Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I will be glad to yield to the gentleman if he can name me one nation anywhere in the world today that has more religious freedom than the United States of America because it allows government intervention into houses of worship and peoples private religious affairs. Can the gentleman name one nation?

Mr. EDWARDS. I didn't think you could.

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me take back my time, because that is misleading. Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison debated for 10 years in the Virginia legislature the principle of church-state separation, and it was absolutely the core idea behind the 16 words of the Bill of Rights. So while he was in France, to suggest that Mr. Jefferson didn't endorse this principle is wholly wrong, evidence of which is Mr. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802 where he didn't just endorse this principle, he said he considers it with ``sovereign reverence.''

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I think it does disservice to the importance of this issue of religious freedom that out of 435 Members of the House, we are debating it in 1 hour, something Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson spent 10 years debating in the Virginia legislature. We are debating this in 1 hour, with 4 or 5 Members of the House on this floor. I think that, frankly, in my book, is a sacrilege. There is no greater principle in American democracy than religious freedom. It is the first freedom upon which all other freedoms are built. If one thinks government involvement in religion protects religious freedom, then I would suggest you vote for this ill-advised and dangerous piece of legislation. If one agrees with our Founding Fathers, with the Bill of Rights, the first 16 words thereof, with Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson, that the greatest threat to religious freedom in this world is government intrusion into religion, I would suggest you vote ``no'' on this legislation. This legislation is a direct effort to make it more difficult to enforce the Bill of Rights, and that is wrong. That is why we should vote ``no.''

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Mars Incorporated manufacturing facility in Waco, Texas--an important institution in our community since its opening on September 23, 1976. For decades, this facility has produced the Snickers' Bar and other Snickers' varieties for American consumers, and it is now the only facility in the country that produces Skittles' Bite Size Candy and Starburst' Fruit Chews. Roughly 700 people are employed at the Waco facility, many of whom have worked at this facility their entire careers. The loyalty of its associates is a testament to Mars' commitment to providing associates with an environment in which it is a pleasure to work. I have been proud to have a Mars facility in my district all these years. Approximately $30 million worth of Texas-grown peanuts are used in the Waco facility to produce Mars' popular snackfood products. In addition to the hundreds of jobs that this facility brings to our economy, Mars has also embraced its role in our community through numerous charitable contributions and community sponsorships. Mars has also been a pioneer in its industry for the installation of water-saving treatment facilities at some of its plants, and it has incorporated a Wetlands Wastewater Treatment Facility in its Waco facility which saves 3 to 5 million gallons of water each year. In Texas, where we've experienced severe drought in recent years, water conservation is increasingly important. I commend Mars for being a leader on this and other sustainability issues, and I encourage similar facilities in Texas to use the Mars model as an example of environmentally conscious production. Again, I congratulate Mars for reaching this 30-year milestone and hope that this facility will continue to be a member of our community for many more decades to come.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2007 defense authorization bill passed the House on May 11 and the Senate on June 22. It is deeply disappointing that during a time of war it has taken the House and Senate Republican leadership over 2\1/2\ months to appoint conferees to write the final defense bill, which includes programs vital to our troops and to our Nation's defense. The fact that Speaker Hastert could take time to campaign in over 40 House districts during the August recess, but could not find time to appoint final defense conferees, represents the kind of misplaced priorities that have Americans demanding that Congress change its way of business. Our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq should not have had to wait 2\1/2\ months to see Congress moving ahead on a bill that is vital to them, their mission and their families. Now that conferees have finally been appointed, the House has a serious responsibility to support a bill that puts our troops and military retirees first. That is what this motion to instruct is all about. Specifically, this motion would instruct House conferees on the defense bill to accept Senate language that would reduce the cost of prescription drugs for military retirees, including Iraqi war veterans, by hundreds of millions of dollars each year. It would do so by saying that pharmaceutical manufacturers should give the same drug discount at retail pharmacies that is already being given to military retirees who buy their drugs via mail order. The Veterans Administration saves hundreds of millions of dollars every year by requiring drug manufacturers to offer veterans drug discounts, and applying the same commonsense principle to military retirees will result in huge savings. In fact, this motion, if accepted, would save taxpayers $251 million in fiscal year 2007 and help, even more importantly, up to 1.9 million military retirees by making it unnecessary to pass the unfair House provision, another provision, that would force a 100 percent increase in generic drug copays at local pharmacist for military retirees and a 77 percent increase in brand-name drug copays for military retirees. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that this motion is good for American taxpayers and good for our military retirees, who are men and women who have served their Nation for 20 or 30 or more years in uniform. There is just one problem: the pharmaceutical manufacturers do not want military retirees on the TRICARE health plan to be able to buy discounted drugs at local pharmacies. Why? Because it would cut into their already rather substantial profits. The choice is clear. The motion is a choice between helping our military retirees, including Iraqi war veterans, or helping the pharmaceutical companies make even higher profits. I am confident that the vast majority of Americans would say that the pocketbooks of those who have served our Nation for decades in uniform should take priority over higher profits for pharmaceutical manufacturers. The real question is whether this House in voting on this motion will reflect the values of our constituents and our military retirees, or will we reflect the special interests of the pharmaceutical manufacturers and their lobbyists. The choice should be an easy one. But it appears that the House leadership didn't want this provision included in this motion to help our military retirees, and they did not support this language, which the Senate adopted and put in the House bill. That is why we are here today facing this motion. I salute the other body for having put the discounted drug price language in their defense bill, which passed the Senate on an overwhelming bipartisan basis. I urge support, Mr. Speaker, for this motion. I hope we will receive bipartisan support. Going along with the pharmaceutical manufacturers should not trump saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, keeping drug costs affordable for our military retirees, up to 1.9 million of them, and allowing our military retirees to have access to their local pharmacist. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), a senior member of the House Armed Services Committee and a great supporter of our servicemen and -women and our veterans and military retirees.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker, Mr. Berry of Arkansas, whom I would like to recognize. I would like to say that Mr. Berry led the charge to send a letter to the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee urging the adoption of this language, and I salute him for his leadership on that effort. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I hope that the absence of speakers on the other side of the aisle is a reflection that there will be bipartisan support for this motion to instruct the House conferees on the defense bill. If so, then I think that is very good news for our military retirees. I certainly want to express my respect to my friend and colleague, Mr. Hefley, who is a great champion for our military, both those on active duty and our retirees. What is a little bit disconcerting, Mr. Speaker, is how we can have what at least at this moment might appear to be unanimous support for this provision to save hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayers and military retirees by reducing the cost of military retiree prescription drugs at pharmacies and have the Senate adopt this provision as well, and yet mysteriously it didn't show up in the markup in the House Armed Services Committee. I don't know what happened. I have heard some rumors suggesting that the House leadership opposed putting this provision, helping our military retirees and saving taxpayers money, into the bill. Perhaps someone could explain to the House and our colleagues and those listening, Mr. Speaker, why this provision wasn't put in the markup of the bill in the first place. But I am not sure anybody has an explanation that could withstand the light of day. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), a distinguished veteran himself.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, could I ask the gentleman from Colorado if he has any speakers on this?

Mr. EDWARDS. Okay. Since we have used more of our time, and since we may not have to use the entire time allotted, could I yield back, not my time, but to the gentleman from Colorado for the purposes of his speaker being recognized.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 minutes. I have great respect for my colleague, the Chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. He and I have worked together for many years on veterans' programs. I have never questioned his motivations; I just question his judgment in this particular case. But he asked a fair question: What are we doing? Let me answer that question. What this motion to instruct would do is allow military retirees, up to 1.9 million of them, to get the same discounted drug prices at a retail pharmacist that the law already ensures they receive if they buy those drugs via mail order or if they go into a dispensary at a DOD hospital somewhere. What are we doing? We are saving, according to estimates, $251 million this year for taxpayers, lowering the cost of prescription drugs for these vast numbers of military retirees. What are we doing? We are perhaps saving enough money so that the Defense conferees don't have to actually force a 100 percent increase in the copay for generic drugs to military retirees and a 77 percent increase in the copay for military retirees to buy name-brand drugs. That is what we are doing. What we are doing is taking a law that was passed in 1992 that the Veterans Administration in 2002 said provides the authority to provide this discount to retail pharmacies and just clarifying that law. Apparently, it wasn't the Department of Defense or Veterans' Administration that opposed the kind of language I am supporting; it was the drug companies who filed lawsuits in this matter, to prevent military retirees for getting cheaper prices. I don't find the pharmaceutical manufacturers filing lawsuits so that they could make less money.

Mr. EDWARDS. I would be happy to yield to you.

Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate the gentleman pointing that out. That is why I say this $251 million in savings in fiscal year 2007, that is projected to be over $300 million in savings in fiscal year 2009, can be used by the House-Senate conferees to reduce the copay that was put in the House bill that some may have felt was necessary for financial reasons. But if we can find savings to the taxpayers in the Department of Defense, let's pass on those savings to our military retirees. I don't think Members of Congress are being asked during a time of war to pay 100 percent more copay for our prescription drugs. I don't think military retirees ought to be asked to pay 100 percent increase in their copays.

Mr. EDWARDS. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would say, at some point, if the drug companies are not making a reasonable profit, it could significantly impact the money they invest in research. But I don't think many in this country today would doubt that the drug companies are making very healthy profits. And I do salute them on the research that they put into coming up with new miracle drugs, but at the same time, I think it is a fact that they spend more on advertising on television on the drugs than they spend on research and development for their drugs. So out of the multibillion-dollar profits that all of our drug companies make on their drugs, I have a hard time thinking that allowing us to save $251 million this coming year on the cost of retail drugs for military retirees is going to put a significant crimp in the ability of drug companies to invest in future drugs. I agree with the gentleman, the drug companies ought to be able to make a reasonable profit. I think they are making a reasonable profit. Many Americans think that they are making more than a reasonable profit. I don't consider what the Senate adopted and what I am recommending and what I hope will pass on maybe not a unanimous basis but on a bipartisan basis today, I don't see this as price controls. I see this as the Federal Government having a right to make a contract with drug companies, just like the VA does that every day, as the gentleman knows. It says to the drug companies, if you want to sell us drugs at the Veterans' Administration, we would like to buy them, but we are going to require a 30 to 40 percent discount on those drugs. One might make the argument that doing that hurts the profits of the drug companies, and therefore, they cannot invest in new drugs. I don't think the present policy of the Veterans' Administration saving hundreds of millions of dollars by negotiating, not price controls, negotiating reasonably discounted prices for drugs when you are representing millions of consumers, in this case veterans, I don't think that has hurt the drug companies. In fact, it looks to me as if they welcome the opportunity to sell millions of dollars of drugs every year to the Veterans' Administration. I am saying, we should apply that principle not to some other unrelated agency but rather to the Department of Defense. It is the Veterans Secretary, the VA Secretary, that has said in the past, in his judgment, the 1992 law, in the VA's opinion, allowed discounted drugs at pharmacies, but it is the pharmaceutical manufacturers who have filed the lawsuits to stop this from happening. I respect the gentleman greatly. I don't challenge, not for a second, his motivations. We ought to be concerned about the formulary prices staying low for veterans. I just don't see helping military retirees who have served our country for 20 to 30 years, some of them for more than 30 years, letting them go to local pharmacists and get a discounted drug price rather than paying full retail value is really going to hurt veterans.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) for the comment about the debate. I think these are the kinds of issues we ought to debate. I welcome this kind of debate and honest differences of opinion. That is part of my criticism of the congressional process these days. It seems like so many times decisions get made behind closed doors, and the public does not know how those decisions are made. I think this is a healthy debate. Despite my great respect for Mr. Buyer, I think this motion, if adopted into the final Defense bill for fiscal year 2007, would benefit hundreds and hundreds of thousands of our military retirees by letting them have access to low-priced prescription drugs at their local pharmacy by perhaps allowing us not to follow through with what I think is an unfair proposal from the House to double, to increase by 100 percent the copays that our military retirees pay for their drugs. We are not asking Members of Congress to double our copays for our prescription drugs this year during a time of war. I don't think we should ask our military retirees, many who have served 20 or 30 years in the military, to have an increase in copay for their drugs. We are not willing to ask ourselves to do that. I think this is a beneficial motion. I believe it will be accepted with, not unanimous support, but with bipartisan support. The only caution I want to urge, the good advice of my Texas colleague, mentioned by my friend from Colorado, when you have hit oil, you can stop drilling. I think the real test of whether we have hit oil or whether we have hit a dry hole is whether the language adopted already by the Senate, the language we will hopefully support on a bipartisan basis today on my motion, actually gets put in the final defense authorization bill. I would issue a warning that oftentimes we pass motions to instruct conferees on an overwhelming basis if not unanimous basis in this House, and somehow, behind closed doors, the interest of those we care about, in this case the interest of military retirees, seems to somehow not be considered as carefully as the interest of other special interests. I think this is a good motion. I know the pharmaceutical companies have filed lawsuits to stop the discount pricing of drugs at retail pharmacies. They have a right to do that. Congress has the right and the responsibility today to say that, in 1992, we made a decision saying that our retirees ought to have access to discounted drugs at pharmacists as well as via mail order. I urge bipartisan support of this motion to instruct. Unless the gentleman from Indiana wants to continue an honest debate, I would yield back.

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me address why I respectfully disagree with the gentleman and why I think it is true. I am the ranking member, as the gentleman knows, of the Military Quality of Life and Veterans' Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee in the House. Because of the budget limitations and the cost of Department of Defense and TRICARE programs this year, the House passed a bill that cuts about $730 million out of the President's request for DOD and TRICARE health care programs. We have to make up that hole somehow. By saving $250 million this year through this motion, if the House and Senate conferees agree to it, we help plug a large part of that huge hole. If we don't plug that hole, we are going to have to cut health care services for military retirees and possibly, I hope we would not, but possibly even active duty service men and women. So this does help the military retirees. It helps us maintain the present level of health care services under TRICARE and gives them access to their local pharmacist, which many military retirees prefer. They trust their local pharmacist. They would prefer to go to that person and get advice and buy the discounted drugs under TRICARE. It helps us have a chance to get rid of the 100 percent increase in copays for military retirees. I think this motion, if adopted into the bill, would help military retirees very significantly. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Just to summarize, the Military Officers Association of America urges support for this change in the law. If the drug manufacturers would like to join with military retirees and the largest organization in America representing those retirees, I would welcome that support. I urge bipartisan support for this motion to instruct conferees on the Defense authorization bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, July 16th, the congregation and community of Hearne in Robertson County, Texas will honor Reverend O.W. Mack for over 45 years of dedicated service as Pastor of the New Elam Missionary Baptist Church of Hearne. Reverend Mack attended Blackshear School in Hearne and proudly served this great nation as a member of the United States Armed Forces. He returned to Texas to attend Prairie View A&M University where he became an educator. Later he came back to teach in the Hearne Independent School District and married Vina E. Blocker, also an educator. He later went to theological seminary to become a spiritual leader. Reverend Mack was an educator for over 33 years, an Assistant Principal for 8 years, and he served on the Hearne Independent School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He has worked tirelessly over the years to improve the quality of education for children in Robertson County. His years of service in the field of education are an inspiring tribute to our community's values, and his vision for children in our community will offer hope for generations to come. Under Reverend Mack's leadership as Pastor of the New Elam Baptist Church, many programs have been greatly expanded and ministries within the church have been enriched. Reverend Mack has led his church in mission efforts both locally and statewide. He serves as the President of the Congress of Christian Workers of the Lincoln District Association under the leadership of Moderator, Dr. W.W. Jackson. Reverend Mack has a history of unselfish devotion to public service, a legacy of personal achievement, as well as dedicated commitment to his faith and family. I ask all of my colleagues to join me in honoring and celebrating the leadership and commitment of Reverend O.W. Mack and his wife, Vina for over 45 years of dedication to the spiritual life and health of the community of Hearne and Central Texas. Thank you Reverend Mack and May God bless you.