Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

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

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and for his outspoken and consistent leadership in fighting for fiscal responsibility, not just for this generation of Americans, but for our children and their children, future generations of Americans. Mr. Speaker, more and more Americans, and certainly central Texans when I go home, are asking a very important question: Why has the Republican leadership in Washington, D.C. abandoned the values of fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets? That is a good question. Frankly, the party that used to pride itself and the party that fought for balanced budgets, led a fight for a balanced budget constitutional amendment has now become the party that is proposing the largest deficits in American history. Let me discuss some facts. Fact number one, it is true that the administration in Congress this year are proposing the largest deficit in American history. Let me repeat that one more time because a lot of people do not believe it, but it is true. The White House, President Bush and Republican leaders have endorsed the largest deficit in our Nation's 200-year-plus history. $292 billion used to be the record for deficit spending. This year it could be well over $307 billion. That is more of a deficit than we had during World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War or the Korean War. Fact number two, this proposed Republican historically high deficit does not include one dime for the cost of the Iraqi war or building a national health care system for Iraq which they propose, or helping build new schools for Iraqi families. Fact three, if we do not count the billions of dollars being taken out of the Medicare and Social Security trust funds to fund this huge deficit, the real deficit to the American people is actually this year going to be over $400 billion if Washington Republicans get their way. Fact number four, the House-passed Republican budget supports deficits not just this year, but for as far as the eye can see. In fact, over 214 Members of this House, Republicans, voted to increase the national debt by $6 trillion by the year 2013. Mr. Speaker, let me put this in perspective. It took two centuries, in fact, over 200 years for America to build up a $1 trillion national debt. Yet in 10 years, Republicans will have been successful in increasing that national debt 6 times more than the amount that it took two centuries to create. $6 trillion in additional national debt in the next 10 years under their economic plans and schemes, versus $1 trillion developed over the first 200 years of American history. That is the kind of history we do not hear Republicans in this Chamber and across Washington talking about very much. Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to ask the question who in America should worry about these Republican deficits? Do they really matter? Do they affect the average American citizen? I think the answer is we should all care and be concerned about the historically high deficits for several reasons. First, let us look at taxpayers. Taxpayers, according to Republican estimates, will have to pay $1 trillion in extra taxes over the next decade just to pay the extra interest on the national debt. That is money that could have been saved for our children and grandchildren's homes and cars, for building their futures, educating their children. That is money that could have been used to provide college student loans and grants through Federal programs. Family businesses and farms ought to be concerned about the deficit because as thousands of economists and well-respected business leaders have said, once the economy gets back on its feet, having 3 and $400 billion deficits will increase the cost of doing business for family businesses and farms. When a farmer goes to borrow money to plant his crop or buy seed or fertilizer, that farmer is going to have to pay more in loans for interest back to the bank for loans. Small businesses wanting to create new jobs are going to have to pay more interest on the money that they have to borrow to expand their businesses. Deficits are bad for American taxpayers and American farmers, and they are bad for American family businesses. How about American family workers, should they care about these deficits? Well, most workers are struggling to support their families, provide a decent home and quality education for their children. So now when American workers, under the new Republican Babe Ruths of deficits, go to borrow money to buy homes, they will pay thousands of dollars more for the cost of that home because of higher interest rates. They will pay more when they have to borrow money to buy a car; and they ought to be concerned because according to many economists, including Alan Greenspan, if we were to have hundreds of billions of dollars of additionally proposed tax cuts despite our historically high deficits this year, then we are going to potentially hurt economic growth. That means fewer jobs for American workers. American seniors ought to be worried about deficit spending because that deficit is being underwritten by being borrowing money from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Baby boomers, our future seniors in the next few years, ought to be gravely concerned about undermining the fiscal integrity of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds just as they begin to retire in the next 7 or 8 years. How about parents? Parents certainly should be concerned about deficit spending because they do not want, I do not want, we should not want to drown our children in a sea of national debt. It is morally wrong to do so. And as we Americans stand so proudly behind our soldiers and servicemen and women who fought in Iraq so courageously, as we honor our veterans with resolutions of words here on this floor in order to pay for some of this dividend tax cut and other proposed tax cuts, Republicans from the White House to Congress have proposed the following just this year, in the last few weeks, in fact: $28 billion in veterans cuts over the next 10 years, $1.5 billion in cuts this year for military construction programs that help train our servicemen and women and provide better quality of life, day care, housing for those servicemen and women; $175 million Republicans have proposed cutting in Impact Aid education that provides a better education for military children while Mom and Dad are fighting for our country in Iraq; and $172 billion Republicans have voted for in this House to cut Medicare and Medicaid. That means fewer seniors getting nursing home care, fewer seniors getting medical care that they need. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, not that long ago, Republicans in Congress passed, over my objection, a $1.3 trillion tax cut; and when they did it, every Member, every Republican who spoke in the well of this House said we can have it both ways, we can have our cake and eat it too. We like the free-lunch philosophy. We can cut taxes by a massive amount and still balance the budget. These same economic gurus are now proposing $1 trillion more in tax cuts. And let me clarify this point. The public debate is between $350 billion and $500 billion in tax cuts, but somebody needs to recognize that there are about six or seven or eight or nine other tax cuts that the administration and congressional Republican leaders have proposed. We add them all up and we are talking about more than $1 trillion of extra tax cuts despite the fact that we have got the largest deficit by far in American history. I think before we buy into the next round of proposed trillion dollar free-lunch tax cuts, it is fair to ask how accurate were our Republican colleagues and leaders in predicting just 2 years ago we could cut taxes by over $1 trillion and balance the budget. Fact: Republican leaders were off by $12 trillion. Not million, not billion. $12 trillion, because just 2 years ago they were predicting we would have no national debt by the year 2013. The budget that they just voted on in the House, that they have passed in the House, suggests we will have $12 trillion in national debt. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that if a business had an economist that was $12 trillion off, not to mention the 2.5 million jobs we have lost in the last couple of years, $12 trillion off, 2 million jobs off in the economic growth projections, most companies would fire those economists summarily. They certainly would not be rehired to make more proposals and more economic suggestions. Finally, I hope we could examine two assertions we are hearing from our Republican colleagues. The first is this massive new tax cut is really a growth plan. That is not what the Congressional Budget Office said recently after an extensive report; and by the way, the CBO, Congressional Budget Office, is headed by a former top economist in this Bush administration's White House. What that report said was basically that whatever short-term stimulative effect any tax cut might have would probably be offset by the massive deficits that would result from that. In fact, the report says: ``The overall macroeconomic effect of the proposals in the President's budget is not obvious.'' Is not obvious. That is bad news for the free-lunch crowd that believes we can promise everything to the American people and they will be gullible enough to believe it. We could have massive tax cuts, fight a war in Iraq, rebuild Iraq, increase our defense spending significantly, provide prescription drugs for seniors, and, by the way, we will balance the budget for our children. Just trust us. The last time the American people trusted them with their predictions of that free-lunch philosophy, they were off $12 trillion. Our children and grandchildren cannot afford another $12 trillion mistake. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that in today's Washington Post, Alan Greenspan was basically quoted as saying that unless we offset these newest Republican tax cuts with spending cuts, it could well harm economic growth. The article in The Post said: ``Greenspan endorsed the view of a recent study by Federal economists that rising budget deficits put upward pressure on long-term interest rates, which act as a drag on economic growth by raising the cost of borrowing for businesses and consumers.'' The fact is that in yesterday's Washington Post there was a fascinating article. The article was entitled, ``Bush Offers New Argument for His Tax-Cut Proposal.'' It talks about the immediate short-term growth this might create. But it is interesting that the article goes on and says this: ``Beyond 2007, the tax package would actually do more harm than good, warned Joel Prakken of Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, which developed the computer model the White House used.'' So the very economists that the White House depended upon to develop computer models to try to sell their tax cut admits that the administration's growth plan could actually be an antigrowth plan, a job depressant in the years ahead because of the massive deficit spending. Finally, the Republicans say that we will pay for those tax cuts with tough new spending cuts. We have heard some proposals cutting Medicare and Medicaid by $172 billion, veterans by $28 billion, Impact Aid for military kids by $175 million; but once pressured by the public, it took about 2 weeks for Republicans to back off from some of those cuts. But let me just state for the record, and I will finish with this: when Republicans talk about courageous spending cuts, look at what they do, not what they say, because if we look at the five programs that represent about three-fourths of all Federal spending, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest on the national debt, the administration and the Republicans in Congress are wanting to increase, increase, spending on three of those five programs. Massive increase, $1 trillion more over the next decade on interest in the national debt; massive increase in defense spending, which I support, but I am willing to pay for; and they are proposing a $400 billion Medicare plan for prescription drugs, which I am afraid seniors will probably never see. Mr. Speaker, through fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets, we can create the economic foundation for America to have tremendous growth. That is what we did in the 1990s. The proof is in the pudding. That plan led to 22 million new jobs in America. The latest growth plan resulted in 2.5 million lost jobs. Let us look at the track record of these economic gurus before we sell our children and grandchildren into a lifetime of paying taxes just to pay interest on the national debt. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, every Republican in this House who votes on this bill tonight will have voted for the largest deficit in American history. Every Republican voting for this will have supported the largest single year deficit in American history, larger than every year during World War I, during World War II, the Great Depression and all other wars this country has fought. I will be honest, if I had a budget proposal this fiscally irresponsible, this dangerous to America's future, I would want it to pass at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning as well. To be fair, I will admit with my Republican colleagues that I agree when they say this is a growth plan. It will grow the national debt ceiling by nearly $1 trillion in 1 year. Once the economy finally gets a little bit back on its feet, it will grow interest rates. Costs for buying a new home will go up, costs for buying new cars will go up and costs for our farmers and ranchers trying to save the family farm will go up because of their deficit spending. As we all know and as Alan Greenspan has confirmed, this will drive up interest rates. And, yes, this is a growth plan. It will grow the debt tax on my two little children and their generation to a point where their future will be burdened severely by that level of taxation. Now, where I disagree with their assertion that this is a growth plan is in terms of economic growth. The Congressional Budget Office, in a report organized by one of President Bush's former top economic advisers in the White House, recently said this growth plan will not have any appreciable economic growth, and actually it could slow down economic growth. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the kind of democracy our country plans to implement in the Nation of Iraq. At 1 o'clock in the morning we will be voting on a plan that nobody knows about that will harm our children with the largest deficit in the history of America. Vote no.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I will yield briefly to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if anyone has a right to be upset at the Turks, it is me. I represent Fort Hood, where the 4th Infantry Division is located, the division that was supposed to come down through Turkey. I had met with 50 of the spouses several weeks ago, and have been watching them live under the uncertainty of not knowing what will happen and where their husbands will be deployed. But this is a well-intentioned but dangerous amendment. While not intended, it could put at greater risk thousands of military soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines in Iraq, including the 4th Infantry Division that was involved in this Turkish decision. Let us support the President, and let us trust the President on this decision in time of war. Oppose the Cunningham amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me say this. There are some problems that we should not wait to address, and I can think of few more important than the potential threat of nuclear terrorism exercised against major American cities. It is frightening when one realizes the reality that a Coke can-size full of highly enriched uranium, put into a bomb, placed into one of 11 million ship containers that end up in major U.S. ports, God forbid if that were to happen and that bomb to be exploded in a major American port, 2 to 3 million American citizens could be killed instantly. Surely, surely, we would all agree in this House that we should do everything we can humanly do to prevent that sort of catastrophe from happening. Perhaps that is why President Bush has said protecting our homeland against nuclear terrorism should be of the highest national priority. I think the Obey amendment does something about that potential threat of nuclear terrorism. By providing a little over $100 million, we can actually put in place at 10 megaports nuclear protection devices. So that if a terrorist were to try to put a nuclear bomb into a ship container, and keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, only 2 percent of ship containers are ever inspected before they come into major American ports, but these nuclear detection devices, funded by the Obey amendment, a technology developed by our Department of Energy, could be put in place in the next year or so, starting now, in the 10 major megaports that could protect our major American cities and the millions of people that live in them from the threat of a nuclear bomb being exploded in the hold of a cargo ship parked in New York harbor or New Orleans harbor or outside of Los Angeles or the city of Houston. If we can spend $100 billion to fight a war in Iraq, which I support, and if we can have proposed a $374 billion dividend tax cut, which I do not support, certainly we could afford to spend another $135 million in this bill today to try to protect major American cities from nuclear terrorism. I urge support for the Obey amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin for a response.

Mr. EDWARDS. I would be glad to yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I salute the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others who put this package together. It funds the war in Iraq, and I strongly support that. And it funds some important homeland defense measures, and I support that. But I think this bill does not go far enough in protecting our homeland security and we have a responsibility to do something about that today. The Obey amendment would provide $197 million for additional funding to protect our U.S. military installations and the families, the spouses of our soldiers fighting in Iraq, the children of our troops defending our country through their bravery and courage in Iraq. These projects only represented, these security upgrades, and I am talking about fences around our military installations, guard houses, ways in which we can responsibly protect those military bases and the families living there. These projects in the Obey amendment represent only the top 16 percent of security needs requested by the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines. This should be the least we should do. There is no reason, other than some artificial number established by the administration, why we should not spend just a bit more to make it safer for our families, our military families, living within our installations. We cannot promise everything to our troops over in combat in Iraq. But the one thing we have an obligation to do for them is to say, if you will put your life on the line for our country in Iraq today, we will defend your children and your spouses back at home.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman because the gentleman realizes, as I do, that since I did not get the news, employees of my district did not get the news today after the Committee on Rules had established the rules for amendments on this bill, technically this amendment could be ruled out of order. For that reason, in a moment I will respectfully pull down the amendment in my appreciation of the chairman for his recognizing the importance of talking to airlines about not cutting off airline service to major military installations during a time of war when we are asking those families, taxpayers, to help subsidize the continuation of those airlines. I do not know what the intention is of Delta and Continental who have made these recent announcements to cut off air service to so many military families which are sacrificing so much for us. I will say to them, if they are willing to reconsider what I consider their incredibly unfair decisions tonight and in the days ahead, I will be the first to applaud them for their patriotism and sense of public service during this time of war. But I also want to send a clear message. If all they offer us is lip service for the next 3 days until they get this bill passed and then they cut off air service to tens of thousands of military families who might lose loved ones as they are cutting off that service, I may be only one Member of Congress, but I hope they understand there will be millions of American veterans and millions of American families who will share my outrage that it is wrong, it is unpatriotic for these companies to turn their backs on the military families who are facing death and risk of life in Iraq tonight. I thank the chairman, and I look forward to solving this problem.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the vote we just cast dealt with how America should treat nations who do not support us in our war against Iraq. This amendment deals with the issue of how we treat American companies who have turned their back on the families of our military servicemen and women who are fighting that war against Iraq tonight. Let me read from the Atlanta Journal Constitution just 4 days ago. ``The use of Delta's funds for this purpose left us in disbelief.'' That is what 30 former Delta executives said about the CEO of Delta Airlines and 32 executives spending $25 million of Delta Airlines funds to set up special pension trust funds for themselves. Mr. Chairman, the CEO of Delta who comes before this House asking for billions of Federal tax subsidies was recently part of providing $25 million in expenditures to protect 33 executives while 16,000 employees are being laid off. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in disbelief that the same Delta Airline executives who could spend $25 million to protect their pension trust funds said today in Killeen, Texas, in my district, that they cannot afford to continue air service during a time of war to the community that is the home of the only two-division Army installation in America, Fort Hood. That is correct. The same executives that had $25 million to protect their future said to the families of soldiers who are deploying tonight, some of whom are at war tonight in Iraq, two of whom from Fort Hood are POWs in Iraq tonight, that we are not going to provide air service anymore. In fact, we are going to cut off air service to Fort Hood and its two Army installations and the 44,000 soldiers that represent Fort Hood, we are going to cut off that air service even while we are at war in Iraq. They even had the audacity to tell employees today, while Delta lobbyists were running around the halls of this Capitol saying we need millions, in fact billions, in tax subsidies to support our efforts at Delta Airlines. I find myself in disbelief, just as 30 former executives at Delta found themselves in disbelief at the actions of executives of this company. My amendment sends a clear message to the executives of Delta and to Continental Airlines and any other airline: Do not come to the House of Representatives, to these hallowed halls, during a time of war and ask for the taxpayers of military families to subsidize a bailout for your companies while you are cutting off airline service to the thousands of military families whose loved ones are putting their lives on the line in Iraq tonight.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Green amendment because I do not believe teachers should be penalized for teaching our children. Now, my colleague from California came up with a hypothetical example, but let me tell my colleagues what will happen in real life, not hypothetically, if the Green amendment is defeated. I now am representing Fort Hood in Texas, the only two-division Army installation in America, which has several thousand soldiers arriving in Iraq, and several thousand more per day. We will have up to 30,000 soldiers from Fort Hood, Texas, fighting for our country in Iraq most likely in the next 2 months. Now, those soldiers fighting for us today and in the weeks ahead over there come back to Texas. And the bill that Congress, which I helped pass a decade ago, the Troops to Teacher bill, actually tries to encourage those military retirees, those soldiers fighting for us today in Iraq, to go into teaching. They are doing that all throughout the school system, educating the children of military soldiers in central Texas. Now, for those who want to defeat the Green amendment, let me just mention what that is really saying. That says that it is okay for these soldiers fighting in Iraq today for our country to pay Social Security taxes, and then when they come back to Texas and retire, they are going to have their Social Security benefits cut because some opposed the Green amendment. I think that is unfair. It is not only unfair to the soldiers to have their Social Security benefits docked because we want to defeat the Green amendment, it is unfair to the children of military families who will not have the benefit of those retired soldiers teaching in our classrooms. It was bad enough that the administration was trying to cut impact aid to help military kids' education during a time of war, it was worse yet when the Republican leadership pushed for a $28 billion cut in veterans benefits during a time of war; but now, to add insult to injury, I hope the teachers of Texas, Mr. Speaker, are listening to my Republican colleagues who, intended or not, would push a policy that will penalize soldiers fighting today in Iraq who want to teach our children tomorrow. That is wrong for our servicemen and women, it is wrong for the children of Texas, and it is wrong for this country.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues may not like the truth, but they cannot run from it. The truth is that by defeating the Green amendment, what they are saying to some of the thousands of soldiers from my district in the Iraqi theater today, that if they come back home to Texas and take advantage of the Troops to Teachers program passed by Congress to encourage them to become teachers, then their Social Security benefits are going to be reduced or eliminated. That is wrong. It is unfair. It discourages good people from going into the teaching profession. And I can tell Members, the school districts in my district value highly having these retired Army soldiers teaching in the classrooms. The other side may not like the facts, but they are going to have to accept them.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in April 1953, a half century ago, the GENCO Federal Credit Union was created by a group of employees of the General Tire and Rubber Company plant in Waco, Texas to meet the financial needs of their fellow employees. A credit union is ``Democracy in Action''; a not-for-profit financial cooperative organized by people who share a common bond. All the members pool their assets to provide funds for loans to those in need within the membership. The members own the credit union, electing directors from among the membership. Credit Unions are regulated either by Federal or State law, depending upon the source from which the group receives its charter. The principal function of credit unions is to encourage savings and thrift and provide consumers credit at favorable interest rates. GENCO FCU is federally chartered and regulated by the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA). In 1985, General Tire and Rubber Company's Waco plant shut down. But GENCO has continued to thrive and prosper. The board enlarged the credit union's field of membership to include employees of Musician's Association Local No. 306, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Waco Post No. 2148, AmVets Post No. 35, American Income Life Insurance Company, Mercury Tool, Hornet Manufacturing, Walker's Paint & Repair and Lockridge Priest. In 1992, GENCO opened yet another chapter of its life when it purchased Lufkin Regional Federal Credit Union. Operating under a community charter, the organization is now able to serve anyone who lives or works in McLennan County in Central Texas or Angelina County in East Texas. For five decades, the theme of loyalty has run consistently throughout GENCO's work, along with adherence to the principles of encouraging savings and thrift and providing working men and women credit at favorable interest rates. That fifty years of service and commitment to its community make the celebration of GENCO Federal Credit Union's 50th anniversary all the more special. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in honoring and celebrating GENCO Federal Credit Union's 50 years of service to the people of Central Texas.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I first want to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) for giving us the opportunity tonight to speak out on behalf of America's veterans, and I can say to my colleagues firsthand that this is not the first time she has spoken out. Because 12 years ago she and I were both new members of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, and our veterans service organizations quickly learned that no one would speak out more loudly and more eloquently or more firmly in behalf of our Nation's veterans. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to represent the only two division Army installation in the United States, Fort Hood, Texas. Even as we speak tonight in the comfort of this congressional hall, thousands of soldiers from my district are being deployed to the Iraqi theater and within days could be fighting on behalf of our country. Those of us here rise tonight to speak on behalf of those soldiers, our future veterans. There is one fundamental point that I would like to emphasize in my remarks, and that is that the true test of Congress' commitment to veterans is not what we say; it is what we do. Now, I would say it is fair that some people in this country believe that Republicans are veterans' best friends, but we should look at the facts. The fact is that not many Americans saw what happened at 3 a.m. on the House floor last Friday morning, but this is the fact. On that morning 214 House Republicans voted to cut veterans benefits by $28 billion, to cut veterans benefits by $28 billion. Then 5 minutes later, they voted for a resolution saying we support our troops in Iraq. Madam Speaker, I find that hypocrisy to be outrageous. Last Friday morning, 214 House Republicans voted to cut veterans benefits, including benefits for war-wounded combat veterans, cut their benefits and their pensions and compensation checks; and 5 minutes later they voted for a resolution with no force of funds behind it saying we support our troops. Madam Speaker, today's troops in Iraq are tomorrow's veterans. So when Members voted last Friday to cut $28 billion out of veterans programs, they are basically voting to cut the veterans benefits of those fighting and putting their lives on the line for us right now. That is outrageous. Do not just take my word for it. Let us see what a distinguished American, Edward Heath, Sr., the National Commander of Disabled American Veterans, had to say about the Republican budget resolution. In a letter that he sent 9 days ago to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), this is what Commander Heath said: ``Has Congress no shame? Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government? Did you choose to dishonor the sacrifices of our Nation's heroes and rob our programs, health care and disability compensation to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy?'' Well said, Commander Heath. Now, Madam Speaker, I think it is important to point out that if our country was at a time of war and we were asking all Americans to tighten their belts and sacrifice, I would imagine the first group at the front of the line to say we will play our part would be American veterans; but not one dollar in the Republican budget resolution was allocated for the Iraqi war, so these cuts were not necessitated to pay for war, they were necessitated to pay for a $374 dividend tax cut that will go to the wealthiest Americans who are sitting safely in their homes and offices as American soldiers from my district at Fort Hood will be fighting in Iraq. Outrageous. A dividend tax cut, a dividend tax cut paid for by reduced benefits and health care for our soldiers in Iraq today, and today's and tomorrow's veterans. I find that to be a bad idea at any time, cutting benefits to pay for tax cuts that benefit primarily the wealthiest Americans; but to do so within 24 or 36 hours of the beginning of our war against Iraq I find to be insulting. No wonder the National Commander of the Disabled American Veterans asked the question: Is there no honor left in the hallowed halls of our government? As the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) pointed out, it was good to know and I am proud as a Democrat to say that almost all House Republicans voted for these cuts, I am proud that all but one House Democrat voted against that resolution with veterans cuts. There were a handful of Republicans who went to the Republican House leadership and said these veterans cuts really are not fair, especially at time of war. I think America's veterans would be interested to hear what the response was from the House Republican leadership when, for example, our colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), went to them and said we should not be cutting veterans benefits, it is a horrible idea. Did the House leadership commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for standing up for veterans, the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs? Did they salute him, honor him? I am afraid not, sadly not. Today's Roll Call newspaper on Capitol Hill has a headline stating: ``Smith Spars With Leaders, Veterans Chairman Upsets Fellow Republicans on Funding Issues.'' Madam Speaker, let me read some of this: ``After months of railing against his own leadership, House Veterans Affairs Chairman Chris Smith has earned public rebukes from the Chamber's top Republicans and private warnings that he needs to do a better job toeing the GOP line.'' So not only did they not commend him for fighting on behalf of veterans, they threatened him. They said he is guilty of not toeing the GOP line. I am glad to be another colleague of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) not toeing the GOP line. Perhaps later on they found some way in their hearts to commend him for fighting for veterans. They said: ``Smith has pushed hard for more funding for veterans this year. In the process, he has criticized both the House Republican budget resolution and the White House spending proposals. Earlier this month, Smith's complaints about veterans funding at a Republican conference meeting so angered Speaker Dennis Hastert that he rose to deliver the New Jersey lawmaker a highly unusual tongue lashing. `Hastert got up and just shut him down,' said a Republican source that witnessed the exchange. `It was off the charts. I've never seen anything like it. It was scathing.' '' Madam Speaker, a scathing attack from the House Republican leadership on a Republican House Member for the crime of standing up and saying we should not be cutting veterans benefits by $28 billion in time of war. I think the veterans of America are smart enough to know the difference between those who speak out on behalf of veterans on patriotic occasions like Memorial Day and Veterans Day, and then vote for a resolution at 3 a.m. on Friday morning saying we support our troops, and 5 minutes later that very morning would vote to cut veterans benefits by $28 billion. Who do they think they are fooling? Madam Speaker, they are not fooling the veterans who put on our Nation's uniform, fought for our country, many have died for our country, and those who have survived understand the sacrifices that our country has asked them to make. This article gets better, Madam Speaker. It goes on and says that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) does not understand what being a team player is about: ``As one Republican staffer put it, `The leadership wants Smith to remember that a chairmanship is a privilege, not a right.' '' Let me rephrase that. The American people need to understand that the leadership of this House and top staffers for them have threatened, in effect, the Committee on Veterans Affairs chairmanship by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for having said that he thought it was a bad idea to cut veterans benefits by $28 billion. Just as DAV National Commander Heath was outraged and insulted by the cuts for veterans, I think America's veterans are going to be even more outraged at the added insult to injury that the House leadership not only wanted the cuts, they rebuked and even now in effect have threatened the chairmanship of a Member of the House who said that was wrong. We will be judged when it comes to supporting our veterans not by our words, but by our deeds. That is the way it should be. I hope America's veterans will look at the facts and the present Republican leadership and its effort to undermine important commitments for health care and benefits to America's men and women who have served our Nation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize Mr. Ronald J. Ruffennach for his many years of hard work, initiative and dedication to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and our Nation. Ron has served the Corps for 30 years. His career encompasses working in the Pittsburgh District, Europe, and the Savannah District before transferring to the Southwestern Division's Fort Worth District Office in 1984. During his career, he has been called upon to accomplish many significant projects for the Corps of Engineers. Ron is recognized as a leader and expert in the Corps' Public Affairs community. He has often been sought out to provide valuable public relations expertise during disaster recover efforts. His expertise was invaluable in 1989 following Hurricane Hugo in South Carolina and the earthquake in northern California; in 1991, when he was assigned to the Defense Reconstruction Assistance Office during the Kuwait Recovery; and in 1993 when he was called to the Corps' Civil Works Forward Office following the Midwest flood event. While in the Fort Worth District, Ron's unique and selfless dedication, as the Chief of Public Affairs and Legislative Affairs, is instrumental in building partnerships and achieving consensus on many important projects in the State of Texas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and beyond. My staff and I have personally called upon Ron to assist us in obtaining valuable assistance on projects in my district and throughout the State of Texas. In the community, Ron has been a trusted and well-known leader and public servant. He is a 1993 graduate of Leadership Fort Worth, and an active member of the St. Vincent De Paul Catholic Church, where he is a Eucharistic Minister and an active member of the Men's Club. He served as a past president of the Boy's Select Soccer Club, past president of the Martin High School Soccer Booster Club and was active in local school board issues. He also was a regular volunteer at the Arlington night shelter. Over the past few years, Ron has experienced serious health issues. However, not once during that period did Ron's commitment to the nation, the Corps of Engineers, and his family waiver. I know that you, Mr. Chairman, and the other members of the subcommittee would like to join me in thanking Mr. Ronald J. Ruffennach for his long, dedicated, and faithful service to the nation, the Army, and to this committee. Thanks Ron.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, we have brave men and women in harms way in Iraq. They are risking their lives for the cause of freedom and security for our Nation. We have lost soldiers in this war, and now we know that Iraq has taken prisoners. Two of those brave soldiers that have been taken prisoner are from Fort Hood, in my district--Apache pilots from the 1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment. These men and their families are in my prayers. I know they have a very difficult road in front of them. We stand here on the floor of this House to speak for these two pilots, and for all the men and women who may be prisoners of war during this conflict. Iraq, as a signatory of the Geneva Convention, has an obligation to treat American prisoners humanely. We have already received indications that Iraq is not adhering strictly to the Convention. This is outrageous and must change immediately. If I could speak to the prisoners and their families for a moment . . . the whole country is behind you right now. We're thinking of you and praying you will be reunited soon. Your sacrifices for your country will not be forgotten.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago I helped welcome home 235,000 Army soldiers from my district who had fought in Desert Storm. I saw firsthand how much it meant to them, to those brave Americans, that our Nation respected their service to country; and that is why I join my colleagues tonight in strong support of this resolution. But, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that a majority of my colleagues in less than 1 hour after this vote will support a budget resolution that the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars have called ``callous and unconscionable'' in its treatment of veterans. Today's troops are tomorrow's veterans. They will watch our deeds even more than our words. So in the spirit of supporting our troops, I propose that we reduce this morning the proposed dividend tax cut by less than 10 percent so we do not have to cut veterans services by $8 billion. Let us honor today's troops and tomorrow's veterans with our words and our deeds.