Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a great Texan, Dr. Noel Smith of Waco, who had the vision for an independent public television station in Central Texas. Earning a Ph.D. in Distance Learning from Texas A&M University, Dr. Smith rose to become the Chair of the Telecommunications Department at Central Texas College in Waco, where he effectively used his talents as teacher, mentor, and counselor to improve the lives of many Texans. It was at Central Texas College that Dr. Smith became actively involved in his lifelong commitment to KCTF Television. In its early days as a stand-alone station, KCTF experienced more problems than shining moments. But in 1994, when its owners withdrew support for the station, Dr. Smith rallied a committed group of Waco citizens who convinced the Chancellor and Trustees of Central Texas College to sell them the license. Once Dr. Smith's group bought the license, the hard work began. It was as though everyone at the station was performing on a high wire without a net. Yet somehow, Dr. Smith stayed faithful to the vision of creating a community public television station and, thankfully, his vision became a reality. Brazos Valley Public Broadcasting, as it was now called, was born. KCTF would eventually become KWBU, and KWBU would expand to include public radio. Dr. Smith articulated his vision in the KWBU Mission Statement: ``KWBU shall serve as an essential lifelong resource providing quality public television and radio programs and services for the enrichment of the lives of the residents of McLennan County.'' Mr. Speaker, Not many ideas make it from vision to reality. But this one has because Noel Smith has worked tirelessly to ensure that public television in Central Texas achieves that mission. In his professional life, Dr. Noel Smith has held many national positions of leadership that have contributed to the growth of public broadcasting. He served with distinction on the board of directors of the Southern Educational Communications Association, now the National Educational Telecommunications Association, and he was a member of the PBS Board of Directors. He has used his leadership to effectively represent the interests of small market licensees. During the course of his career, Dr. Smith has accomplished a tremendous amount of good. In addition to leading the growth of KWBU, Dr. Noel Smith is an ordained Baptist minister, and certainly appreciates the many blessings in his life, including a long marriage to his wife Judy, his three wonderful daughters and numerous grandchildren. This story does not end on the expected happy note. At this writing, Noel is very ill. But something of Noel Smith will always be a part of KWBU and public broadcasting in Central Texas. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring and celebrating the life and accomplishments of an unsung hero, Dr. Noel Smith of Waco, Texas. The people of my District are better off today because of his commitment to turn his vision for public television into reality.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, the American people need to know that there is legislation pending in this House that would turn our churches into political campaign organizations. This bill would actually allow churches to endorse political candidates and even contribute church funds to political campaigns. H.R. 2357 is an extraordinarily bad bill. It is a dangerous bill. This bill would demean the spiritual mission of our houses of worship by turning them into a vehicle for campaign contributions and partisanship. If someone wanted to maliciously tear our churches apart, I can think of few ways to do it better than to pit church members against church members each year as they debate which Federal, State, county and local candidates to endorse and how much to contribute to them. This bill is opposed by numerous religious organizations, including the Baptist Joint Committee, the American Jewish Committee, the General Board of Church and Society, the United Methodist Church, the Congress of National Black Churches, the Interfaith Alliance Foundation and the Baptist General Convention of Texas, just to name a few. If anyone thinks politicizing churches is a good idea, then they need to review the lessons of world history.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose late-term abortions, but I believe, like many Americans, that when the health of the mother is at risk, that is a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor and not by politicians in Washington, D.C. I am sad to say that this rule is shameful and this bill is a false promise. I do find it interesting that those supporting this rule and this bill keep quoting the American Medical Association. I do not know if they just did not want to hear it or if they refuse to accept it. The organization they are quoting opposes this legislation. Why do I say this rule is shameful? First, it ensures that when this bill passes today, were it then to become law, it would never have the impact of law or save one baby because the Supreme Court has made it absolutely clear, not just once but five times that the law must have a health exemption when the mother's health is at risk. So maybe Ralph Reed was right when he said this issue is a political silver bullet. Unfortunately, from a policy standpoint, this bill will not save one baby. The proponents of this bill and this rule are forcing a false promise upon the American people, a promise that will not help one child. This rule is shameful because it denies Members of this House a vote of conscience. I respect your conscience. I respect your right to express your conscience. You have no right on an issue of this magnitude, of such deep conscience for so many Members, no one in this House has that right to deny us the right to a vote, to a vote for an amendment that the Supreme Court would then interpret as making this bill constitutional. I tried to offer an amendment to the Committee on Rules. It was similar to a bill I helped pass in 1987 in Texas that outlaws not one late-term abortion procedure, but outlaws all late-term abortion procedures except for a constitutionally required exception where a mother's health is at risk. For 15 years, the constitutionality of that Texas law has not been challenged. I would note that during the time that President Bush was then Governor of Texas, there was no effective effort or to my knowledge even serious legislative effort made to change that law. It was constitutional and it has worked. Supreme Court Justice O'Connor has made it very clear, that if you do not have a health exemption in this bill, it will not ever have the impact of becoming law. Let me quote her from the court Stenberg v. Carhart case of June 28 of 2000: ``First, the Nebraska statute is inconsistent because it lacks an exception for those instances when the banned procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother.'' In case that is not clear enough for the supporters of this rule and this unconstitutional bill, she then goes on to outline all that a legislative body has to do to make such a bill constitutional. Just add the words ``where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' That would be the only circumstance for an exception. The people who should be upset at this bill should be pro-life Americans all across this country who have been mislead by this unconstitutional bill into thinking it is going to save one child. Had this rule allowed us to vote on a constitutionally acceptable amendment for a health exception, we actually could do some good. What a shame. Speaking on Passage of H.R. 4965

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, Coreen Costello was a pro-life Republican and mother of three when her pregnancy turned tragically fatal for her child. Her doctors preserved Mrs. Costello's fertility with a procedure being outlawed in this bill. She then became pregnant again and gave birth to her fourth child. Listen to this loving mother's words. ``Because of this procedure, I now have something my heart ached for, a new baby, a boy named Tucker. He is our family's joy, and I thank God for him.'' Mr. Speaker, no Member of this House has the right to substitute his or her judgment for that of a physician and a mother faced with a rare but tragic situation where a pregnancy is failing, a child has no chance of living outside of the mother's womb, and the goal is to save a mother's fertility or health. No Member has that right, not one. If there is one late-term abortion in America for frivolous reasons, that is one too many, regardless of the procedure used. I am strongly opposed to late-term abortions. But I believe when the health of the mother is at risk, that is a choice that should be made by a woman and her doctor, and not by politicians in Washington, D.C. That is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the Stenberg v. Carhart opinion dated June 28, 2000. In that indication, the Supreme Court and its majority of justices made it very clear that the Nebraska partial-birth abortion law was unconstitutional, in these words. ``. . . Because it lacks an exception for those instances when the banned procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother.'' That is as clear as the English language can be. Justice O'Connor, the swing vote on this issue, has made it clear. The truth is that with no health exception for a woman, there will be no law; no law, not one baby saved. Mr. Speaker, this bill has two flaws in it that make it little more than politics at its worst, as Ralph Reed said, a political silver bullet. First, it is unconstitutional, therefore meaningless. It is a false promise. Second, if the authors of this bill truly believe that American women are monsters who would take a perfectly healthy baby seconds before a perfectly healthy child birth and puncture its brain and kill that innocent child, then why is it that they just want to outlaw one procedure? If you assume the woman is that kind of a monster, then under this bill even if it were law and were constitutional, which it is not, then the woman could choose to use other late-term abortion procedures. Once again, a meaningless law, a meaningless bill that will not save one baby's life. I think the people who should really be offended by this bill are those genuine pro-life Americans who want to stop late-term abortions. I want to stop late-term abortions, and I hope others who do would ask the proponents of this bill two questions. Is politics so important that you would rather pass a clearly unconstitutional bill than a bill that could actually become law, a bill like I helped pass in Texas 15 years ago that is still the law of that State today? Second question: Why are you outlawing one procedure and leaving every other late-term abortion procedure perfectly legal? This bill is politics at its worst. It is a false promise.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, Coreen Costello was a pro-life Republican and mother of three when her pregnancy turned tragically fatal for her child. Her doctors preserved Mrs. Costello's fertility with a procedure being outlawed in this bill. She then became pregnant again and gave birth to her fourth child. Listen to this loving mother's words. ``Because of this procedure, I now have something my heart ached for, a new baby, a boy named Tucker. He is our family's joy, and I thank God for him.'' Mr. Speaker, no Member of this House has the right to substitute his or her judgment for that of a physician and a mother faced with a rare but tragic situation where a pregnancy is failing, a child has no chance of living outside of the mother's womb, and the goal is to save a mother's fertility or health. No Member has that right, not one. If there is one late-term abortion in America for frivolous reasons, that is one too many, regardless of the procedure used. I am strongly opposed to late-term abortions. But I believe when the health of the mother is at risk, that is a choice, a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctors, and not by politicians in Washington, D.C. That is not just my opinion, that is the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in its opinion dated June 28, 2000. In that indication, the Supreme Court and its majority of justices made it very clear that the Nebraska partial-birth abortion law was unconstitutional, in these words. ``. . . Because it lacks an exception for those instances when the banned procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother.'' That is as clear as the English language can be. Justice O'Connor, the swing vote on this issue, has made it clear. No health exception for a woman, no law; no law, not one baby saved. Mr. Speaker, this bill has two flaws in it that make it little more than politics at its worst, as Ralph Reed said, a political silver bullet. First, it is unconstitutional, therefore meaningless. It is a false promise. Second, if the authors of this bill truly believe that American women are monsters who would take a perfectly healthy baby seconds before a perfectly healthy child birth and puncture its brain and kill that innocent child, then why is it that they just want to outlaw one procedure? If you assume the woman is that kind of a monster, then under your bill even if it were law and were constitutional, which it is not, then the woman can choose to use other late-term abortion procedures. Once again, a meaningless law, a meaningless bill that will not save one baby's life. I think the people who should really be offended by this bill are those genuine pro-life Americans who want to stop late-term abortions. I want to stop late-term abortions, and I hope others who do would ask the proponents of this bill two questions. Is politics so important, you would rather pass a clearly unconstitutional bill than a bill that could actually become law, a bill like I helped pass in Texas 15 years ago that is still the law of that State today? Second question: Why are you outlawing one procedure and leaving every other late-term abortion procedure perfectly legal? This bill is politics at its worst. It is a false promise.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose late-term abortions, but I believe, like many Americans, that when the health of the mother is at risk, that is a decision that should be made by a woman and her doctor and not by a bunch of politicians in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that this rule is shameful and this bill is a false promise. I do find it interesting that those supporting this rule and this bill keep quoting the American Medical Association. I do not know if they just did not want to hear it or if they refuse to accept it. The organization they are quoting opposes this legislation. Why do I say this rule is shameful? First, it ensures that when this bill passes today, were it then to become law, no bill will ever have the impact of law or save one baby because the Supreme Court has made it absolutely clear, not just once but on five different occasions in their 2000 decision, that you must have a health exemption when the mother's health is at risk. So maybe Ralph Reed was right when he said this is the political silver bullet, the partial-birth abortion bill, but what a tragedy. The proponents of this bill and this rule are forcing a false promise upon the American people, a promise that will not help one child. This rule is shameful because it denies Members of this House a vote of conscience. I respect your conscience. I respect your right to express your conscience. You have no right on an issue of this magnitude, of such deep conscience for so many Members, no one in this House has that right to deny us the right to a vote, to a vote for an amendment that the Supreme Court would then interpret is making this bill constitutional. I tried to offer an amendment to the Committee on Rules, it was not really radical, it was a bill I helped pass in 1987 in Texas to outlaw not one late-term abortion procedure which is not going to save a single baby, it would outlaw all late-term abortion procedures but with a health exception. For 15 years, the constitutionality of that Texas law has not been challenged. I would note that during the time that President Bush was then Governor of Texas, there was no effective effort or to my knowledge even serious effort made to change that bill. It was constitutional and it worked. Supreme Court Justice O'Connor has made it very clear, in case anybody does not understand English, that if you do not have a health exemption in this bill, it will not ever have the impact of being law. Let me quote her from the court case of June 28 of 2000: ``First, the Nebraska statute is inconsistent because it lacks an exception for those instances when the banned procedure is necessary to preserve the health of the mother.'' In case that is not clear enough for the supporters of this rule and this unconstitutional bill, she then goes on to outline all that a legislative body has to do to make such a bill constitutional. Just add the words ``where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.'' That would be the circumstance for an exception. The people who should be upset at this bill should be pro-life Americans all across this country who have been deluded by this unconstitutional bill into thinking it is going to save one child. Had this rule allowed us to vote on a constitutionally acceptable amendment for a health exception, we actually could do some good. What a shame.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the 11th Congressional District and Central Texas lost an outstanding young citizen and one of the leaders of the next generation with the untimely death in June of Alexander (Alex) Moulton of Clifton. Alex and his twin sister Alyson were born in Austin on December 14, 1982, the children of Robert and Carol Moulton. In his all-too-brief life, Alex, lived in Texas, Virginia, New Hampshire and New Mexico before the family settled in Clifton, a city of approximately 3,500 resident just north of Waco. On a hot Texas summer afternoon in June, Alex and a group of friends were swimming at nearby Lake Whitney when one of Alex's friends started struggling in the water. Two of the group ran for help and Alex went into the water to help his friend. Alex was able to keep the struggling swimmer afloat until help arrived, but by then, he was exhausted himself. Alex went under and stayed under. When his friends were able to pull him to shore, they could not resuscitate him. Alex Moulton, at 19\1/2\ years of age, had given his life so that another could live. Losing a friend and a loved one is always a heavy burden, a loss made even harder to bear and more difficult to accept when it is someone with the promise of such a bright future. For Alex Moulton, who grabbed each minute of life with joy, and held on until he had wrung it dry of all the possibilities, every day sparkled and every tomorrow looked even more dazzling. This was the life that he sacrificed to help someone in trouble. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of the House of Representatives to join me in honoring and celebrating the life of Alex Moulton.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I am going to be brief, but I would like to make several comments. First, I want to, as a member of the committee, commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), the chairman, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the ranking Democratic member, for working together on a bipartisan basis once again to do the work of our country and to provide the best services, giving a certain amount of dollars for our servicemen and women. They have done an outstanding job of leading this committee, and I thank them for that. I especially want to applaud them for their continued efforts to fight for better housing for overseas servicemen and women, people who do not have a constituency back here with a Member of Congress fighting for better housing for them, people who have been forgotten in decades past but now have two leaders in this House fighting for them. I want to commend their leadership on the new innovative RCI program, the Residential Community Initiative program, that is going to combine private expertise and resources with public resources to get a better bang for the buck out of the taxpayers' money we spend and improve housing for our military men and women. The one concern I do want to say, Mr. Chairman, is at the end of the day, this appropriation bill is a half a billion dollars below what we spent last year. That was not the responsibility of the subcommittee chairman or the ranking member. That decision was made above our pay grade; but as we go into next year, I hope we can send a message to the leadership of this House and to the administration that America's battles and wars cannot just be won with technology. They have to be won with the best and brightest of our young men and women willing to put on their uniform, risk their lives and serve our country; and I think it does send as a bad message to many of them that we are spending half a billion dollars less this year on military construction programs. I would remind all of us, Mr. Chairman, that it is estimated that 60 percent of the servicemen and women living in government-provided housing are living in housing that does not even meet minimum DOD standards. We can do better; but today, given the money that this subcommittee was afforded, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) did an outstanding job, and I thank them and commend them for their great efforts.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the overall bill, which does a lot of good things for our service men and women and for our nation's defense. I appreciate the good work of the Subcommittee Chairman, Mr. Lewis and the Ranking Member, Mr. Murtha in drafting this bill. However, I have serious concerns over the Pentagon's cancellation of the Crusader artillery system--a decision that this bill ratifies. We are blessed as a nation with soldiers who are willing to serve and sacrifice to defend our freedom. Our Army is the envy of the world. Our artillery, however, is not. The Paladin artillery system, fielded today, is outgunned by at least 12 different countries, including all three countries in the Axis of Evil. Remember, any war with Iran, Iraq or North Korea is going to be completely unlike Afghanistan. In each of these hypothetical conflicts, we will need heavy ground forces, just like the Gulf War, but we will face artillery systems superior to our own. One of the Army's top priorities over the last decade has been to give our soldiers artillery support that is second to none, the Crusader, a program that has been on time and under budget. On February 27, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said: I'm not one of those people who think that I can bet the farm on not needing artillery 10 years from now. And I think this [the Crusader] is the best artillery system available. On February 28, the Army Chief of Staff, General Eric Shinseki, said: Crusader's ability to keep up with ground maneuver forces, its longer range, its high rate of fire, its precision, would be a significant increase to the potential shortage of fire we have today. Suddenly, in direct conflict with the President's Budget, the Pentagon reversed its unwavering support for Crusader and announced its cancellation. The Administration has said they'll have alternatives in production by 2008. If that does not happen, the delay will put thousands of soldiers at undue risk. Given the administration's commitment to cancel Crusader, I think the subcommittee leadership did its best to preserve funding for alternatives. In conclusion, I believe the Pentagon think tank gurus have prematurely canceled Crusader. Canceling Crusader with nothing ready to take its place is putting the cart before the horse. However, I will work with them to get an effective alternative on line. I hope those who killed the Crusader now feel an enormous responsibility to field a new artillery system by 2008. Delay in doing so could, God forbid, be measured in soldiers' lives lost in combat after 2008. Mr. Chairman, I would finally like to include in the Record a statement by Congressman Norm Dicks and myself. Additional Views of Hon. Norman D. Dicks and Hon. Chet Edwards the gamble on crusader The Administration's recent decision to terminate the Crusador artillery system is a decision fraught with risk. Risk that we hope will not end up costing soldier's lives. The Crusader self-propelled howitzer has been under development for the last eight years. This program is running under budget and on schedule with fielding of the first new howitzer set for 2008. The Crusader has been considered by the Army to be its highest priority acquisition program, because it would rectify the one glaring operational weakness that endangers the Army's battlefield success--heavy artillery support. Currently, our Army is outgunned in heavy artillery by at least 12 different countries (including all 3 countries in the so-called ``Axis of Evil'')--a situation the Crusader would rectify. It is estimated that as many as 40 countries could soon have artillery systems that out-range the Army's current howitzer--the Paladin--and that 28 countries are developing artillery-delivered high precision munitions to complement these systems. Clearly, most other countries around the world plan on making high performance heavy artillery a mainstay of their military force for some time to come. Last month, the Administration took the highly unusual step of deciding to cancel the Crusador program in the middle of the budget cycle. This action was taken without consultation with the Army's military leadership, and over their strong substantive objection. This decision will fundamentally alter the role that U.S. heavy artillery will play in future battles, yet we have seen very little evidence of any serious analytical effort to support this radical departure from the Army's accepted doctrine. The Administration has essentially made a giant strategic bet on behalf of our land forces that the combination of future advances in precision cannon and rocket munitions (as distinguished from precision bombs and missiles) combined with hoped for perfection of real time target identification and selection technology (based on ubiquitous ``24/7'' all weather surveillance capabilities) will supplant the need to replace the Army's outdated Paladin howitzer with a system that shoots farther and faster. This decision depends upon unproven technology and unproven tactics--betting that more traditional lethality and combat over-match capabilities can be replaced by precision and speed. It is a decision that--as the Army's vaunted ``Crusader talking points'' said--``could put soldier's lives at risk'' if the Department's hypothetical assumptions about how and where future wars will be fought turn out to be wrong. What is somewhat puzzling to us in that the Army's artillery upgrade plan that the Secretary of Defense has now rejected calls for improvements in both areas--lethality and precision. The Army's Crusader plan that was devised in the last Administration and endorsed in the first two Bush Administration budgets called for fielding the new world- class Crusader howitzer by 2008 giving the U.S. Army an artillery system that is operationally and technologically superior to any artillery system in the world. The second part of the Army's plan was to perfect and field the GPS- guided Excalibur projectile to shoot from the Crusader within 3 to 5 years after the Crusader was in the force. The combination of Crusader and Excalibur would give the Army a truly devastating capability to support its soldiers-- combining unprecedented accuracy with vastly superior rate of fire and range. The Army had a prudent and affordable plan that recognized the possibility that developing precision-guided cannon projectiles and rocket systems is a difficult task that may end up falling short of expectations. Contrary to popular wisdom, precision-guided cannon and rocket systems are not perfected yet. Shooting sensitive high-tech precision guidance systems out of cannons exerts several hundred times the G-forces exerted on air-delivered precision-guided bombs and missiles such as JDAM or Tomahawk, and the cost that contractors propose charging to overcome these factors is very high at the current time. For instance, the Army's published plans call for paying $222,000 per round for the first 9,417 Excalibur projectiles when and if they are perfected. This is 7 times greater than the Secretary of Defense' target price of $33,000 per round, and many experts question whether this target price will ever be achieved. It seems the Army had a very prudent plan--both from a warfighting perspective and from a development and cost risk perspective--that the Secretary of Defense summarily and unilaterally rejected. So what is the Army left with under the Administration's new plan? In essence, the Army will be left with the outdated Paladin howitzer that sits on a 40-year-old chassis design that has already been upgraded six different times. The Paladin of the future will continue to shoot standard 155mm ammunition at low rates of fire and at substandard ranges as well as the new Excalibur precision projectile if it can be perfected, if the Paladin chassis can be shown to withstand the additional forces generated by firing this new round. Whether Excalibur works or not, the Administration now plans on keeping the Paladin in the force until 2032 when the Future Combat System will finally phase it out. The Administration explains that the risk of keeping the Paladin is acceptable because the greater precision and range of Excalibur rounds and the projected availability of fire support systems such as Guided MLRS and air-delivered precision munitions can cover the existing indirect fire support shortfall. Aside from the issues of bad weather, responsiveness, and ability to support the close fight, this new plan discounts many of the traditional roles of artillery that depend upon volume of fire over accuracy--such as fire to suppress enemy attacks, and cover fire to protect friendly troop movements or to protect sectors of a battlefield. Rate of fire is completely discounted as a priority under the new plan. It does not overstate the case to say that Army military leaders do not support this plan--they see too much risk. While the Administration points to skirmishes in Afghanistan to support its bet on precision, many of our military leaders worry about the potential major battles that could erupt in Korea or other theaters where mechanized forces will determine the outcome. A high level Defense Department official echoed these exact concerns just 3 months ago when discussing the Crusader: ``Unless we want to have no new artillery facing North Korea's artillery, we need something. We have to remember, it's not just a matter of fighting on horseback with satellites and B-52s as we did in Afghanistan. We still face Kim Jung-II in North Korea. We still face Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We face others who use conventional weapons and the question then becomes do you want to modernize those or do you not.--Dov Zakheim, Comptroller, Department of Defense. Comments on The News House With Jim Lehrer March 18, 2002.'' The Crusader decision also signals a troubling change of direction about how we will equip and fight our future force. Over the last several decades there has been a consensus that we should take maximum advantage of America's Scientific and technological strength to field military systems and devise military strategy and tactics to achieve decisive ``combat overmatch'' capabilities against any potential opponent. General Michael E. Ryan, former Air Force Chief of Staff, succinctly summed up the combat overmatch philosophy as follows: ``I'm not interested in fair fights. What I'm interested in is a 100 to nothing score, not 51-49.'' This philosophy has proven its worth--not only does it save American lives on the battlefield, but it is an effective way to win the peace. Our vastly superior military capabilities cause potential adversaries to think twice before confronting us or our allies militarily, which contributes significantly to world peace and stability. This was not always the case, and we must continue to work at keeping this edge. Of all the military services, it is perhaps most important for the Army to continue with the philosophy of ``combat overmatch'' through superior technology. Unlike the Air Force and the Navy, we have a small Army compared to other countries. Currently, eight other armies in the world outnumber our Army. We make up for this with superior people, superior leadership, and superior technology, but numbers still matter if we let our technological edge slip. It is disturbing that the Defense Department seems willing to rest on the laurels of past administrations and go back to a philosophy of ``just enough,'' The Crusader would provide US military personnel with the best technology in the world that meets a know deficiency of a military service that American industry has shown it can deliver on time and on budget. The Crusader system is a state-of-the-art heavy artillery system that has already produced 7 new patents from its new technology. Over 6,000 test rounds have already been fired and the system is meeting or exceeding range, rate-of-fire, and reliability requirements by all accounts. It is simply hard to understand why a system that meets the biggest Army warfighting deficiency is being scrapped. If the President persists in demanding the termination of the Crusader, the weaknesses of the outdated Paladin (with or without the Excalibur projectile) make it imperative that we expedite the development and fielding of the Objective Force next generation artillery system. American soldiers do not deserve to continue to endure the risks of substandard artillery support. This deficiency must be eliminated as quickly as possible. We therefore support the Committee position of adding $173 million to the $195 million budget request for development of the Objective Force artillery system in order to field a new system by 2008. This would accelerate the Army's old schedule by four to six years. This acceleration is possible only if the Army uses the existing Crusader engineering team and leverages the technology advances garnered with the Army's $2 billion investment that has already been spent on Crusader development. Following are some of the detailed answers received from DOD to our specific questions on the Crusader that have been raised in the course of this debate. 1. How does the Crusader compare to other top foreign systems? Why don't we simply buy one of those systems? A comparison of the most advanced artillery systems in the global marketplace available to our allies shows why the Army believes the Crusader is a superior artillery system. The Crusader delivers more firepower, is more mobile, protects its crew better, weighs less, uses fewer crewmembers, and is the only system that can be fully networked on the battlefield.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 260, the Social Security Program Protection Act, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress, I believe that we have a responsibility to continue to review and revise legislation that adapts and improves upon program successes and the ever-changing needs of American citizens. That is why I support H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002. This legislation reauthorizes the 1996 welfare reform program, a program that works to move welfare recipients from the dependency of these programs to self-sufficiency. However, while I support this welfare reauthorization, I do not support a provision included in the original 1996 legislation and again included in this reauthorization. This provision is known as Charitable Choice, and in my opinion, the wrong solution to a real problem. Under current law, faith-based groups may already accept federal dollars under three conditions: they cannot be pervasively sectarian, they cannot proselytize, and they cannot discriminate on the basis of religion in their employment practices. Charitable Choice changes those conditions. Charitable Choice makes it possible for the government to subsidize churches and other thoroughly religious entities that provide social services. This proposal will provide tax dollars to religious groups and open the door to government review of church activities. For many years the law has permitted groups that are affiliated with religious bodies (e.g. Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services, Jewish Federations) to receive tax funds to provide secular social services. But Charitable Choice represents a radical and misguided revision of the law. Indeed, many ministers believe that Charitable Choice will do great harm to religion. Because regulation always follows tax funds, Charitable Choice opens the door to invasive government monitoring, regulation and accounting of churches, clergy, and other leaders of the church. For these reasons, people like Freddy Garcia, who runs the highly successful Victory Fellowship ministry for drug addicts in San Antonio, has said, ``I don't want any grants. I'm a church . . . All I want is for the government to leave me alone.'' Also, because there is limited money in the public purse and thousands of religious groups in our country, Charitable Choice will force the government to pick and choose which religions it funds. Churches may have to compete for government grants before elected legislators. ``The best way I know of to destroy religion is to have all the churches fighting over a big pot of money, `` says Rev. J. Brent Walker, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. Charitable Choice will generate serious problems that have not been seen on a large scale in this country in over 200 years--outright religious infighting, intolerance and discrimination. If we allow government to fund and become involved in religion, it will harm religion, not help it. It is people of faith who must point out that church-state separation does not mean keeping people of faith from being involved in government but rather it means keeping government from being involved in religion. I will continue to work with my colleagues to provide a welfare program that helps the needs of all American citizens, without compromising religious freedom and liberty. I would hope that we, as Members of Congress, remember our obligations to uphold the principles of the Constitution and create legislation, which represents the core and steadfast beliefs of the United States.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me first make a comment and say that cloaking partisan amendments in the name of the war on terrorism is not patriotism, in my personal opinion. Mr. Chairman, for citizens watching this debate late last night and today, I can understand why there could be some confusion about what this debate is all about, because much of what has been said has nothing to do with the issue at hand. So let me just go back to the basics. Fact number one. The bill we are considering is entitled, and I quote, the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States. That is the bill before us. Fact number two. This bill came out of the Committee on Appropriations on which I serve and vote on a bipartisan basis. Why? Because we all want to support homeland defense and the war against terrorism. Fact number three. On Tuesday night, the Committee on Rules under the direction of the Republican leadership of this House took a bipartisan bill to fund our war on terrorism and made it a Christmas tree full of partisan ornaments, amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with the title or the subject of this bill. That is fact number three. Fact number four. What Democrats are objecting to on the floor today is adding extraneous, unrelated, partisan, controversial amendments to a bill that needs to be passed quickly so that we can efficiently and quickly fund our war on terrorism and needed important homeland defense measures. Now, what we really are getting down to is one question, and that question is very simple and very direct. I have not heard an answer to this question so far. The question is, will the Republican leadership of this House allow us to strip out of this important bill to fund the war against terrorism those amendments that were partisan and had nothing to do with the title or subject of this bill? It is a simple question, and we Democrats, still, after 2 days of debate, await the answer to that question. What I am sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, is what this is really all about is politics as usual. I understand politics. We all do. But I believe that politics as usual is not good enough when we are talking about funding a war on terrorism at a time when our Nation's security is at risk. Now, what is politics as usual? Politics as usual is taking an important bill, a highway bill, an important natural disaster funding bill, knowing that the majority of Americans will want it passed, and then adding extraneous amendments that have nothing to do with that bill because perhaps those amendments may be partisan and could not pass on their own merit. That is exactly what happened on this bill. I will yield the balance of my time if 1 Member of this House on the Republican side could tell me what the following amendments, added late at night on a partisan basis by the Committee on Rules, have to do with fighting our war on terrorism. Amendment No. 1 that I referred to, section 1404, treatment of certain counties for purposes of reimbursement under the Medicare program. I am not quite sure what that has to do with the war on terrorism. Let me continue quoting. ``Effective for discharges occurring during fiscal year 2003, for purposes of making payments under subsections (d) and (j) of section 1886 of the Social Security Act to hospitals (A) in Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wyoming, Lycoming, and Columbia Counties, Pennsylvania, such counties are deemed to be located in the Newburgh, New York-Pennsylvania Metropolitan Statistical Area.'' Is there a single Member of this House on this floor right now who would like to take the rest of my time and explain what that has to do with fighting the war on terrorism? I guess not. Maybe a Member could explain to me why the next part of the amendment has something to do with the title and subject of funding the war on terrorism. ``(B) in Mercer County, Pennsylvania, such county is deemed to be located in Youngston-Warren, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area.'' If there is any Member that can explain to me right now, what this has to do with fighting and funding the war on terrorism I will be happy to yield my time. Mr. Chairman, I guess apparently no one wants to answer that question. Well, let us go to amendment No. 3, 4, 5 and 6. Can any Member explain to me how they relate to funding our war against terrorism? This process is about politics as usual. That is not good enough in fighting a war against terrorism.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) be allowed to discuss how we pay for our war against terrorism. I would like to ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be allowed 2 extra minutes to have an honest, respectful discussion about paying for the cost of our war against terrorism which he discussed.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I represent over 40,000 Army soldiers at Fort Hood, the largest Army installation in our country. I care deeply, as do all members of this House, about supporting our troops, be they at home, serving our Nation, or be they abroad, or be they today in Afghanistan, and that is exactly why I am so offended by this rule and this process and what has happened to this bill. Mr. Chairman, for those who have been confused by this debate, let me simply list what has happened. Fact number one. Under the able leadership of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the Committee on Appropriations, on which I sit, passed out quickly a bipartisan bill to fund the war against terrorism and provide for essential emergency homeland defense funding. Then on Tuesday night of this week, the Committee on Rules, directed by the leadership of this House, took a bipartisan bill that was literally flying through this House for the right reasons and turned it into a partisan bill by adding late at night, behind closed doors, amendments that had absolutely nothing to do with fighting our war on terrorism. Let us look at what is actually in the bill, because I have heard a great deal of discussion about if you want to support our soldiers and troops in the field, vote for this bill. Earlier I offered to yield time. No one took me up on this. I would be glad to reiterate that offer. I will yield time right now if any Member of the Republican majority can explain to me how section 1404 of this bill actually helps fund our war against terrorism. In case my colleagues do not know what that section says, let me read it: Treatment of certain counties for purposes of reimbursement under the Medicare program. Reclassification of certain Pennsylvania counties, in Lackawanna, Luzerne, Wyoming, Lycoming and Columbia Counties, Pennsylvania, such counties are deemed to be located in the Newburgh, New York-Pennsylvania Metropolitan Statistical area. I am sure that is very interesting. It may be important to the people of that area. However, can any Member of this House right now use my time to explain what this has to do with funding our troops in Afghanistan? I did not think so. Well, let us go on in the next paragraph. In Mercer County, Pennsylvania, I am sure there are good people that live in Mercer County, Pennsylvania. This county is now deemed in this bill to be located in Youngston-Warren, Ohio Metropolitan Statistical Area. Can anybody in this House explain to me how rewriting geographical maps in Pennsylvania has anything whatsoever to do with funding our war on terrorism? Let us go on. Well, we also do a little geographic rewriting in Orange County, New York in the same section. We make Orange County and Dutchess County, New York, part of the large urban area of New York, New York, for Medicare purposes. I do not quite understand how this amendment, which was never debated by our Committee on Appropriations, has anything to do with funding our war against terrorism. I question whether the real goal of funding our war against terrorism perhaps has been undermined by a much less important goal of supporting the reelection of certain Members of this House. Regarding section 1405, I would be glad to yield time if one Member of this House can tell me how the amendments to the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, dealing with knit fabrics and woven fabrics, has anything to do with funding our war against terrorism. I notice, Mr. Chairman, once again nobody in this House has chosen to explain to me what that has to do with homeland defense or war against terrorism. I am not trying to discredit the importance of knit fabrics versus woven fabrics, but I am not really sure we ought to slow down the funding of homeland defense programs and funding our war against terrorism to get into a debate over the Caribbean initiative. Mr. Chairman, this is politics as usual. The unrelated provision added by the Rules Committee, including a massive $750 billion increase in the national debt ceiling, should be deleted from this bill so we can quickly fulfill our responsibility to provide emergency funding for our war against terrorism and for homeland defense.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Absolutely. And reclaiming my time, that is exactly why the bill passed so quickly through the House before these extraneous partisan amendments were added late at night in a secret meeting of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, when this bill was presented to the Committee on Appropriations, a committee on which I sit, the distinguished chairman of the committee sent a report to each member saying that one of the pluses of this legislation was that it was a clean bill designed to provide emergency funding to fund our war against terrorism and homeland defense. I applauded that approach. Unfortunately, because of the late-night, closed-door, secret plan effort of the Committee on Rules, this bill is no longer a clean bill. It has been sullied by partisan amendments that have absolutely nothing to do with funding our war on terrorism. I find it somewhat ironic that some of the same people who say we should support this process tonight out of patriotism for our war against terrorism just happen to be exactly the same people who orchestrated the process of the Committee on Rules so that these controversial extraneous amendments would be forced on this legislation, thus slowing down the funding for our war on terrorism. What is wrong with all of this? Let me count the ways. First, adding $750 billion in deficit spending could certainly undermine the future of Social Security and Medicare. When you add that extra debt onto our already enormous $6 trillion national debt and consider the enormous interest payment that taxpayers have to pay each year on that, we could in effect be putting at risk benefits for Medicare and Social Security recipients. Second, $750 billion in deficit spending will increase the cost for homeowners to buy a new home, for family businesses to build or expand their businesses, or for families to buy a car by increasing interest rates, a direct result of massive deficit spending. In fact, if we increase the mortgage rate, interest rate on a $100,000 home in America, that family will have in effect their taxes increased by $1,000 a year. That is what is wrong with this secret, late-night plan to raise our deficit spending by $750 billion. Let me count the additional ways that this is wrong. Third. This kind of deficit spending will lead to higher taxes for hard-working Americans. In fact, interest on the national debt today is one of the 5 largest expenditures of the Federal Government out of the thousands and thousands of programs we fund. In fact, last year on average every man, woman, child and infant in America was responsible for $1,200 in taxes just to pay the interest on our present national debt, not to speak about the extra $750 billion we are going to add to that debt. In fact, if one assumes a 5 percent interest rate on this $750 billion increase in deficit spending, that amounts to about $37.5 billion a year in increased taxes on the American people, simply to pay the interest on that debt. That is what is wrong with this bill and this process. Fourth, in increasing deficit spending by $750 billion through this measure, we are going to make it harder to fund priority national programs such as national defense, veterans' health care and education. Fifth, I think it is wrong to burden our children and grandchildren with a $6.7 trillion national debt. We in this generation of Congress have no right to drown our grandchildren in a sea of national debt. Sixth, by slowing down this bill with controversial, unrelated amendments, partisan amendments that have nothing to do with funding the war on terrorism or homeland defense, we basically end up harming national defense, because we will force military training at bases such as mine, Fort Hood in my district, to be delayed or canceled in order to fund our war on terrorism, because we will not pass this bill as quickly as we could pass it had we not had these extraneous, late- night, secret amendments added to this bill. Now, perhaps the handful of Republican district hospitals given special treatment at the cost of every other rural hospital in America stuck in this bill, maybe those hospitals have some unknown direct relation to fighting our war on terrorism and homeland defense. I certainly have not heard that explanation in this debate tonight. Mr. Chairman, if increasing the national debt by $750 billion, if adding that burden on our children and grandchildren, cannot pass the test of open debate and an honest vote, it does not deserve to be hidden in a bill purported to fund our war on terrorism. Shame on our House if we do that.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Speaker.

Mr. EDWARDS. It is my understanding that this has been described by the majority as an open rule. Yet a few minutes ago, the Speaker said in response to the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee that it would require a change in the rule in order to make it an open rule. My parliamentary inquiry is if this is an open rule, why would it require a change in the rule to make it an open rule?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, having listened to the comments of the gentleman from Tennessee, my parliamentary inquiry is this: Would it take an amendment to change an open rule in order to make it open?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize a great Army officer and soldier, Colonel Dennis L. Via, and to thank him for his contributions to the United States Army and to our country. On Thursday, June 13, Colonel Via will relinquish command of the 3rd Signal Brigade at Fort Hood, Texas for assignment to the Department of the Army's Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs, here in Washington, DC. Colonel Via began his career in 1980, graduating from Virginia State University as a Distinguished Military Graduate and earning a commission as a 2nd Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Signal corps. He commanded troops as a Signal Platoon Leader, Company Commander, and Battalion Commander before taking command of the 3rd Signal Brigade. Dennis has also served in staff positions from battalion level to the Department of the Army at numerous posts in the United States and Europe, and along the way found time to earn a Master's Degree at Boston University. Dennis Via is a consummate professional whose performance personifies those traits of courage, competency and commitment that our nation expects and demands from its military leaders. It is with both regret and pride that we wish him Godspeed and good luck as he leaves Fort Hood for his new assignment. It is important to note that every accolade to Dennis must also be considered a tribute to his family, his wife Linda and their two sons, Brian and Bradley. As a wife and mother, Linda has been a true partner in all of is accomplishments. Dennis' career has reflected his deep commitment to our nation, and has been characterized by dedicated service, a profound respect for our soldiers and their families, and an absolute 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 an outstanding soldier and a good friend--Colonel Dennis L. Via.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, rumor has it that the Republican leadership has a secret plan to allow an increase in deficit spending by $750 billion without even requiring a vote on it in the House. To do so would be wrong, and for several reasons. First, we have a responsibility to our children and grandchildren to try to balance our budget and not break their backs with the burden of an ever-increasing national debt, which is already $6 trillion, the interest on which cost taxpayers last year alone $360 billion in taxes paid. Second, deficit spending puts at risk Social Security and Medicare. We have a responsibility to our seniors to protect these 2 vital programs, but $750 billion in deficit spending would certainly undermine them. I can understand why the Republican leadership would want to allow an enormous increase in deficit spending in secret and without a public vote, but to do so would be wrong; wrong for our children, wrong for our seniors, and wrong for Americans who believe in an open democracy.