Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Does the gentleman know that less than one-half of 1 percent of this bill is made up of earmarks, less than one-half of 1 percent of the funding in this bill is made up of earmarks?

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. For the record, that is correct.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I move to strike the last word.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me just say I support this amendment. It does state the obvious: We should not take private property for private use without just compensation. Also, Mr. Chairman, because we had no other Members on our side to finish our discussion on the previous debate, let me just say briefly in response to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), his comments, there was no confusion about that amendment. It was very clear that the direct impact of that amendment would have been to hurt our troops. It would have killed fire stations designed to protect our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, and marines and their families. It would have cut out training facilities, it would have cut out daycare centers, it would have cut out all sorts of important facilities to help our troops have a better quality of life and to train effectively during a time of war, and it's because of that and because of the responsible process that our subcommittee has gone through to vet these projects carefully, that I am confident that later this morning when the House votes on that amendment, that that amendment will be soundly defeated for all the right reasons. This process in this subcommittee has been a good one, a solid one, and I think the protest to the contrary will be made clear tomorrow when Republicans and Democrats alike join to overwhelmingly reject the Flake amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to strike the last word.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. I rise in opposition to this amendment. In my opinion, the gentleman's amendment would weaken the protections that the Davis-Bacon Act provides to American workers. For myself, I'd like to ensure that construction workers who are building barracks for our troops or hospitals for our veterans are there because they are motivated and skilled at their trade, not because think were the cheapest workers that a contractor could find somewhere. I heard the gentleman offer some estimates that he came up with. I don't know the source of all of those. I am sure there are differences of opinion, but I do know the Economic Policy Institute has done a study that found a growing body of evidence suggesting that ending Davis-Bacon will not reduce costs on government contracts. I guess one could make the argument that if we could mandate--this is government money--we mandate that these jobs all be paying minimum wage, perhaps we could save some money. I don't think that would be very good policy for our Veterans Administration, for our Department of Defense, or for our country. Finally, on I think a broader point, there may be some that think that our country's present day economic problems are that the middle class is just making too much money. I couldn't disagree more. The problem with our economy today is that men and women who are willing to get up and go work hard every single day are struggling to just make enough money to help educate their children, buy clothes for their family, and put food on the family table. I don't see an amendment that would take money out of the pockets of a lot of these hardworking middle class families that are the backbone and heart and soul of our American economy and our private market system. I don't see taking money out of their pockets helping them or our economy. So, with great respect for the gentleman, who has been consistent in this arena, I must strongly oppose this amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Briefly.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Well, the point of Davis-Bacon, reclaiming my time, is to see that the workers, American workers, who build our VA hospitals, renovate our Department of Defense facilities, build new barracks and housing for our troops that are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today, that they are paid a fair wage, a livable wage. We can have honest differences on this. I tend to believe from my vantage point that providing that kind of honest wage brings in better workers and more quality work. The gentleman might disagree with that, but we will agree to disagree on that. The bottom line is I think the middle class is the strength of our Nation's economy, and the sooner we put dollars back into the pockets of those families willing to work hard for that living, the sooner we will get this economy off the wrong track and back on the right track. For all of those reasons, I again oppose this amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Chairman, it is late at night, now early in the morning actually, so I am going to be brief. But I want to end as I began, by thanking Mr. Wamp, the ranking member of this VA Appropriations and Military Construction Subcommittee. There are a lot of people in Washington and a lot of people in America who think that bipartisanship is not only an endangered species, but an extinct species in Washington. I think this process, over 100 hours of hearings, 19 different hearings, the product tonight, a good product, is perfect proof that bipartisanship for the most important of causes is still alive and well in Washington, D.C. I want to again salute Speaker Pelosi and Mr. Obey and Mr. Spratt, as well as the second ranking Democrat on our subcommittee, Mr. Farr of California, who has been there every step of the way for our veterans, our troops and their families. He has made a great contribution to this bill. Finally, I would just finish by saying my hope and prayer is that what we have before this House is a bill that is worthy of the sacrifice of our service men and women and their families. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, when it comes to reducing gasoline and energy costs, the American people don't want more talk. They want action. They want Congress to make a difference. That is what this bill is all about. By releasing up to 70 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we can lower gasoline prices immediately, not 10 years from now, not 20 years from now, immediately. That is not speculation. That is not a gimmick. This was done by former President Bush back in 1991 when he released 17 million barrels from SPR, and prices went down over 35 percent in just a few days afterwards. Now, some people may not think we are in an emergency. They say well, SPR is supposed to be used for emergencies. Well, if being at war, if Americans, hardworking Americans paying $4 a gallon for gasoline, if American business is hurting, if our economy teetering on recession, and many families have been living with the effects in their lives of recession for months, if not years now, if that is not an emergency, what is? You know, I can understand why my colleagues have pushed for long- term energy policies. I will support a bipartisan long-term energy policy. But let's not just talk about what we will do that will benefit Americans 10 years from now. Let's do something today that will benefit us today; and not just benefits American businesses and hardworking families, but our Nation's defense. I co-chair the House Army Caucus, a bipartisan organization. I can tell you, the United States Army today is paying hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars more because of high energy costs. Helping businesses, helping hardworking families meet their budgets by lowering gasoline costs, supporting our Nation's defense at a time of war, I think those are excellent reasons to support this tested process to bring down gasoline costs. Now, I can understand why oil speculators may not want this bill. But the American people want it and they deserve it.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor a lifelong friend of Central Texas, Thomas Elisha Beck, known as T.E. to his friends and family. This week, we celebrate his 50th year in banking at Union State Bank, where he has served the people of Texas with pride and integrity. In 1958, T.E. was first hired at Union State Bank in Florence. He worked just about every job possible at the bank including running the teller window, bookkeeping, posting and filing checks, and balancing the general ledger. T.E. knows the business inside and out and is widely respected for developing personal relationships with customers over the years. He is a man of his word, which is always sealed with a firm handshake. T.E. has seen Union State Bank grow from one small community bank to six branch operations across central Texas. Currently, T.E. is Senior Executive Vice President of Union State Bank and the branch manager and loan officer at the main branch in Florence, Texas. His hard work, dedication and dependability over the past 50 years, make him an important part of Union State Bank's current and future success. If I had to say what the secret of T.E.'s success all these years has been, I would say that it comes down to one word: respect. T.E. Beck respects others, and treats them accordingly. That is one of many reasons I am honored to call him my friend. T.E.'s single most important accomplishment is his love for and dedication to his family. As a family man, T.E. loves spending time with his family, especially his four grandchildren: Shanda, Bailey, Cade and Beau. We also rise to honor the Beck family for the supportive role they have played in T.E.'s life and success. T.E. has also devoted much of his time to his community and numerous causes over the years. He has been a member his entire life of the Youngsport Church of Christ and treasurer since 1978. In 1992, he was president of the Florence Chamber of Commerce and received the honor of the Florence Chamber of Commerce citizen of the year. Since 1993, he has been a board member and past president of the Central Texas Children's Center in Temple, Texas. He is currently on the board of directors and treasurer of the Texas Rodeo Cowboy Hall of Fame headquartered in Belton, Texas. T.E. has always loved the ranching lifestyle and has continued his father's ambitions on the ranch. Today he raises cattle, Boer goats, Great Pyrenees dogs and has several roping horses. Besides being a rancher his entire life, T.E. has been roping since he was 17 years old, when he started calf roping and later began team roping. He is a member of the Senior Pro Rodeo Association and continues to travel all over Texas to rodeos with his son Steve. I want to personally thank T.E. for his friendship and lifetime of service to our community. He is an example of one person who has truly made a positive difference in the life of others, and we would all do well to follow his example. T.E., thank you for your fine example and congratulations on your 50th year at Union State Bank. We wish you all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Members, I know there are many people across our country that wonder if there are any bipartisan traditions and relationships left in this House. Today, Mr. Wamp and I come to the floor to say the answer to that is yes. On Monday, we continued for the 37th year a great tradition of the golfers from the Republican side of the aisle and those from the Democratic side of the aisle in friendly competition, along with our former colleagues. While some may have said there were a lot of VIPs at that golf course on Monday, there is no question about who the real heroes were; they were the amputees, our service men and women who are the beneficiaries of this competitive event through the Sports USA Foundation, which supports amputees and our service men and women, our veterans who have paid a dear price for their service to country. I do want to congratulate my colleague, Mr. Wamp, the chairman of the Republican team. It appears, Mr. Speaker, that the burdens of being in the majority have weighed down the athletic talents of my Democratic colleagues. I want to salute my cochairman in the event and the leader of the Republican team. It was a great cause for tremendous Americans who have done so much for your family, for my family, and American families. And I was proud to be part of that great tradition. I yield time to my colleague.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise today in support of S. 188. In passing this bill, we will honor true pioneers in the struggle for civil rights by adding the names of Cesar Chavez, Barbara Jordan, William Velasquez, and Dr. Hector Garcia to the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Today, we honor their instrumental role in the struggle for civil rights, and celebrate the historic contributions and enduring legacy of these great Americans. Dr. Hector P. Garcia was a Mexican immigrant who came to Texas fleeing the violence of the Mexican Revolution in 1917, and through hard work and tenacity became a doctor, soldier, and true American hero. After being wounded in battle and fighting for VA benefits, he founded the American G.I. forum to help Mexican Americans claim the VA benefits they had earned. After World War II, the American G.I. Forum became the leading voice for Mexican American veterans. As a resident of my hometown Corpus Christi, Dr. Garcia was an inspiration to me because he stood tall for veterans to see that they received the benefits they have earned through service to country. It is my hope that Hispanic Americans, who have time and again served our Nation in combat with distinction, will take special pride in knowing that Dr. Hector P. Garcia will forever stand as a symbol of all Hispanics who have so patriotically served America in uniform. Dr. Garcia first became a national figure when he successfully fought for the burial rights of Private Felix Longoria, killed in the line of duty during World War II. After Private Longoria's widow's request to have him buried in their hometown cemetery in Three Rivers Texas was denied, Dr. Garcia and the American G.I. Forum took his case to Senator Lyndon Johnson, who pushed to have Private Longoria buried at Arlington National Cemetery. Thanks to the dedicated efforts of Dr. Garcia, Private Longoria became the first Mexican American to be honored with a burial at Arlington. Dr. Garcia's groundbreaking work to advance the cause of Hispanic civil rights continued for decades and he became a trusted adviser to American presidents. His successful efforts to break down barriers and desegregate American society, improve working conditions, increase access to health care and educational opportunities for Hispanic Americans became legendary and deserve our utmost respect. Dr. Garcia's many accomplishments and honors include: The Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1984. Appointment as alternate U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. The U.S. Army's Bronze Star and six battle stars for his service in World War II. The American G.I. Forum's Medalla al Merlto in 1952, for his work with Mexican American veterans. The Distinguished Service Award from the National Office of Civil Rights, 1980. The National Hispanic Leadership Conference's Hispanic Heritage Award, 1989. The Equestrian Order of Pope Gregory the Great from Pope John Paul II, 1990. On a personal note, I had the privilege of growing up in Corpus Christi, Texas just four houses down the street from Dr. Garcia and his family. His life's commitment to the cause of civil rights was an inspiration to me in my youth and played an important role in my entering public service. It was an honor to call him my friend and mentor. Madam Speaker, with deep respect for the life and extraordinary accomplishments of Dr. Hector P. Garcia, I urge my colleagues to support S. 188.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall 428 today. It was my intention to vote ``yea'' on that vote.

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, a young President, a veteran of the Greatest Generation, once reminded the world that Americans would pay any price, bear any burden in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. His, the generation of John F. Kennedy, understood that all Americans had a moral obligation to support those who have paid the greatest price and borne the heaviest burdens of war--our troops, our veterans, and their families. That's why the original GI Bill was passed in 1944. Today, 64 years later, with the strong leadership of Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey, Congress is renewing its moral commitment to those who have served our Nation in uniform. Amendment No. 2 in this bill includes a 21st century bill of rights, a GI Bill of Rights that will open the doors of our colleges and universities to our troops, our veterans, and their families. We also commit $396 million to improve VA polytrauma centers, which are providing critical care to the most severely wounded troops. With respect to health care needs of our troops and their families, we fund $863 million in amendment No. 2 to begin a desperately needed modernization of outdated military hospitals. No service man or woman, not one, Mr. Speaker, should ever have to face the degrading conditions our soldiers saw last year at Walter Reed Annex 18. Amendment No. 2 also respects the unsung heroes in our Nation's defense, our military spouses and children, by providing funding for 20 new military child care centers with a focus on those bases bearing the burden of multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. For our youngest heroes, the 18, 19, and 20-year-olds who have just signed up to serve our country, we provide $75 million, again, improving woefully inadequate training barracks. Those who choose to serve deserve decent housing. Supporting our troops, our veterans, and their families is what we Americans do, it is who we are. Since our Nation's founding, shared sacrifice during time of war has been a quintessential American value, a promise to keep. I thank Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Obey for seeing that we keep that promise. It is the right thing to do. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to vote ``yes'' on amendment No. 2.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate and honor Mr. Jerry Tidwell of Granbury, Texas for his recent election as president of the National Newspaper Association (NNA). Whether it is serving as the publisher of the Hood County News or president of NNA, Mr. Tidwell's 36 years of dedicated service to the newspaper business and the local community are proof of the positive impact one person can have on others. As a humble man whose actions speak louder than words, Jerry Tidwell is the kind of person that sets an inspiring example for us all to follow. He doesn't enjoy the attention much, but let me add my voice to the chorus of those who respect his steady leadership. Put simply, Jerry Tidwell is the very best Texas has to offer and it is an honor to represent him in Congress. Mr. Speaker, we need more leaders like Jerry Tidwell in our midst that truly make a difference in their community, state, and country. At this time, I ask Members to join me in offering our heartfelt appreciation and best wishes for continued success to a great newspaperman and friend--Mr. Jerry Tidwell of Granbury, Texas. We wish him well and hope that he can enjoy this time with fellow colleagues, family, and friends. He has earned it.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Dr. Herbert H. Richardson for his service to The Texas A&M University System. Dr. Richardson joined The Texas A&M University System in October 1984 as Vice Chancellor for Engineering in the System, Dean of the College of Engineering and Distinguished Professor of Engineering at Texas A&M University and brought together the University and the System's three engineering research and service agencies--the Texas Engineering Experiment Station, the Texas Engineering Extension Service and the Texas Transportation Institute--to form an integrated Engineering Program. Dr. Richardson encouraged interdisciplinary research programs and played a key role in the awarding of Texas A&M University's first National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center, the Offshore Technology Research Center. From 1991 to 1993, Dr. Richardson served as Chancellor of The Texas A&M University System, leading the development of a comprehensive long- range vision for the System, as well as implementing a major administrative restructuring. During his 22 years with The Texas A&M University System, Dr. Richardson has shown innovative leadership in building strong academic and research programs and in so doing helped the College of Engineering and the Texas Transportation Institute earn and maintain their outstanding national and international reputations for excellence. I offer congratulations on his retirement and wish him and his family many years of future happiness

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia said the Constitution is a sacred document. I agree. And that is exactly why I passionately oppose this ill-advised legislation, because it does a disservice to the Constitution by making it more difficult to enforce the first amendment to the Constitution, which is dedicated to protecting our first freedom in America, religious freedom. I am glad to join with faith-based groups, such as the Baptist Joint Committee, the Interfaith Alliance, along with the American Jewish Committee, in strong opposition to this bill. Why? Because this bill would make it more difficult for ordinary Americans to denied their religious freedom against intrusion by government. For over two centuries, the first amendment of our Bill of Rights has protect religious freedom for all Americans. Listen with me to the words of Thomas Jefferson written in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists: ``I contemplate with sovereign reverence,'' sovereign reverence, ``that Act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should,'' and here he quotes the Constitution, ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.'' Today's amendment would not just chip away, it would chisel away, the wall of separation of church and state. It would knock down the fundamental part of that wall that was designed to keep government out of our houses of worship and out of our own private religious faith. Today's amendment is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Time for maximum political sound bites, I understand that, just prior to an election. This bill claims to protect the public expression of religion, but it does not do that. What it does is protect the power of government to step on the individual rights of every American citizen when it comes to the exercise of their religious freedom, and it allows the government to inhibit the individual's right to exercise his or her views of faith by using government power to force someone's religion on someone else. The truth is, this bill undermines the enforcement of the establishment clause of the first amendment, which was designed exactly to protect Americans from government intrusion into our faith. Now, Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson knew that government intrusion into religion is the greatest single threat to religious freedom. And that is why they embedded into our Bill of Rights the fundamental principle that government should not use its power to promote anyone's religion upon anyone else. The principle of church-state separation has been a magnificent bulwark for over 200 years against government intrusion into our houses of worship and our private faith. Unfortunately, this bill would make it more difficult for citizens to protect that religious freedom by using our judicial system to enforce the first amendment to the Constitution. In fact, this bill would go so far as to say, even if a plaintiff, in defense of religious freedom in the first amendment to the Bill of Rights, even if that plaintiff wins the case before the United States Supreme Court, that party would not be reimbursed for their legal fees. Let me remind my friends of faith that should, for example, someone not put a 2\1/2\ ton monument of the Ten Commandments in an Alabama courthouse, but put a 2\1/2\ ton monument to Buddha in an Alabama or a Georgia or a Texas courthouse, this bill would prohibit people of the Christian faith, for example, from filing a lawsuit and then recovering damages if the Supreme Court said, yes, it was wrong for that county judge to put a 2\1/2\ ton statue of Buddha in that Alabama courthouse. This bill does not protect public expression of religion, as its title suggests. To the contrary, this bill should be called, let's not enforce the first amendment to the Constitution, because that is exactly what this legislation does. It makes it harder, if not impossible, for many citizens to stop the intervention of government into our religious faith and our lives. By making it easier for government to step on the first amendment religious rights of all Americans, this bill does damage to what Jefferson called, with reverence, the wall of separation between church and state. Mr. Speaker, I believe America's greatest single contribution to the world from our experiment in democracy is our system of protecting religious freedom through the separation of church and state. Our system, built upon the sacred foundation of the first amendment, has resulted in a Nation with more religious freedom, vitality and tolerance than any nation in the world. How ironic and sad it is that while we are preaching democracy and church-state separation to the Iraqis, right here today in the cradle of America's democracy some would try to tear down the wall of separation between church and state. If anyone thinks government is a friend of religious freedom, then vote for this dangerous, ill-advised legislation during the middle of campaign season. However, I would challenge any Member, Mr. Speaker, to show me one nation, show me one nation in the history of the world where government endorsement and involvement in religion has resulted in more religious freedom than we have in America. I would be glad to yield any time for any Member who can show me one nation where that has been the case. Aside from the clear lessons of history that have shown just the contrary, that government is a danger to religious freedom, one only has to look at the Middle East today to find out the danger we have when we allow government to use its power and its money to force religion or anyone's religious views on any other citizen. Church-state separation does not mean keeping people of faith out of government, but it does. And it should, and I pray it always will mean keeping government out of our faith. That is what the establishment clause of the first amendment is all about. That is why that principle was written into our Bill of Rights. And not only the Bill of Rights, but the first 16 words of the first amendment thereof. That is how important Mr. Madison thought, and the Founding Fathers thought, this principle of church separation was to our Republic. Mr. Speaker, if I must choose today between standing on the side of campaign sound bite politics, or standing with Mr. Madison, Mr. Jefferson and the Bill of Rights, I will proudly stand with our Founding Fathers and our Constitution. Religious freedom is a gift from God. And our Bill of Rights has been a magnificent steward of that precious gift for over two centuries. Let us not tamper with that divine gift in election season. Vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to my friend from Georgia that this legislation, that if one reads it, says that even if a party has prevailed in the United States Supreme Court in an enforcement of the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, that that party would be denied legal fees. That is why I say this should be entitled, ``let's not enforce the Bill of Rights legislation.'' And again, groups such as the Baptist Joint Committee strongly oppose this. Why? Because what if that courthouse in Alabama had had a judge that put a 2\1/2\ ton statue of Buddha in there. Would one not give the citizens of that community the right to respond?

Mr. EDWARDS. Taking back my time, if the gentleman is trying to suggest that Thomas Jefferson didn't endorse the principle of church- state separation, I would remind my colleague it was Thomas Jefferson who was the first American to use the term ``wall of separation between church and state.'' I would reiterate my key points.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let us be clear, there is nothing benign about this bill. This bill makes it more difficult to enforce the first amendment to the Constitution and the very words thereof designed to protect religious freedom of every measurement. I want to thank my colleague from Indiana, who is leaving at the moment, for clarifying the point that this bill now is only intended to make it more difficult to enforce the first 10 words of the Bill of Rights rather than make it more difficult to enforce the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights. But let me express a very heartfelt difference of opinion. When the gentleman said this bill has nothing to do with the free exercise of religion, nothing could be further from the truth. That is why Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison and our Founding Fathers built in, embedded, into the foundation of the Constitution the principle that we want to keep government out of our houses of worship and out of our personal faith. The greatest single threat to the free exercise of religion is government. And if the gentleman doesn't believe that, then I would suggest he denies history.