Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the House Republican leadership has allowed more time to debate the renaming of post offices from the floor this year than time to debate the Defense authorization bill during a time of war. It is sad. It is sad that the muzzling of democracy continues here in the United States, even as American citizens die and try to bring democracy to Iraq. Mr. Speaker, this rule is unfair. I would say that the bill itself has many positive things to it, and I do salute much of the bipartisan effort that went into shaping the Defense authorization bill itself. Let me discuss two specific parts of the bill, one positive and one of great concern to me. On a positive note, the bill finally improves benefits for pensions for widows of servicemen and -women. This had been long overdue to change this unfair treatment of military widows. The sergeant's wife, for example, that served 20 years in the Army, only receiving a $7,000 a year pension. I salute the Republicans who supported it in committee, and I want to thank the veterans organizations and the 200 Democrats who joined in my petition to pressure a vote on this long overdue consideration. Second, it is unfortunate that this bill does not take action to continue this next year the largest, most important housing improvement program in our Nation's military history; and it is really sad when we consider tomorrow the House Republican leadership will push a tax cut bill that will provide self-serving tax cuts for Members of Congress; but today, we are saying to 24,000 military families, we cannot afford to improve the housing that they live in, even if their loved one is someone serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Self-serving tax cuts for Members of Congress being more important than improving military housing for those servicemen and -women sacrificing and serving our Nation in Iraq? It is wrong. This rule is wrong. Vote ``no'' and let us reconsider this bill under new regulations and rules.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the record. The committee dealt with the housing cap to allow improved military housing starting in fiscal year 2006, but it only adds $1 for the cap in 2005. So that means 24,452 military families will have their housing improvement plans put on hold even as their loved ones are fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. Thirteen military bases will have their housing programs basically frozen, even though tomorrow we are going to vote to provide a tax cut for Members of Congress.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if I have to choose with standing with The Washington Post or the Disabled American Veterans, the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars in protecting veterans health care services, I think I will stick with the veterans groups. Let us look at the bipartisan statement that was made, a letter signed by the Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the House in the last several weeks, saying that we need a $2.5 billion increase in veterans health care just to keep from cutting veterans health care services during time of war. The bottom line is they may not like it or not, but the Republican leadership who have to pay for their failed economic policies that have led to the highest deficits in American history want to ask veterans to balance this budget now on the backs of people who have already sacrificed for our country and people who are sacrificing in Iraq today. The truth and the facts are stubborn things to fight, and the fact is they can throw out all the quotes from The Washington Post they want, but this budget will cut veterans health care services by over $1 billion during a time of war. That is wrong and it is unfair, and it is why veterans groups are asking for the defeat of this unfair budget resolution.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I do not think the AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion, distinguished respected veterans groups who fought in all parts of this world, its millions of members are snookered by this legislation. I think they understand exactly what this legislation is doing. It is not keeping up with health care inflation, and it will require a cut of $1.3 billion in veterans health care services. If the Republicans in the Congress think veterans get health care that is too good and the lines are too short at our VA hospital, so be it. I think it is the American people that would be snookered by the passage of a resolution such as this, not our veterans. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Green). (Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, what a difference a week makes. A week ago and one day from today this House passed unanimously a resolution saying that we should express our gratitude for the ``valiant service of our troops in Iraq.'' And yet today the House Republican leadership in order to continue its failed status quo policies that led to the highest deficit in American history, the worst job growth since the Hoover administration, has once again gone so far as to honor our troops, our future veterans with their words but cut the budget for veterans health care with their deeds. That is not the viewpoint of a Democrat or a Republican. That is the view point of the American Legion. Steve Robertson, director of the American Legion, said in a letter, in the last 2 days, the American Legion has activated its grassroots lobbying efforts to defeat H. Con. Res. 393, the budget resolution for FY 05 through fiscal year 09. Well, let us look at what the Disabled American Veterans said. Their national commander, Alan Bowers, said, ``To the veterans of this Nation, it is incomprehensible that our government cannot afford to fund their medical care and benefit programs at a time it can afford generous tax cuts costing hundreds of billions more.'' AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America, all of them are saying what the American people believe. It is wrong and it is unfair to cut veterans health care services by $1.3 billion, as this budget does, to pay for a failed economic policy. We must support our troops in Iraq today who are tomorrow's veterans with our deeds, not just our words. Once again, as we saw last March, the Republicans have come to the floor of the House and during the same month they vote to salute our troops with resolutions, they vote to cut our troops' future health care benefits with their budget votes. The reality is while they may argue they are increasing veterans health care, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs says this budget resolution will cut veterans health care by $1.3 billion this year. Whether one is a Republican or a Democrat, liberal, moderate or conservative, north, south, east or west, it does not reflect the values of the American people to be asking for more sacrifice from those troops in Iraq today who are already risking their limbs and lives. And I know about that because I was in Baghdad. I was in Iraq. I have saw American soldiers who had been wounded in Iraq. I saw them in German hospitals. They have given enough for our country. Republicans in this House have no right to ask them to give more by having their veterans health care services cut by over a billion dollars and by $21 billion over 5 years. That is wrong.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, at the request of the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), to manage time until he returns to the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for the purpose of discussing the underfunding of veterans benefits in this budget, a Vietnam veteran and also the ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Iowa, let me say that I proudly voted against this budget resolution in the Committee on the Budget last week because it woefully underfunds veterans' health care. I am certainly in good company with the Disabled American Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and AMVETS. I will proudly stand up with these veterans in opposing in committee and on the floor an inadequate bill that will cut health care services for veterans.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, ``Passage of the budget resolution as presented would be a disservice to those men and women who have served this country and who are currently serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world in the fight against terrorism.'' Those are not my words; those are not the words of some Democrat. They are the words written in a letter yesterday to all House Members signed by the legislative directors of the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, AMVETS, and the Paralyzed Veterans of America. Why is it these nonpartisan, respected national veterans organizations are strongly opposing this budget resolution? The answer is simple: they believe, as I do, that it is wrong and unfair to reduce veterans health care services during a time of war. Now, my Republican colleagues will tell Members that this bill increases veterans health care spending. It is what they do not tell Members that will harm veterans all across America. The truth is this budget for veterans health care does not even keep track with inflation. The truth is this budget will reduce veterans health care services by $1.3 billion this year and by as much as $21 billion over 5 years even though our Nation is at war. Do not trust my word for it. Let us look at a letter written by the Republican chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, an expert on veterans health care and also cosigned by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member, dated February 26, 2004. They say, as the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) pointed out, that they concluded that an additional $2.54 billion in budget authority, the VA's discretionary programs, would be needed to ensure a current services budget. Well, it looks like the Republican budget comes up about $1.3 billion short, and that means cuts in real health care services to real veterans. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that House Republicans continue to pass resolutions on this floor honoring our troops in Iraq while at the same time cutting our future veterans, those Iraqi troops today, cutting their health care veterans benefits. Let me be specific. Last year on March 28 at 2:54 a.m. in this House, Republicans voted to cut veterans benefits by $28 billion over 10 years. At 3:02 a.m. on that same day last year, the same Republicans voted, along with all Democrats, to salute the service of our troops in Iraq. Can Members imagine that, voting to salute our troops in Iraq 8 minutes after just voting to cut their future veterans benefits, including education, health care, compensation and disability benefits by $28 billion? After Americans expressed their outrage last year at that say-one- thing-do-another technique regarding veterans, I thought we would never see that again visited in this House or on this floor, but I was mistaken. Last Wednesday, the House Budget Committee Republicans voted for an effective $1.3 billion cut in veterans health care services on the same day that we here on the floor of this House passed a bipartisan resolution saying, We want to express our gratitude for the valiant service of our troops in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, cutting veterans health care services by billions of dollars is an odd way to express gratitude to our troops or to our veterans. I used to think March Madness was a reference to collegiate basketball playoffs; but it appears March Madness has another meaning, because for 2 years in a row in the month of March, Republicans have voted to cut veterans health care services at the same time they voted for resolutions honoring our veterans and our troops. Mr. Chairman, I believe veterans understand what is going on. They find it insulting that Congress would cut veterans' health care services during a time of war. It is insulting to America's veterans to have Members on the other side of the aisle voting to cut veterans' health care services 2 years in a row in the budget resolution while passing at the same time resolutions thanking our veterans and our troops for their great service to our country. Mr. Chairman, it is time we honored our veterans and our troops with our deeds, not just our words. We should honor them with our budget votes, not just with our rhetoric and floor speeches. Maybe that is why DAV National Commander Alan Bowers said very recently, ``To the veterans of this Nation it is incomprehensible that our government cannot afford to fund their medical care and benefit programs at a time it can afford generous tax cuts costing hundreds of billions of dollars more.'' The Democratic alternative increases veterans' health care spending by $1.3 billion, so we do not cut veterans' health care during a time of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the war on terrorism. We increase veterans' health care spending in the Republican alternative by $6.6 billion over the next 5 years. I say once again, we should honor our troops in Iraq today and tomorrow's veterans, which they are, with our budget votes here on the floor of the House, not just with our rhetoric in speeches in Washington and in speeches back home.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond to the previous speaker. I certainly hope we will get off the economic track we have been on that has led to the largest deficits in American history and the worst job loss record since the Herbert Hoover administration. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations in the House.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to further extend my remarks from the Debate on H.R. 3030 on February 4 2004. In my remarks on H.R. 3030, Mr. Boehner and I discussed portions of the 1972 debate addressing the 702 exemption of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The following provides more in-depth explanations of Senator Ervin and Senator Allen's comments in 1972 regarding this issue. Please insert these comments at the end of my remarks or appropriate place regarding this debate. I believe it is important to consider the rest of the 1972 legislative history on the amendment to the 702 exemption of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and to discuss the comments of the lead proponents of the 1972 amendment to the 702 exemption of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Senators Sam Ervin (D-NC) and James Allen (D-AL). You will find that these senators rallied support for broadening this exemption by citing examples of religious institutions that they said did not receive federal financial aid, but were supported by private funds. It underscores my point about the difference between discrimination with private funds and discrimination with taxpayer funds. I recommend for the House's consideration an article that will be published soon entitled, Religion-based Employment Decisions and Federally Funded Jobs: Congressional Debate, Law and Policy, written by Melissa Rogers, Visiting Professor of Religion and Public Policy at Wake Forest University. Rogers is former executive director of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and former general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee, and she has spent a lot of time working on this issue. Rogers writes: ``It is true . . . that [Senators Ervin and Allen, the prime proponents of the 1972 amendment to the 702 exemption of Title VII] considered an institution-wide exemption for religious organizations from Title VII to be crucial to religious autonomy and freedom. It is often recalled, for example, that Senator Ervin repeatedly said that his amendment was designed `to take the political hands of Caesar off of the institutions of God, where they have no place to be.' ``But what has not been recalled,'' Rogers notes, ``is that, in his argument for allowing religious organizations to make religion-based employment decisions institution-wide, Senator Ervin repeatedly used an example of a religious institution from his home state that, as he stressed, `[was] not supported in any respect by the Federal Government,' but by religious adherents.'' Specifically, Senator Ervin said the following: ``We have a college in North Carolina known as Davidson College that is affiliated with the Southern Presbyterian Church. Davidson College is supported by the fees of its students and by the voluntary contributions of people interested in its activities. It is not supported in any respect by the Federal Government . . . This college was founded and is controlled by people who believe in giving a Christian education to the students of the institution . . . [It has] a regulation, which says that any person who is chosen to be a full professor at the institution shall be a member of an Evangelical Christian Church . . .'' Senator Ervin then asked Senator Allen, his colleague and supporter: Is there ``anything immoral or ought [there] to be anything illegal in people who support a college devoted to giving a Christian education taking steps to assure that the youth who attend it should be instructed on any subject, whether religious or nonreligious, by teachers who are members of a Christian church?'' And, in response to a question later in the debate, Ervin emphasized again that Davidson College was ``supported by fees of the students and voluntary gifts of people who believe in giving the kind of education this institution gives.'' Senator Allen echoed this argument in his own statements. He commented: ``Under our system of religious freedom, which would be violated by this EEOC bill, religious organizations have seen fit to use their own resources to establish church schools at every level of education--elementary, secondary, and institutions of higher education. They did so because they wanted youth taught in a religious atmosphere and by Christian instructors.'' Senator Allen also quoted Senator Ervin stating: `` `[I]f the members of the Presbyterian Church, or the members of the Catholic Church, or the members of the Lutheran Church, or the members of any other religious body see fit to establish, through their own resources, an institution of learning for the instruction of youth, and they want the youth of that institution to be taught by persons they regard as Christian professors, even in nonreligious subjects such as mathematics or trigonometry or philosophy, they should have the unqualified right to do that.' '' Accordingly, Professor Rogers concludes: ``The 1972 legislative history reveals that the lead sponsors of the 702 amendment rallied support for their amendments by offering examples of religious institutions that they said did not receive government financial aid, but were supported with private funds. Far from supporting [religious discrimination in publicly funded jobs], this evidence cuts directly against it. Thus, any suggestion that the 1972 legislative history offers support for allowing religious organizations to make religion- based employment decisions with regard to government-funded positions is simply incorrect.'' So, if those most interested in this amendment to the 1964 Civil Rights Act would go back and look at the debate, he or she would find that Senators Ervin and Allen were rallying support for broadening the 702 exemption by referring to religious institutions that they said were supported with private money. But we are not talking about those kinds of situations today. Instead, we are talking about the people's money, the American tax dollar, and I think there is a huge difference there.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, there is something ironic when we have 17,000 soldiers from my district in Fort Hood, Texas, fighting for democracy in Iraq, yet right here on the floor of the House with this bill the House leadership is denying democracy in the people's House of Representatives in America. Basically, what is happening is that we are being denied, 435 Members are being denied the right to even vote on an amendment to this bill. Regardless of the substance of amendments, that is wrong. We cannot be preaching democracy in Iraq and fighting for it there while denying democracy here in America. Secondly, for this bill to be called the Social Security Protection Act, I think it needs a large asterisk, Mr. Speaker, because the same people pushing this legislation are the ones who are the architects of the largest fiscal deficit disaster in American history. The greatest threat to the solvency of Social Security, its trust fund and benefits for seniors is the massive $7 trillion national debt that is stealing money away from the Social Security Trust Fund, money that should be saved to provide benefits for Social Security recipients. So let us point out that, despite some of the good things in this bill, the fact is that this is not going to truly protect Social Security unless the leadership and the administration are willing to change their fiscal policies and stop the largest deficits in American history that are stealing $200 billion in just the last years from the Social Security Trust Fund. Thirdly, while I support most of the specific reforms in this bill, I take great exception to the provisions that I think will harm not just firefighters and police officers, those who are protecting our homeland from burglars and problems here at home, as well as threats from abroad, but this is going to hurt soldiers. And let me tell my colleagues how. The 17,000 soldiers from Fort Hood, Texas, who are in Iraq right now are paying Social Security taxes. When they get home, if they finish 20 years of service in the military and then they decide to continue that public service as a public schoolteacher in Texas, they are basically, under this bill, going to be punished in their retirement benefits, simply because they served our country for 20 years in the military, paid Social Security taxes, and they are going to have those Social Security benefits reduced. It is wrong to be saluting them with our words, our soldiers in Iraq, while passing legislation today that is going to hurt thousands of Texas soldiers fighting in Iraq from being able to become a public schoolteacher and still receive the Social Security benefits that they have already paid into for 20 years. The ultimate victim of this bill is going to be the children of States like Texas. Because, right now, teachers are planning on retiring in Texas, experienced teachers in communities that desperately need them to stay in the classroom. But this bill is going to deny those teachers an opportunity to receive their full Social Security benefits within the public school classroom. Mr. Speaker, this bill should be defeated. This rule should be defeated. It is wrong.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if I could respond to that, then I would be glad to yield, because I appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion on this, I think if the gentleman would go back and look at the debate, including Senator Sam Irvin's comments on the Title VII exemption to the Civil Rights Act and the amendments thereto, you would find that the focus there was saying that Baptist churches with their own money should have the right to hire Baptist pastors; a Jewish Synagogue with its own money ought to have the right to hire a Jewish rabbi, rather than a Baptist pastor. I think there is a real serious question about suggesting that Title VII said it is perfectly okay for a faith-based group to take Federal tax dollars and say, ``Mr. Boehner, I am not hiring you today because you do not pass my personal religious test.'' Let us put Title VII aside for a moment. There might be differences of opinion about what is in it. Let us discuss the direct principle. Why should any American citizen have to pass another American citizen's personal religious test to qualify for a Federal education program or a job training program? Why should it be legal for a group to accept a $5 million Head Start or job training grant from the taxpayers and say we are not going to hire Jews or Catholics? Or it might be a Muslim group that says we are not going to hire Christians. In the land that cherishes religious freedom, do you really believe that that is a good public policy?

Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, I will be glad to answer that question, and then I will give the gentleman time to answer my question. I would say, first of all, I disagree with the gentleman that the Title VII exemption gave faith-based groups a carte blanche to use public tax dollars to discriminate in job hiring. The second thing is, when they accept Federal money, they already, under long-standing law, agree not to proselytize. So when you accept taxpayer money, there are certain standards you accept. My question back to the gentleman is does he think it is okay for a faith-based group to receive a $5 million job training grant and say we are not going to hire you because you are Jewish or Catholic? Is that okay?

Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, there are cases starting to come to the surface. For example, in the State of Florida or Georgia, a Jewish citizen, perfectly qualified for a job, was denied the right to a job simply because he was Jewish. Now, again, I differ with the idea that the Title VII exemption of the Civil Rights Act allowed faith based groups to exercise religious discrimination or, in the worst cases, religious bigotry. But I at least want to clarify, at least the gentleman is saying, for whatever reasons he mentioned, groups ought to be able to do with public tax dollars whatever they want; the gentleman is saying that it is okay for a faith-based group running a federally funded jobs training program to say to a Jew or a Catholic or a Christian of one denomination or another, we are not going to hire you even though you are perfectly qualified for this job, simply because of your religious faith. I think most Americans would think that type of religious discrimination is absolutely wrong, especially when we consider we cannot fund religious programs. We all agree that is prohibited under Federal law. So what we are doing is we are funding social programs. Why should your religious faith have an affect on whether you can ladle soup at a soup kitchen or train a 5-year-old child? Perhaps we have just an honest disagreement. I think it is wrong for a group to say with tax dollars we are not going to hire you because of your personal religious faith. Perhaps the gentleman feels that these groups ought to be able to discriminate in that fashion. And if he does, then at least that is an honest debate and we will let the American people decide which side they come down on. One other point. I would challenge the gentleman. Other than the gentleman's tremendous knowledge as the chairman of this committee, there were not 10 Members out of 435 in this House that knew the discrimination language was in there in 1998. I have gone back and chronicled the first 3 or 4 times that we passed charitable choice language like this. The first time was the Welfare Reform Act. Virtually no one in the House, other than maybe the conferees, some of them, knew it was in there. The second time we passed it was at about 1 o'clock in the morning. The third time was at about 12:30 in the morning with 2 or 3 Members on the floor. Every time we passed it Members would say, We already passed this before. People did not know it was in there. So I think all of that is irrelevant. The fundamental question is should an American citizen be discriminated against for a tax-funded job simply because he or she is exercising their deeply-felt personal religious faith. In my opinion, that kind of subsidized Federal bigotry based on religious faith is a prescription for disaster in this country. And President Clinton, when he signed this legislation and other legislation with charitable choice language in it, made it very clear he did not support that kind of discrimination, and he only signed the bill because of the other good things in it, and his administration had no intention of letting that kind of discrimination occur. With this administration, the present Bush administration, they have said no, it is okay to discriminate against someone based on their religion.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's honest comments. This is the kind of dialogue that this subject deserves. It is too important of an issue when we talk about religious freedom to be debated in a 10-minute debate at 1:30 a.m. So I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to have this honest debate. I would conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that I strongly disagree with the notion that the 1964 Civil Rights Act clearly made it legal for faith-based groups in America to accept millions, and now in this case billions of Federal dollars, and say, We are not hiring you because you are Jewish or because you are Catholic, or because you are Baptist, or because you are Muslim. And I do not think we have to totally revisit the 1964 Civil Rights Act; I think we could just come here on the floor of the House and have an up-front debate. It is very simple. It is, Do you believe that it is okay for groups to discriminate in job hiring using tax dollars, based on no other reason than that person's personal religious faith? I am confident that the vast majority of Americans do not like religious discrimination. They are appalled with religious bigotry, and while they understand, as I do, that Baptists and Methodists and Jews and Muslims should be able to hire people of their faith, using their own money, once they accept public tax dollars as a funding source, then they accept the obligation that in America, with tax dollars, you do not discriminate against your fellow citizens simply because of their deeply held religious faith. Mr. Speaker, before I yield further, the gentlewoman from New York has been very gracious with time. I have appreciated this discussion. I see my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) on the floor.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and I welcome a 3-person discussion of this question of religious discrimination and religious freedom in America.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would just say to the gentleman, he and I came to the House together 14 years ago and we know on a daily and weekly basis we utilize rule time to discuss what is in a bill. Obviously, I do not like this rule because it allowed a bill to come to the floor that I find deeply offensive to the First Amendment protection of religious freedom. But if this was an issue important enough for Madison and Jefferson to debate for 10 years in the Virginia legislature, the issue of religious freedom in America, then certainly it is worthy of our discussion here on the floor. I guess what I would like to ask the gentleman is just do you not think it is wrong that you would have to pass my personal religious test to qualify for a tax-funded job? Why should you have to pass my religious test? Why should I have the right to give you a religious test to qualify for a job that is being paid for by the American taxpayers?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentlewoman from Tennessee before she leaves the Chamber if she would be willing to have a discussion. I would be glad to yield some time to have a discussion on the issue of whether a group should be able to say with tax dollars that we are not hiring Jews or we are not hiring Catholics in this job training program or education program, even though you are perfectly qualified for that job. My friend and colleague the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) is on the floor, and I would be glad to yield for the purpose of a discussion.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and then back to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).