Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, as we draw to a close, I again want to take this time to congratulate, salute and thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for his leadership in this, the first product of the new Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on Appropriations. It has been a professional process, a thorough process, a respectful one and a bipartisan one, exactly the manner in which I think the people of this country would want us to deal with the important business of providing quality of life, training and other programs and facilities for our servicemen and -women, military retirees and veterans. I want to thank the minority staff, Bob Bonner and Tom Forhan, for their leadership. I want to thank the professional staff on the majority side, led by the very able Carol Murphy, with a tremendous staff, for their great work. All of this would not have been possible today and the good work that is in this bill would not have been possible today without the genuine cooperation and great leadership of the chairman, and I thank him.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have no other speakers on this side, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Rothman). (Mr. ROTHMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I am proud of the work the subcommittee did on a bipartisan basis to take limited dollars and use them wisely and focus them on high priorities. But, clearly, the reason I supported the Obey amendment and am sorry it was not allowed by the Committee on Rules is because it would allow a significant increase in resources and provide mental health care services and funding for the operations of our hospitals. And I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for her great leadership over the years in standing up and fighting for our men and women who have served our country in uniform.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a great Army officer and soldier, Colonel Alan R. Lynn, and to thank him for his contributions to the Army and the country. On Thursday, June 2, 2005, Colonel Lynn will relinquish command of the Army's 3rd Signal Brigade which is stationed at Fort Hood, Texas, for reassignment to the Army Staff in Washington, DC. Colonel Lynn began his military career in 1979 following his graduation from the University of Pennsylvania at California, Pennsylvania. Commissioned as an Air Defense Artillery officer from ROTC he completed several successful assignments in the Air Defense Artillery before he transferred to the U.S. Army Signal Corps. During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm he served as the 1st Brigade Signal Officer with the fabled 101st Airborne Division. In 1997, he commanded the 13th Signal Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division both at Fort Hood, Texas and in Bosnia with Task Force Eagle. Colonel Lynn took command of the 3rd Signal Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas, on June 13, 2002. He deployed the Brigade to 66 separate locations throughout Iraq in January, 2004 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom creating the largest tactical communications network in Army history. For over a decade Alan has been tested in conflict and hardened in battle to become one of the Army's finest and most experienced Signal Corps commanders. Alan 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. It is with sadness that we wish him Godspeed and good luck as he leaves Fort Hood for his new assignment. Alan'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 Alan R. Lynn.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, hard-working American families are paying a high price at the gas pump today because of our Nation's dependence upon foreign energy. Every day high gasoline prices are hurting good, decent hard-working families who are having to cut back on their purchases of food, medicine, and clothes. High natural gas prices are hurting our Nation's businesses, who are laying off families and breadwinners. This is simply about supporting an amendment that will provide environmentally safe and sound production of natural gas off the eastern Gulf Coast, something we are already doing off the Texas and the Louisiana coast. And to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), I have walked on Texas beaches since I was 2 years old and have yet to end up with black-bottom feet because of oil on our beaches. Mr. Chairman, this can be done in a positive way. But most importantly we need to send a message to the OPEC nations that we are tired of a handful of OPEC oil ministers putting their hands around the necks of family budgets and businesses here in America.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a great Army officer and soldier, Colonel Alan R. Lynn, and to thank him for his contributions to the Army and the country. On Thursday, June 2, 2005 Colonel Lynn will relinquish command of the Army's 3rd Signal Brigade which is stationed at Fort Hood, Texas for reassignment to the Army Staff in Washington, DC. Colonel Lynn began his military career in 1979 following his graduation from the University of Pennsylvania at California, Pennsylvania. Commissioned as an Air Defense Artillery officer from ROTC he completed several successful assignments in the Air Defense Artillery before he transferred to the U.S. Army Signal Corps. During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm he served as the 1st Brigade Signal Officer with the fabled 101st Airborne Division. In 1997, he commanded the 13th Signal Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division both at Fort Hood, Texas and in Bosnia with Task Force Eagle. Colonel Lynn took command of the 3rd Signal Brigade, Fort Hood, Texas on June 13, 2002. He deployed the Brigade to 66 separate locations throughout Iraq in January, 2004 in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom creating the largest tactical communications network in Army history. For over a decade Alan has been tested in conflict and hardened in battle to become one of the Army's finest and most experienced Signal Corps commanders. Alan 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. It is with sadness that we will wish him Godspeed and good luck as he leaves Fort Hood for his new assignment. Alan'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 Alan R. Lynn.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, hardworking American families are paying a high price at the gas pump today because of our Nation's dependence upon foreign oil. Unless we get tough and show OPEC nations that Americans are serious about becoming less dependent upon their self- serving oil cartel, our working families and our Nation's economy will continue to be the victims of high energy costs. That is why I am supporting the Istook amendment. Environmentally safe drilling for oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf in the eastern Gulf of Mexico would be possible under this amendment. This production could be done safely and cleanly. It does not require new technology. It is not some type of new experiment. The fact is that already Outer Continental Shelf production represents 30 percent of all U.S. domestic oil production and 23 percent of our natural gas production. What OCS energy production does do is provide 42,000 Americans with good jobs and brings this $6 billion a year to our U.S. Treasury. With more energy production that puts more Americans to work, we can send a clear message to the OPEC cartel that we are fed up with their cartel which is busting the budgets of America's working families. It is time to say we are sick and tired of the OPEC tax which costs American families $20 billion for every 25-cent increase in the price of gasoline. Tapping major oil and gas reserves in the eastern Gulf, something we are already doing off the Texas and Louisiana coasts, will create thousands of new American jobs, bring in billions of dollars to reduce the Federal deficit and our terrible trade deficit, and save working families money every time they go to the gasoline pump. That is a good deal and a smart deal for millions of hardworking American families. By voting ``yes'' on the Istook amendment, we are voting ``no'' on the OPEC tax, which is hurting most those who can least afford it.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a champion for improved access to healthcare, Sister Gretchen Kunz, president and CEO of the St. Joseph's Health System. I would like to extend my most sincere thanks and congratulations to Sister Gretchen for her principled service and dedication to the healthcare needs of Brazos Valley citizens. Since first coming to St. Joseph's in 1981, Sister Gretchen has shepherded St. Joseph's through many challenges while expanding access to the quality care that Brazos Valley citizens need and deserve. On June 13th, Sister Gretchen will start a new mission for St. Joseph's, bringing her unparalleled energy to the hospital system's charitable organization, the St. Joseph's Foundation. There, Sister Gretchen will continue to serve the needs of the community as she has done so well for the last 24 years. We can rest assured that Sister Gretchen's legacy of passionate service and motto of ``there is no end to getting better'' will continue to inspire those who follow in her footsteps. The career of Sister Gretchen Kunz is a model of selfless service and sacrifice. Her tireless efforts to improve the quality of life for the people of the Brazos Valley have undoubtedly touched countless lives. It is my privilege to honor the work of Sister Gretchen Kunz and I personally want to thank her for the shining example to us all and wish her well in her future endeavors.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the last speaker, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. But the gentleman failed to point out this budget cuts veterans benefits by $13.5 billion over the next 5 years. Perhaps the Republicans and the Republican leadership in this House think that is a fair deal for veterans. I would be willing to bet that America's veterans would say it is a bad deal. It is an unfair deal for America's veterans.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the people who wrote this budget may not like it. I know America's veterans will not like it. But the fact is, the truth is that this budget cuts veterans health care benefits compared to today's benefits by $13.5 billion once you take into account inflation. That is a reality. That is the truth. And that number does not even count the increasing number of veterans that need VA health care, which is 300,000 veterans this year, 300,000 veterans next year, so the real story is even worse than 13.5 billion in cuts.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, sadly, this partisan, fiscally irresponsible budget does not reflect the values of the American people. It locks in place massive deficits for as far as the eye can see, thus hurting our Nation's economic growth and harming Social Security. This budget is neither compassionate nor conservative. And it is certainly not a faith-based initiative. No major religious faith would ask the most from those who have the least, while asking the least from those who have the most. Yet, that is what this budget does. This budget will deny nursing home care to seniors and health care to children and the disabled. And this budget makes a mockery of the American principle of shared sacrifice during a time of war. How? By cutting veterans benefits by $13.5 billion over the next 5 years. Yet, at the same time it says to those making a million dollars a year in dividend income, you can still keep every dime of your $220,000 a year tax break. Where is the fairness in that? I guess we can welcome home our Iraqi war veterans with two signs. One says welcome home, and thanks for serving our country. The other says, by the way, we are going to be cutting your veterans health care benefits by $13.5 billion over the next 5 years. What a welcome home. This budget does not reflect the decency of American family values. Americans deserve better.

Mr. EDWARDS. It is in your budget.

Mr. EDWARDS. If the leadership had given us more than 3 hours to look at the bill before voting on it, perhaps we all could have seen that fact.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, national champions, that is what the American people can now call the Baylor University women's basketball team. Last night the Baylor Lady Bears convincingly won the national championship by beating a talented Michigan State team 84-62. It is the second largest margin in a NCAA women's basketball final. It is the first Big 12 team, men or women's, to win a national basketball championship. The Baylor Bears were one of only four teams in NCAA history, men or women's, to beat three number one teams in the Final 16. That accomplishment is impressive in and of itself, but what is incredible is just 5 years ago the Baylor Bears basketball team was at the bottom of the Big 12. Mr. Speaker, the important message of this great American success story is that the values of hard work, determination and teamwork truly make a difference. A key part of that team is Coach Kim Mulkey-Robertson, who became coach at Baylor just 5 years ago, taking over a program with a losing season and at the bottom of the Big 12 ladder. Coach Mulkey-Robertson would be the first to give credit to her tremendous and inspired players on the Baylor team, but she also deserves credit for bringing out that inspiration, and for teaching those students to be their best and then to even be better. I congratulate Coach Mulkey-Robertson for being the first woman in NCAA basketball history to be a player on a national basketball championship team and then to be the coach of a national championship team. I believe all Americans can be proud not only of the victory on the basketball court, but the values reflected in that victory. Hard work, determination, and teamwork truly make a difference.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if I were voting for a budget that cut veterans benefits by $14 billion over the next 5 years, I guess I would want to talk about the past rather than the future as well. The difference is very clear, and it is very simple. Republicans voting for this bill say that it is okay to cut veterans health care benefits by $14 billion over the next 5 years. Democrats and national veterans organizations say it is wrong. In fact, the DAV, the VFW say it is a grossly inadequate budget, it is an unconscionable budget, especially at a time when America's sons and daughters are being killed and wounded every day in Iraq.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, a federal budget is a statement of values. It says more about our values that any speeches, any rhetoric, any time. Sadly, this partisan budget reflects the failed values of fiscal irresponsibility. And misplaced priorities. It locks in massive deficits for as far as the eye can see, adding hundreds of billions of dollars to a huge national debt that will slow our Nation's economic growth, put Social Security benefits at risk and bury your children in a sea of red ink for the rest of their lives. Large deficits and underinvestment in education, research and health care are not prescriptions for a healthy economic future--they are prescriptions for economic stagnation and decline. In my opinion, this budget is immoral. It asks the most from those who have the least and asks the least from those who have the most. That fails the values test of every major religious faith in our society. This budget makes it harder for millions of students to attend college by increasing the gap between college costs vs student financial aid. This budget says to veterans, including Iraqi war veterans that pensions for disabilities, compensation checks and G.I. education benefits will be cut by $795 million over five years, thus making a mockery of the American principle of shared sacrifice during time of war. 14 billion over 5 years. I would imagine that budget item won't be discussed by supporters of this bill in their Veterans Day speeches this November. This budget says to thousands of seniors who need nursing home care under the Medicaid program that you'll just have to go without that care. In my book, that's not a very respectful way of honoring thy father and mother. To the working woman I met yesterday who works hard to help troubled youth in my hometown in Texas, this budget says your housing program will be cut, making it more difficult for her to find decent housing on a limited income. Yet, to the fortunate person who makes one million dollars this year on dividend income, this budget says you can keep every dime of the $220,000 tax break you have received recently. Asking seniors, students, veterans and hard-working families to sacrifice so those in the top one-tenth of one percent of income in America can keep all of their recent tax cuts does not pass the fairness test. If this is a faith-based initiative, I would like to know on which faith it is based. By refusing once again to require tax cuts to be paid for, my House Republican colleagues are endorsing the largest deficits in American history for the third year in a row. They have preached to us for five years the all gain, no pain budget built on the free lunch philosophy. Unfortunately, the bill collector is now calling and the deficits caused by that failed philosophy have been financed by the Japanese and Communist Chinese who own tens of billions of our national debt and with it, the ability to wreck our American economy. If House Republican leaders want to preach fiscal responsibility to individuals by toughening our bankruptcy law, then they had better start practicing what they preach. It is ironic that those who are condemning the personal debt of citizens have been the architects of three consecutive years of the largest federal deficits in American history. Burdening America's middle class with greater debt and under investing in education and health care for working families is neither fair nor fiscally responsible. Vote no on this budget. We can do much better, and the American people and our children deserve much better.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the American people and America's veterans deserve to know the fact. The fact is that the Republican budget being pushed during a time of war would cut veterans benefits compared to today's services by $14 billion over 5 years. This bill is inadequate, and it is unconscionable in its treatment of veterans. But do not believe me; that is what America's veterans leaders have said about it. They have called it ``grossly inadequate'' and ``unconscionable.'' This came from the Disabled American Veterans and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, two nonpartisan organizations. Maybe Republican leaders do not like it when veterans leaders point out the truth, but it is the truth. I am deeply disappointed that during a time of war we would have Members of this House pay lip service to the service of our veterans; but yet when it comes to what really counts, supporting medical care, they are going to cut it by $14 billion. That is 2 million veterans who will not receive health care under this budget. Vote for the Spratt amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include the following correspondence for the Record: The Independent Budget, March 17, 2005. Hon. Jim Nussle, Chairman, House Budget Committee, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Nussle: As you know, the President's fiscal year 2006 budget would provide an appropriation for veterans' medical care that is less than one-half of one percent above the FY 2005 appropriation. Because this amount would not begin to cover employee wage increases and other inflationary costs, it amounts to a substantial cut in funding and thus would unavoidably result in a reduction of critical medical care services for our Nation's sick and disabled veterans. Although we appreciate the adoption of the Bradley amendment which added $229 million to the President's recommendation for veterans' medical care, this is still grossly inadequate. In addition, we understand that H. Con. Res. 95 includes instructions to cut spending on mandatory veterans' programs, such as disability compensation, by $798 million. We think cutting veterans' benefit programs is unconscionable, especially at a time when America's sons and daughters are being wounded and killed every day in Iraq. The four major veterans organizations of The Independent Budget, AMVETS, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, therefore strongly urge support for amendments offered by Representatives Spratt and Obey to increase funding for veterans' programs. Passage of these amendments is crucial if the VA is to maintain an adequate level of health care and other services. Sincerely, Rick Jones, National Legislative Director, AMVETS. Richard B. Fuller, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America. Joseph A. Violante, National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans. Dennis Cullinan, National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), may want to hide behind a fig leaf of charging demagoguery, but let us review the facts he did not refute. Fact number one, this budget will cut veterans pensions compensation and education benefits by nearly $800 million. Fact number two, over 5 years it will cut veterans health care by nearly $14 billion. Fact number three, in this same budget someone making a million dollars a year in dividend income will get to keep every penny of his $220,000 tax break. They may call it demagoguery. I think America's veterans will call it wrong, wrong what they are doing to our service men, women and our veterans.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, a budget says a lot about our values. What this budget says to America's veterans is that Congress does not value your service to country. It makes a mockery of the American value of shared sacrifice in time of war. How does it do that? Let me explain. This budget says to the person sitting here safely at home who makes $1 million in dividend income this year that you can keep every penny of your $220,000 tax break that the House Republican leadership has given you recently, every penny of that tax break. But, on the other hand, it says to millions of America's veterans that we are going to direct a $14 billion cut in veterans' programs over the next 5 years. This budget even goes so far as to say they have to cut $798 billion out of disabled veterans' monthly pensions, low-income veterans compensation checks and veterans GI benefits, their education benefits, unless of course they want to go raise fees or, perhaps most likely, do all of those things. Where is the American value, the American family value, in those priorities? To a millionaire, making every dime on dividend income, you can keep your $220,000 tax cut; but to a veteran who may be coming back from Iraq, in fact a soldier today who may be tomorrow's veteran or next year's veteran, we are going to make you wait longer for health care in our VA hospitals; you are not going to get the care you deserve and you earned by risking your life for your country. I hear a lot from my Republican colleagues about family values. This budget does not reflect the family values of the American family, because the American family respects the service and sacrifice of our veterans, not just with speeches on Veterans Day. We are awfully good about that. But they expect us to respect veterans every day, and this bill does not even come close to maintaining present services for health care for our veterans. They can show their charts, how they have increased veterans funding, but the reality is it does not keep up with present services. So, in effect, every Member of this House who votes for this bill is voting for a real cut in health care services, education services and monthly disability pension checks for America's veterans. I think the American people, and I know America's veterans, are going to be offended by the values and priorities of this bill. Let us not just say yes to veterans on Veterans Day and turn our backs on them on budget day. Sadly that is what this budget does. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject the values of this budget; reject the slap in the face of millions of American veterans while coddling the wealthiest in our society, who are going to enjoy that $220,000 tax break they are making by their riskless dividend income of $1 million this year. Let us stand up for America's veterans today when it counts. They may appreciate our speeches on Veterans Day, but today they need our vote. That is the value that counts. Vote no on this unfair slap in the face to America's veterans.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, as someone who for the past 2 years has represented over 40,000 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, who have fought for our country in Iraq, I am deeply appreciative of the expeditious manner in which the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) have worked together to pass this important piece of legislation. This bill sends a very clear message to our troops in harm's way that while Americans may have differences of opinion about the Iraqi War, the fact is that we are all unified when it comes to seeing that our troops in harm's way have all of the support that they need and deserve to do their mission and to come home safely to their families. In the area of responsibility for the subcommittee on which I serve under the Committee on Appropriations, the Military Quality of Life and Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I wholeheartedly support the language and funding in this bill. Under our subcommittee is $3.1 billion in funding, $175 million of which goes to the Department of Defense health care system to deal with the direct increased costs for health care for our wounded troops coming home; $1.5 billion to pay for housing allowance for our Guard and Reserve soldiers and their families; and $1.3 billion in military construction needed in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout our country to support our war against terrorism. I enthusiastically and wholeheartedly support this bill. I do want, Mr. Chairman, to express one concern. The fact is that as of the end of December of last year, there have been 48,000 American troops coming home who have needed health care from the Veterans Administration health care system. While we put $175 million in the DOD part of this budget to take care of extra DOD health care costs, there is not a dime in this supplemental appropriation bill to help the Veterans Administration deal with the cost of dealing with 48,000 and still counting troops who have needed VA health care. Using the VA Secretary's own testimony before our subcommittee last week, the average cost mathematically is $6,200 for treatment for each veteran within the VA health care system. Multiply that number by the 48,000 troops coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are talking about an additional $302 million of cost to the VA health care system to help provide needed care for these deserving patriots. I do not think that money ought to come out of the hide of VA health care services to other veterans, and I do not think we should cut corners in terms of quality of care for Iraqi and Afghanistan War veterans once they have left the Department of Defense system and gone into the VA system. In committee we heard some say the VA is flush with money. I have looked into that statement, and the fact is that the VA is presently laying off hundreds of employees in the VA medical system and taking money out of their equipment accounts to fund their personnel accounts. During time of war and in the spirit of this bill supporting our troops not only when they are in the combat zone but when they return home, I think in that spirit we ought to, as this bill goes to conference committee, look specifically at what additional needs the VA health care system needs, provide the quality medical care that these troops need. If the war is worth fighting, certainly it is worth paying for and it is worth supporting those troops even after they have left the military and continue to pay the mental and physical price for decades for having stood up for our country. So I would like to urge the committee chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) to work together with us on a bipartisan basis to see that we can add the needed money for the VA health care system, to see that we do not shortchange these great Americans who have risked their lives for our country.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this debate is about one question that each Member and each American should ask himself or herself. This is the question: Should any American citizen have to pass someone else's private religious test to qualify for a tax-funded job? I think the vast majority of Americans would answer that question, absolutely not. Should the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who is the author of this bill, have to come to me if I get a $5 million job computer training grant from the Federal Government under this bill, should the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) have to come to me and answer a 20- point religious questionnaire? Should the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) have to say whether or not he believes in Jesus Christ, whether or not he believes in evolution, whether or not he believes in the literal interpretation of the New Testament? I do not think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) should have to answer those kinds of questions to me as a recipient of a $5 million job training grant. And without the Scott amendment, that is exactly what could happen under this bill. For those who oppose the Scott amendment, let me say what you are endorsing. You are saying it is okay for a church associated with Bob Jones University, at least based on its past philosophy, it can take a $1 million job training grant and pay for a sign that says, No Jews Or Catholics Need Apply Here For a Federally Funded Job. Do you really think that is right? What the opponents of the Scott amendment are saying is that the members of a white church who received a $1 million job training grant can say to an African American applicant, You do not belong to our church. Even though you are totally qualified for this federally funded job, we are not going to hire you. What this bill would say, without the Scott amendment, is that someone could say to a single mom trying to find a job in our religious faith, We do not believe single mothers should work, so we are not going to hire you, even though you are fully qualified for this job. Religious discrimination is wrong. To subsidize it in the year 2005 I find unbelievable. It is unbelievable that on the very day American soldiers are risking their lives in Iraq, and perhaps some have given their lives today in Iraq to give the Iraqis religious freedom, we are debating a bill on the floor of this House that would say an American citizen can be denied a federally funded, tax-funded job for simply one reason, the exercise of your religious faith. Religious freedom is not just any freedom; it is the first freedom. It is the first freedom enunciated in the Bill of Rights. It is the freedom upon which all other freedoms we cherish in this country are built. The Founding Fathers thought so much about that freedom, about religious freedom, they put in the first 16 words of the first amendment these words: ``Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' If saying that someone has to lose a job to support his or her family because they are exercising their own deeply-felt religious faith, if that is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion, what is? If saying we are going to take away your ability to put food on the table for your children and a job that is paid for by taxpayers, to say that you cannot have that job because you do not pass my private religious test, if that is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion, what is? The ninth commandment warns people to not bear false witness against thy neighbor. Yet repeatedly I have heard on this floor those say on this side of the floor that supporters of the Scott amendment are opposed to faith-based groups being involved in providing social services. I would suggest perhaps they should not only preach the Ten Commandments; perhaps they should exercise and practice the ninth commandment, because to make that argument is to suggest that the Baptist Joint Committee, the American Jewish Committee, and numerous other religious groups are somehow opposing faith-based groups' involvement in Federal social service programs. You know that argument is simply not correct. This amendment, the Scott amendment, is about one question and one question alone: Should any American citizen have to pass another American citizen's private religious test to qualify for a federally funded job? I hope the Members of this House will respect the Founding Fathers and the first amendment and the views of the vast majority of American citizens and say, no, you should not be denied a tax-funded job because of the exercise of your religious faith. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to put partisanship and politics aside. Vote for religious freedom. Vote for the Scott amendment.