Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, for the past 14 years, I have had the privilege of representing the largest U.S. Army installation in the world, Fort Hood, an installation that has sent over 40,000 brave American soldiers to fight in Iraq. That is why I am so deeply offended and shocked that the Under Secretary of Defense in this administration, the Under Secretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, Dr. Chu, was quoted in today's Wall Street Journal as saying, in reference to programs funding military retirees and veterans, ``The amounts have gotten to the point where they are hurtful. They are taking away from the Nation's ability to defend itself.'' I am appalled, Mr. Speaker, and I believe veterans and military retirees all across this country have a right to be offended that the Under Secretary of Defense in this administration would say that the very men and women who risk their lives and sacrifice greatly to defend our Nation are responsible for hurting our Nation's ability ``to defend itself.'' It is a wrong statement. The truth is that veterans have kept their promises to our Nation and now our Nation has a moral obligation to keep its promises to those who have served our Nation in uniform. The truth is, Mr. Speaker, that respecting the sacrifices of our veterans in responsible ways with quality health care and decent benefits is not only the right thing to do, because our veterans have earned those benefits, it is the smart thing to do. As someone who has represented 40,000 soldiers over the last 14 years, I can tell you that when we break our promises to yesterday's service men and women we call veterans, today's service men and women are going to pay attention. The fact is, in a voluntary military force, we cannot bring the best and brightest into our military if we do not keep our promises made to our veterans. My good colleague and friend from Texas, the previous speaker, talked about the 58 percent increase in veterans funding during this administration. That is part of the facts. The rest of the story is that much of those increases came from the leadership of Democrats and Republicans here in this Congress. The fact is that over the last couple of years we have added well over $1 billion, now approaching $2 billion in funding for veterans health care that the administration did not ask for. The fact is that we are spending too little, not too much on our veterans and military retirees. The truth is that last year's budget for veterans health care did not even keep up with inflation. So, in effect, we had a real cut in veterans health care spending during a time of war. What happened to the principle of shared sacrifice during a time of war? I find it outrageous and offensive that Secretary Chu blamed veterans for trying to undermine our Nation's security, when just as easily this administration, along with Dr. Chu, could suggest perhaps we reduce a little bit of that $124,000-a-year tax break that the administration and the Republicans in Congress have given to people in America making over $1 million a year. Maybe before we start blaming military widows for undermining our Nation's security, maybe before Dr. Chu starts criticizing veterans and military retirees who risked their lives in Vietnam and Iraq, Korea, Iwo Jima and Normandy, maybe they should look at their own policies that have provided tax breaks for Members of Congress, tax breaks for people making over $1 million a year that, in my opinion, make a farce out of the quintessential American value and principle of shared sacrifice during a time of war. I would hope Dr. Chu will quickly retract his outrageous attack on our Nation's finest, those men and women who have served our country so admirably in uniform. Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the administration before the sun sets another day will say that Dr. Chu's statement does not reflect administration policy. I hope that the Republican leadership in the House joins with me in a bipartisan effort to criticize this outrageous and wrong attack on America's military veterans and retirees. The fact is we should be saluting our veterans, especially during a time of war, not criticizing and attacking them. The fact is that we spend much too little in keeping our promises to our servicemen and women who have retired, not too much. I hope we can see this kind of statement relegated to the back pages of mistakes made by administration officials. Together the leadership of this House should fight for veterans benefits in the months ahead, although I would say, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that the House leadership recently fired rather than saluted the Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the House because he had stood up for veterans. Our veterans have stood up for us, let us stand up for them.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my most sincere congratulations to the historic Watson Feed Store in Mart, Texas on their recent Texas Historical Marker Dedication. After nearly a century of service to the Central Texas community, the Watson Feed Store has become a vital part of the social fabric of the Mart community and an inspiring example of the very best of Texas. That the Watson Feed Store still stands today just as it was almost 100 years ago is truly remarkable and a reflection of the commitment and dedication of Murray Watson and family to preserve the history of this building for future generations. Watson's Feed Store is not only a historic reminder of the past, but an enduring symbol of the belief in community that Watson's Feed Store has come to represent. Today, the Watson Feed Store is still a daily meeting place for many citizens of Mart, enjoying conversation and comfort in the building known as ``home'' to many, a living testament to the impact that Murray Watson and family continue to have on the Mart community. I personally want to thank Murray Watson for his many years of friendship and the countless contributions he has made to the community of Mart and Central Texas. Murray Watson is a true Texas leader and there is no doubt that the state of Texas and the Nation would benefit greatly from more leaders like Murray in our communities.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Houston, as I finish with a couple of comments on my part, Mr. Speaker. As we celebrate the extraordinary public service of seven great Texans, I must also say as a Texan there is a lot that we will miss. As a Texan and as Texans we will miss 80 years of seniority in this body, the House of Representatives, where seniority means a lot in terms of effectiveness for our States. Texas and I will miss having the ranking member, the senior Democrat on the Committee on Rules, one of the most important committees anywhere in Congress. We will miss having the ranking member of the Committee on Agriculture, and we will miss having the ranking member of Homeland Security. Perhaps this is Texas's gift to the States of New York, Minnesota, and Mississippi, who will now have those ranking positions. We will miss having the chairman of the House Congressional Hispanic Caucus, an important voice for Hispanics throughout Texas and our country. We will miss having the chief deputy whip on the Democratic side and a member of the Committee on Ways and Means, and we will miss a true national leader on the issue of missing children. I think our greatest loss, as important as it is and as sad as it is for our State to have lost 80 years of seniority in the ranking positions of key committees, our greatest loss is that we will lose people of great integrity who were truly dedicated to the principle of unselfish public service. I do not grieve for these Magnificent Seven. They are bright, talented, hardworking, capable people with good families. They will do well. I do grieve for the 4.2 million Texas citizens who were denied the right to vote for the reelection of their present Member of Congress as a result of redistricting. And personally I will miss the daily friendship and interactions with these good people, people who will be our friends for a lifetime. We will miss that daily interaction of these good, decent people. I have nothing but best wishes and wish Godspeed to Martin Frost, Charlie Stenholm, Nick Lampson, Ciro Rodriguez, Chris Bell, Jim Turner, Max Sandlin, and their families. And I would finish my comments, before yielding back to the gentlewoman from Houston, with the words of Winston Churchill who once reminded us that ``we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.'' By that very high standard, these great seven Texans have lived a rich life, and I know they will continue to give to their communities, their State, and their country; and we wish them all the best in the years ahead.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, for hosting this tribute to seven extraordinary Texans, seven dedicated public servants. Whether Americans knew them by name, knew them personally or not, Texas will be the lesser for their loss of service, and our Nation will be the less because of their no longer being in this great body. But the good news is, Texas is a better place today and America is a better place today because of the dedicated service of these seven Texans. Congressman Martin Frost of Dallas, a longtime friend of mine, a true leader of the Texas Democratic delegation, the dean of our delegation. I have never known a more dedicated public servant in my life than Congressman Martin Frost, a protege of Jim Wright, the Ranking Member of the Committee on Rules, a vital committee in this House. He is someone who fought for a strong national defense, for jobs and opportunity for his beloved constituents in Dallas and Fort Worth, someone who always was a voice for equal opportunity for citizens of all races in this country. We will miss Martin Frost. Congressman Charlie Stenholm, one of the most decent human beings I have ever known in my lifetime. Someone respected by Democrats and Republicans alike for always being one to put the interests of our State of Texas and our country above partisanship. An eloquent, passionate voice for the value and values of our family farmers and ranchers. All who respect our rural values and the importance of our agriculture producers will miss the voice of Charlie Stenholm in Congress. Congressman Jim Turner, a colleague who is living proof that a good person can do well in life. Someone who always treated his fellow colleagues, his citizens, and neighbors with respect and decency. He committed his adult life to public service as a State representative, as a State Senator in Texas and then as a United States Congressman, rising to the terribly important position of senior Democrat on the Committee on Homeland Security, a person who, for the past 2 years, has helped lead the fight to protect all of our families from the threat of terrorism. Jim Turner is someone who did not just preach family values but who lived them every day of his life. Noting that the commonality between Mr. Frost, Mr. Stenholm, and Mr. Turner, and something they would all be proud of, saying themselves that each one of them married above themselves. And often unheralded heroes and heroines of this public process in Congress are the spouses of our elected officials. I want to express my thanks to Kathy Frost, a general of the United States Army, and to Cindy Stenholm and to Ginny Turner for their public service. While they might not have had a voting card on the floor of this House, they have been every much a part, in every way a part of public service through this House of Representatives. To Max Sandlin, who rose to the high position of Chief Democratic Deputy Whip, one of the finest legal minds I have ever known, a personal friend who always was fighting to see that the words that end our Pledge of Allegiance, ``with justice for all,'' were not just words in a rote pledge but deeply meaningful words behind that pledge, ``with justice for all.'' That was always Max Sandlin's cause in Congress. To Ciro Rodriguez, who rose to be chairman of the House Hispanic Caucus and a national leader on Hispanic issues, someone who I will always remember as a voice for those who could not afford to hire a $1 million lobbyist, for the working families of his district and people all across this country. Someone who is a national leader on civil rights and veterans affairs, never forgetting the sacrifice of those who wore our Nation's uniform. To Chris Bell, who served Houston and our State of Texas and our Nation with great distinction and integrity. Someone who, along with these others, lost a seat as a result of not a loss of confidence of his own constituents but because of the partisan redrawing of congressional lines in an off year in the State of Texas. He accepted political defeat with graciousness in a way that helped bring people together in his beloved City of Houston and throughout our State. And to Nick Lampson, our friend from Beaumont, someone who accomplished much in Congress on many issues, but someone who will always be remembered as the father of the fight to find missing children. And as a father of a 7-year-old son and an 8-year-old son, I think I speak for all parents in America when I say thank you to our colleague Nick Lampson for watching out for all of the children of America. To each of these seven Members, they made a difference, and I can think of no greater compliment to pass on to anyone. They made a positive difference in the lives of their citizens, their constituents, and the people of this country. And to Susan, Susan Lampson, again, Nick would join his fellow colleagues in saying proudly that he married above himself. Thank you to her for her sacrifices throughout this career of public service. Again, none of these lost because they lost the confidence of their constituents that they serve today. They lost or had to retire because of a highly unusual, unprecedented redistricting process in a year when redistricting was not supposed to be the case in Texas. But these are good people, decent people, great Americans who not only have made a difference in the past in our State and country, but I know in the years ahead will continue to make a difference for the American people. I thank the gentlewoman from Houston for yielding me this time and for hosting this tribute to seven great Texans, seven extraordinary Americans and public servants.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Dicks), who is a member of the subcommittee and who fought so hard for military family housing.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Chairman Knollenberg) for his leadership on the underlying military construction bill. He did an outstanding job along with his excellent staff. I want to salute the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and others who worked so hard, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), who worked so hard on a bipartisan basis to provide much-needed, deserved relief to the people of the southeastern United States, to Florida and other States. I would like to finish with one note. I hope when we meet again next year to provide funding for military construction for our military families' housing and training ranges to help protect our troops, help them win battles and wars and come home safely to the hugs of their loved ones that we will not for the second year or third year in a row fund less for quality of life and military housing and training programs, construction programs, than we had funded before the Iraqi war began. A Congress that can afford trillion dollar tax cuts, a Congress that can pass $137 billion predominately corporate tax cut bill just 2 days ago, less than 48 hours ago, certainly can afford not to short-change the funding that we commit to what should be a top priority, and that is quality of life for our military families. I am proud of the work this committee did to stretch limited dollars, spend them wisely, efficiently, fairly on the highest-priority programs. But next year, we should not have to say, for the third year in a row, despite all the sacrifices of our military families and the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, we are committing less total funding for them to military construction, much of which goes to quality-of-life programs, than we did before the sacrifices were asked of them in fighting these wars. So I salute the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young), the leadership of the committee, the subcommittee, everyone who worked so well together on the underlying bill, and for those reasons, I will support this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) who is so widely respected on a bipartisan basis in this Congress on agriculture.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I know we have an omnibus appropriations bill to pass in the lame duck session after the elections, but this could possibly be the gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Young's) last subcommittee bill to oversee as chairman of the full committee. And I just want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his tremendous dedicated, thorough, professional, and fair-minded leadership on all of the issues under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Appropriations. And I want to pay a special tribute to his better half. Beverly Young, the gentleman from Florida's (Chairman Young) wife, is the Mother Teresa of America's military families. Day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, she is out at our military hospitals visiting wounded soldiers and their families. And through her example, she has reminded every Member of this House the importance of always putting the interest of our military families first. So I want to salute the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Young) for his leadership in the Committee on Appropriations and overseeing the interests of our Nation and, in particular, the special needs of our servicemen and women and their families and thank Mrs. Young for the example she has set for all of us in this House.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the second ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd), who is a member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction of the Committee on Appropriations, and played a key role not only on the military provisions of this bill but as a representative of the people from Florida and worked very hard on a bipartisan basis on the Florida hurricane relief.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Military Construction appropriations bill because it provides vital funding for military housing and training facilities. Also in this bill is much-needed $11 billion in emergency funding for hurricane relief for hard hit families, businesses, farmers, and military installations in the southeastern United States and $2.8 billion in drought relief for farmers throughout the country. Since others will speak on the hurricane and agriculture relief portions of this bill, I would like, Mr. Speaker, to focus my comments on the underlying Military Construction appropriations. First, I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for his dedicated leadership on behalf of our military troops and families. He always puts the interests of our military above all other interests, and for that he has my deepest personal respect. I also want to commend the outstanding committee staff led by Carol Murphy, Rob Nabors, Tom Forhan, and my legislative director John Conger. Their work was professional, thorough and fair. And while these dedicated staff seldom receive public recognition, which they deserve, the truth is they have made a positive difference in the lives of our servicemen and -women and their families. Our bests wishes go out to our Democratic committee staffer Tom Forhan who is recuperating from shoulder surgery. We wish him well and thank him for his many years of service to our military. I am especially proud of the leadership efforts made by members of this committee to pressure this Congress into not leaving home until we had lifted the cap on the public/private military housing program. This innovative program, started during the previous administration and moved forward under this administration, it is providing better housing to tens of thousands of military families while saving American taxpayers billions of dollars. New housing that would have taken 50 years to build under the old system is now being built in 5 years, leveraging the strength and resources of the public and private sectors. I will never forget at Fort Hood several years ago visiting one of the newest homes under this program and meeting the sergeant and his wife who served our country so nobly for so many years. In talking to the wife she said, it is not only that this is a home I can be so very proud of to raise our children in, but this home is, as my husband is serving his country around the world, this home says to me and my children that our country has not forgotten the sacrifices we too have made on behalf of our Nation. That is the importance of this program. It is not only about new housing, better housing that is so well deserved by our military families. It is about respect for those families. Unfortunately, this program would have come to a halt this month or next had Congress not lifted the arbitrary and unnecessary cap on it. This committee made it clear that we would leave no stone unturned until the cap was lifted because it would have been a terrible disservice to our military families to freeze this vital military housing improvement program during a time of war. With the cap being lifted in the Defense authorization bill as a result of pressure placed by this committees, tens of thousands of military families will now have modern housing they can also be proud to call their home. And that happened because of the special efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg); the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full Committee on Appropriations; the ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey); the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter); the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton); and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). They all deserve our thanks and gratitude for not letting military families be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, there are numerous high-priority projects in this bill at U.S. military installations here, at home, and throughout the world. I think this committee did an outstanding job on a bipartisan basis of taking limited resources and placing them in the highest priority areas. I would be remiss, though, if I did not mention one major disappointment about this bill. I think it is sad that a year and a half after the beginning of the Iraqi war, with all the sacrifices being made for our servicemen and -women and their families, this Military Construction bill funds these vital housing and training facilities and day care facilities at a level that is $500 million below what we funded 2 years ago before the Iraqi war began. I simply do not understand a Congress that 2 days ago could find offsets to pay for over $130 billion in tax cuts for corporations and for fishing tackle box manufacturers, a tax cut bill that had a lot of good in it and one that I supported, but I do not understand a Congress that can so easily find offsets to pay for that kind of tax cut for corporations and fishing tackle box manufacturers, cannot find offsets to see that we do not cut real funding for military construction projects during a time of war. This Congress, the next Congress needs to set its priorities straight; and especially as we fight the war on terrorism, we should not be shortchanging the total funding budget for quality-of-life programs for our military while we can easily pass 100, 200, $300 billion tax cuts for corporations and others that are not making nearly the sacrifices that are being made by our servicemen and -women. Nevertheless, that funding level was not decided by this subcommittee. That was made at a different pay grade in this Congress. Given the limited resources in this subcommittee's jurisdiction, I think it did the best job it could. It did an excellent job of seeing that high-priority programs were funded, and for that reason I support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this is the way Congress should work. The New York Times made it obvious that there were new standards that needed to be set to protect our troops who were risking their lives for our country. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), and Members on a bipartisan basis came together quickly to address that problem. And I want to commend all of those involved in the leadership for bringing this bill to the floor. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) said, for 14 years I have had the privilege of representing Fort Hood, the only two-division installation in the U.S. Army. During times of war and peace, I have seen the incredible personal sacrifices made by our military troops and their families on behalf of our Nation. We can never repay the debt of gratitude we owe the young 20-year-old soldier I met at Walter Reed Hospital recently, who came back from Iraq with an amputated leg. We cannot repay the young widow I met at Fort Hood recently with a small baby in her arms, a baby who will never gaze into the eyes of its father. As a small downpayment on that debt of gratitude, we in Congress must continue our efforts to improve pay, health care, housing, and education for military families and their children. I also salute this bill for helping protect our troops against misrepresentations in the sale of mutual funds and life insurance policies. While our military forces should have the right to invest in their family's futures, it is clear that higher standards are needed to protect our servicemen and -women from unscrupulous practices. This bill is a step in the right direction by prohibiting unfair policies, by requiring greater regulation of insurance sales on military installations, such as Fort Hood in my district, and by encouraging the Department of Defense and State regulatory agencies to set new and higher standards for the sale of these policies. I hope this is a first step, not the last step, in protecting our troops. After passing this legislation, I hope Congress will move forward with legislation I and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and others have authored to require the Department of Defense to offer up to $500,000 in life insurance to our troops, rather than the present cap of $250,000. In today's world, $250,000 simply is not enough life insurance for many young families with children to feed, clothe, educate, and to send to college. By increasing life insurance at affordable rates up to $500,000, the Department of Defense and Congress can prevent many of the abuses outlined so well by the recent New York Times articles. Until Congress takes that action, this bill is a very positive, solid step forward toward protecting military families who are sacrificing so much to protect American families. Mr. Speaker, I again thank those who, working on a bipartisan basis, brought this legislation so quickly to the floor of the House; and I would hope that the other body would act accordingly.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Just a few minutes ago my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said we should work together in the days and months ahead to try to ensure the promise to our military families of better housing. I suggest we start right now, and it would be very simple, and we can send a clear message out to our families who have loved ones in harm's way that right now we are going to guarantee them the quality housing they are expecting. All we need to do is take basically the exact same language that the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) put together in the bill he wrote yesterday and passed yesterday, which, by the way, was an example of what the leadership in this House can do when it wants to do something. Let us just adopt that same language in the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) motion to recommit. It is the same language. What is the difference? I tell the Members what the difference would be. If we would work together on a bipartisan basis right now not to object to this, we can send an important message to our troops out there and their loved ones that we are going to support them with better housing, especially during this time of war. The language is the same. The gentleman's bill, H.R. 4879, that we passed yesterday that he talked about says we strike the number $850 million and insert $1.350 billion. The gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) motion to recommit that is now before the floor says let us go from $850 million to $1.3 billion on the limitation of military housing privatization programs. What is the difference? Let us work together right now. Let us do the right thing. Let us not let a technicality prevent us from doing the right thing for tens of thousands of military families. We can do it together. We do not have to wait a week, a month, and the possibilities of what might or might not happen then. We can doing it right now. I urge this House to do so.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to read into the Record the States and the specific military installations that have just had a guarantee of new housing for their military families taken away from them. Perhaps we will solve this another day. I have been trying to work for 6 months on a bipartisan basis to get this resolved. I am not sure this late in the Congress I have tremendous confidence that it will get resolved, but the real pity is that we could have resolved it today if the leadership had let go through the Committee on Rules the exact same rule we unanimously approved on the military appropriations bill just an hour ago. The States that have just lost a chance because of this technicality that were allowed by the rule pushed by the leadership that will lose a guarantee to have new military housing for their service men and women are Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and Wyoming. To add to the military installations I had already mentioned a few moments ago that will either have their housing frozen this year and, in fact, a promise broken to those military families or have their housing expected in 2006 to be delayed a year would include Fort Knox, Kentucky, 3,380 military families affected by this technical ruling. Fort Rucker in Alabama, 1,516 military families. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 1,580 military families. Keesler Air Force Base in Mississippi, 1,682 military families. New Mexico, Holloman Air Force Base, 1,440. Fort Gordon, Georgia, 872 families. Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, 475. MCB in Hawaii, Phase 1, 1,377 families will have their hopes for better housing dashed or delayed for a year or more. Camp Lejeune, an important Marine Corps installation in North Carolina, 838 families. In addition to an additional 3,516 families at Camp Lejeune that this year will have their new housing put on hold. These are not just numbers and names, these are real men and women, real military families making unbelievable sacrifices in behalf of every family in this House and in our Nation that have just lost the opportunity because of an unfair rule opposed by numerous military organizations exercised, as the gentleman had the right to exercise, just a moment ago a technicality to kill that dream of a new home. It is a shame that dream has been killed today. I certainly urge those who perhaps did not want it to be taken care of today to work together, and I will pledge to work together in good faith with them to try to solve it in the months ahead, but there was no reason not to give this promise today to our military people. They do not ask to be delayed when they are asked to serve their country. When they are asked to go to combat, they go. When we had an opportunity to stand up for them, we should not have been AWOL. We should not have delayed. We should have taken action. That is what is the most shameful thing about what has happened today on this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I do. Mr. Chairman, what a difference 1 hour makes. Less than 1 hour ago on this floor the House of Representatives passed a rule for the defense appropriations bill which waives all points of order against that bill, and yet because the House leadership instructed the Committee on Rules and twisted arms to force many Republican House members to vote on a bill that does not protect a point of order on this, because of that decision, inconsistent with a rule we just passed in this House by unanimous vote less than 60 minutes ago, because of that we are basically going to put at risk the most important military housing improvement program in American history, a program that does not only improve housing and show respect in a tangible way to men and women and families, to children who are making incredible sacrifices for our country, but a measure that is saving taxpayers billions of dollars by building these houses more efficiently. In a House that ignores technicalities every single day to carry out priorities much less important than quality military housing for our families during a time of war, we are going to put this incredibly important program at risk. Finally, I want to say this. Let us be clear, this is not today just an action of one person, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). I respect the gentleman. He is a person of principle. I might disagree with the debate on fiscal responsibility when we voted 2 months ago for a $69 billion tax cut that helps Members of Congress and today we cannot afford to take care of a few thousand military families' housing, but I do respect him. He is a person of deep principle. This is not just an action of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle). This was an action which was allowed and encouraged by the House leadership by forcing an unfair rule through this House, a rule that was opposed by the Military Officers Association of America, the Association of the U.S. Army, the Air Force Association, and the National Military Family Association. This action is also something that was allowed by 212 votes, a passage of that rule by one vote, 212 to 211. One Member changing his or her vote, and we could have prevented this tragedy from happening today. Mr. Chairman, I would urge the gentleman to consider not recognizing the technicality raised here that will harm tens of thousands of military families during a time of war.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. First, let me respond to the gentleman from California's (Mr. Lewis) comments that both parties, every Member cares about our troops. I absolutely agree with that. In fact, let me repeat the statement I made on the floor yesterday on this subject, and I quote myself, ``Every one of us, Democrat and Republican alike, genuinely respects the service and sacrifice of our troops and their families. No one should doubt that fact, but I strongly believe our budget priorities should better reflect that respect.'' Those were my comments. Let me talk about partisanship. It was the Republican leadership that shoved through a rule last night or on the floor yesterday that was done on a partisan basis. In fact, it was so partisan they had to leave the vote open an extra 20, 25 minutes to, on a partisan basis, force Republicans or convince Republicans to vote against their own interests in their own districts to support a rule that is allowing 50,000 military family housing to be put at risk. Secondly, the Committee on the Budget, as I last recall, and I am a member of that committee, put together its budget on a partisan basis. That is where the partisanship came in, if it came in at all. But to totally put to bed any idea that this is a partisan issue, I have letters.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I worked for 6 months on a bipartisan basis, talking to everyone from the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget; and the chairman of the authorizing committee to try to solve this in a bipartisan manner behind the scenes. At every step of the way for 6 months people said, well, it will get done, it will get done. The problem is, we are about to take our August recess and it is not done.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the Air Force Association sent a letter to the chairman of the Committee on Rules asking them to not pass the rule that they did. The Association of the U.S. Army, a letter signed by General Gordon Sullivan, former chief of staff for the Army, put in there that ``RCI,'' the Army's housing program, ``has a tremendous positive impact on quality of life for our soldiers. ``I would ask that you work to ensure the amendment'' to protect housing ``is protected by the Rules Committee and reaches the House floor.'' The Military Officers Association of America asks that the House leadership not shove through a partisan rule that would be unfair to military families. So did the National Military Family Association. I do not think any of our colleagues would suggest that the Association of the U.S. Army and the Military Officers Association of America and these other military organizations are acting out of a partisan basis. This does not have anything to do with partisanship. It has to do with standing up for fairness for military families who are making an incredible sacrifice for the American family during a time of war; and in doing so, I will not hesitate to stand up to the Republican leadership of this House which shoved through a rule that is going to allow this housing to be put at risk, and I will not hesitate to stand up to any Democrats who would hesitate in fully supporting military housing. We all support our troops, but we have an opportunity by passing this bill without a point of order to do something tangible about it. Good intentions, goodwill do not provide better housing for 50,000 military families. Passing this bill, as we passed it out of committee in a bipartisan fashion, that is the way to make a difference for military families who are so deserving of this support.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his eloquent comments and his leadership and strong support for better quality housing for our families. I want to summarize where we are. Basically, the same House leadership that said just 2 months ago on the same day we refused to increase the cap so 50,000 new military families over the next 2 years could get new housing, in the same day they push through a $69 billion tax cut that is going to give me a $2,000 tax break. We could afford the tax break for Members of Congress but we could not afford to take care of our promise of better housing for military families. Now, the gentleman talked about a poke in the eye. The final poke in the eye is this is not the only bad news that the servicemen and women and veterans are going to hear today, because the same leadership that could support the tax cuts for Members of Congress could not find a way to improve housing and fund that program for military families, the most important effective housing improvement program for our military in our Nation's history. Guess what, in the Committee on Appropriations today we voted out a veterans' health care appropriations bill that basically, well, let me tell you what the National Commander of Disabled American Veterans says about it. ``To the veterans of this Nation it is incomprehensive that our government cannot afford to fund their medical care and benefits programs at a time it can afford generous tax cuts costing hundreds of billions of dollars more.'' The American Legion, the DAV, the VFW all went on to say that the leadership-pushed veterans' health care bill today is going to cut, after inflation, real veterans' health care services by $1.3 billion. Now with the action of the leadership yesterday on the rule and one Member of the House today, we will say to 50,000 military families, we will break our promise to you of better housing. I think that is a terrible message for us to send our military families. While we go on a month long recess and vacation they are sitting there looking at veterans' health care cuts and frozen programs.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Let me put a face on these people. We are talking about 1,194 military families at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska will next year have their housing delayed. In New York at Fort Drum, 2,272 military families, many of whom had loved ones that had already served in Iraq, will have their housing program this year frozen. In Florida, Eglin and Hurlburt Air Force Bases 2,739 military families will have their housing promises broken. In Virginia 1,268 families at Langley. In Texas, Sheppard Air Force Base 1,288 families. This is one more broken promise to our military families at a time when they are making incredible sacrifices to our country. What it does, we talked about a 1.6 percent increase for military construction in this bill, but the truth is that once this objection is raised then that will not allow us to even spend that meager amount of funding for our housing program. So we could end up with an actual cut not only in veterans' health care during a time of war this year, we could end up with an actual cut in military construction during a time of war. That is unconscionable coming from a leadership that said we could afford to give Members of Congress a tax cut just 2 months ago.

Mr. EDWARDS. Six thousand new Army homes.

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