faith, or is he just dealing with an addition to the question of the establishment and the free exercise clauses?

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Chairman, I reserve the right to object.