Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. First let me again thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) for his incredible leadership year in and year out to our servicemen and - women. As the person in this House who has responsibility for overseeing personnel matters, he has been a tremendous leader and I thank him. Our military families are living a better quality of life because of his leadership. I am very grateful that today we are not disagreeing with the vote on this motion to instruct, while there may be some subtle difference in what the approach should be. In terms of responding to the gentleman's comments, I just say, I would welcome his leadership in helping us work on a bipartisan basis to address any inequities to our servicemen and - women that are single parents. Obviously, a single parent with two children back home that is separated from those children has an additional cost of living. I am not sure either the House or Senate position on this bill really addresses that inequity. I thank the gentleman for pointing out that problem, and I hope we could work together with him on that. Let me just conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, why I think clarity is so important, and I do not think the gentleman argues with this at all. Let me read some excerpts from some letters from soldiers in my district where Fort Hood is represented, the only two-division Army installation in America today, an installation that presently has over 18,000 troops deployed to Iraq. One letter said to me, ``Congressman, I am sickened with the flow of information regarding the upcoming cut in separation pay and hostile fire pay. I keep asking myself, Why? Our government is giving away billions of dollars to help other countries and millions just for information. Yet they are going to cut our benefits by $225. If anything, our military should be getting paid more, not less.'' The second letter, reflecting also the confusion out there across our military families: ``Congressman, is it true that the government is trying to make obsolete the family separation allowance and the hazardous duty hostile fire pay that soldiers are receiving while they are overseas? My husband is over in Iraq and he works hard for his country to see that his family has a safe life over here. I'm trying to convince him to reenlist, but with what the government is doing to these soldiers, it's hard to try and convince them that the military is the best way to go.'' The letter goes on to talk about the sacrifices of the families. I think it just emphasizes the point that, right or wrong, there is confusion across the country with our military families about whether their separation pay and hostile fire pay is going to be cut in the next several weeks. If the conferees will accept this motion to instruct, then we can get rid of those rumors, get rid of the uncertainty and send a clear message that we do respect our servicemen and -women, their families and their sacrifices with our actions and not just with our words. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all my colleagues on a bipartisan basis to support this motion to instruct, support our troops wherever they might be serving in harm's way. We can thank them tonight with a meaningful commitment to ensure that their pay is not going to be cut in the weeks ahead.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Larsen), who is a distinguished member of the House Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the distinguished senior member of the House Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), who is the ranking member of the House Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), who represents the very important installation at Fort Bragg and has done so so ably.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, my motion would instruct the conferees working on the Defense authorization bill to recede to the Senate bill on section 606 and 619. Specifically, Section 606 would make permanent the increase of military separation pay from $100 per month to $250 a month. Section 619 would make permanent the increase to hostile fire and imminent danger special pay from $150 a month to $225 a month. Mr. Speaker, what we are really talking about here is that in the past year, Congress voted to show respect to our service men and women making tremendous sacrifices fighting the global war on terrorism, service men and women, who are in all parts of the globe from South America to Europe to Asia to the Middle East, to virtually every section of the globe. What we are saying is that when they leave their family for 6 months or 12 months and when they are put into a hostile situation, a country ought to thank them as a serviceman or woman and we ought to thank their family not just with our words of rhetoric, but with our deeds here in the House, and this is why we gave in effect a $225 increase to those service men and women under the threat of hostile action, serving also away from their families. Now $225 a month may not mean a lot to some Americans, but to our hardworking, dedicated, patriotic service men and women, it is oftentimes the difference between paying their bills that month or not while their loved ones are split because of service to country. What the House version of this bill would do is not provide certainty to these service men and women serving in Nations such as Liberia today, serving in Kosovo and Bosnia, that their income each month will not be cut. The Senate version actually would provide certainty and say to them we respect what they are doing, we are not going to cut their pay. I think it would be tragic that at a time when our service men and women and their families are making incredible sacrifices on behalf of our country for us to leave any uncertainty that hundreds of thousands or them, or tens of thousands of them could actually have a pay cut during a time of war, during our fight against global terrorism. So what this motion to instruct is all about is respect to our service men and women about certainty so that they do not have to worry, while they are worrying about the very lives of their loves ones in combat situations and hostile situations, they do not have to worry also about their monthly income being cut by the same government that is thanking them daily in speeches here on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 7 minutes. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank my special friend and the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), the fellow co-chair of the House Army Caucus. The gentleman has been a real leader on military issues here in Congress. I want to thank the gentleman for asking his fellow Republican colleagues not to oppose this motion to instruct because as late as 2 hours ago, I heard that the House Republican leadership was actually going to oppose our effort to make it absolutely certain and clear we are not going to reduce family separation pay or imminent danger pay for servicemen and -women serving in all parts of the globe. I appreciate the gentleman not asking his colleagues to oppose this motion. I understand and I respect as he said that there are differences of approaches. What I would like to make clear is the approach that we are trying to take in this motion to instruct. There are really four problems I would like to point out with the House language relative to the Senate language. First of all, in the House language, there is no permanence for the increased $225 that a service member and his or her family can receive today in serving in very dangerous parts of the world. That pay could go away if we do not have the Senate language. They deserve clarity. They deserve certainty. Secondly, under the House language, for a military soldier in Kosovo or Bosnia today, his family gets $250 a month in family separation pay. That will drop to $100 a month on October 1 of this year, just in a few days. People serving in areas that because of the terrorist activities around the world, because of heightened tension in countries such as Korea, Kosovo, and Bosnia, could actually have their military pay cut by the same government that is saluting them daily in floor speeches. I think that is wrong. I think that is a problem, a serious problem with the House language, and that is the second reason why I am asking my colleagues to join me in support of this motion to instruct. The third problem I have with the House language and approach to this problem is that soldiers and troops receiving $225 a month in imminent danger pay right now in countries such as Liberia, Bosnia and Kosovo could actually have their pay cut under the House language. I do not know how many of our colleagues have visited Liberia and Bosnia and Kosovo, but I think most Members would agree, as would the Department of Defense, that is a dangerous place to be right now and we should not have them have their imminent danger pay cut by $75 a month while they are serving in those far reaches of the globe today, far away from their families. The fourth point I would make is that I think it is better for the Department of Defense to continue deciding which countries should be designated as imminent danger or hostile fire countries. I do not like the idea of Congress making that decision in an armed services bill. I do not think we are qualified to do that. What my motion to instruct is really about is about two things: It is about certainty, certainty to our military families that they are not going to have their pay cut by as much as $225 in the next several weeks. And it is about respect. It is about respecting the incredible sacrifices, the risk of limb and life that tens of thousands of our service members from all across America are facing today. We should show that respect not just in our speeches, but in a vote on this motion to instruct. I do want to clarify one point, and I want to be sure I am clear on this with my colleague from New York. He talked about, under the Senate language, two soldiers on patrol in the same place, one soldier could get more money than the other. Unless I misunderstand the argument, the reason for that, and I want to be clear, one soldier is married and one soldier is not married, and this country pays family separation pay to married troops because they have families back home that have to pay extra perhaps baby-sitting costs, they have to pay extra telephone costs to their spouses, they have perhaps baby-sitting costs that could be very substantial, and certainly there is a reason why we provide family separation pay to troops that are married and have families whereas we do not provide family separation pay for troops that do not have spouses back home, children back home. I think that is a logical consequence, and I think it is important for our servicemen and -women, perhaps they are watching this debate, to not be confused by that argument. But again the key point is if we adopt the House language as presently written, we could have tens of thousands of American servicemen and -women and their families losing as much as $225 a month in pay in the next several weeks. Under the Senate language, we send a clear message, a message they deserve to hear, that that is not going to happen. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged motion.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, subject to rule XX, clause 7(c), I hereby announce my intention to offer a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The form of the motion is as follows: Mr. Edwards moves that the managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill H.R. 1588 be instructed to agree to the provisions contained in sections 606 and 619 of the Senate amendment (relating to the rates of pay for the family separation allowance and imminent danger pay).

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. ``The House leadership has deceived us.'' Those are not our words, those are the words of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Commander-in-Chief Ray Sisk in his press release of July 17, just a few days ago. ``A clear betrayal of the assurances made to America's veterans by the House Republican leadership.'' Those are not my words, those are the words of the VFW press release of July 17. ``This meager increase is simply inadequate to provide health care to sick and disabled veterans, and represents a flagrant disregard to promises made to veterans by this Congress.'' Those are not my words. They come from the National Legislative Director of AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans of America and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would add a desperately needed $2.2 billion to our veterans' health care system. Our veterans deserve those dollars. My view is that a Nation that can afford trillion dollar tax cuts that help our wealthiest citizens can and should afford to take care of our veterans who have sacrificed so much for our country. I think it is time for some straight talk with veterans. They need to know what this debate is all about. Let me tell Members the steps we have gone through to get here. Step 1. On March 20 during the first days of the Iraqi war this year, House Republicans voted for a budget resolution that, yes, cut veterans' benefits by $28 billion over the next 10 years. Step 2. When Democrats and veterans organizations expressed outrage from one end of our country to another, the Republicans in the House, who drastically cut veterans programs even during a time of war in Iraq, during the first days of that war, Republicans scrambled to find some cover. Step 3. The Republicans found the cover. It was to offer the promise of a $1.8 billion increase in funding for VA health care this year. In fact, on March 20, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) put out a press release, ``I am pleased we reached agreement for a $1.8 billion increase.'' Republicans sent out releases like this bragging about this commitment to our veterans all over the country. That was step 3, and then what happened: Step 4. It was not good news for veterans. The House Republican leadership, after allowing these kinds of press releases to go out from its Members, said, Nope, we are going to take away every dime of those $1.8 billion that we promised to you, America's veterans. Step 5. Veterans groups made the quotes that I just read to you, ``clear betrayal,'' ``House leadership has deceived us.'' Then what happened? Step 6. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and I, a Republican and a Democrat respectively, offered amendments to the Committee on Rules to increase veterans' health care spending by $1.8 and $2.2 billion respectively. Even though the Committee on Rules protects amendments from points of order on a daily basis in this process and we all know that, in this case the Committee on Rules and the Republicans on it last night said, you know, we are not going to make that kind of exception for veterans even in time of war. We are not going to protect amendments that would actually increase VA health care spending. Step 7. By voting ``no'' on that rule, we could say to the House Republican leadership, you are wrong, we should stand up for veterans today because tomorrow's veterans are fighting today in Iraq. 189 Democrats voted with veterans to kill that rule but only seven out of 229 Republicans voted against that rule. Why? We know. The Republican leadership threatened them. If they voted ``no'' on that rule, they were going to pay a terrible price for it. Step 8. Republicans who were missing in action when we could have actually killed the rule that prohibited an increase in veterans spending said, I better get down to the floor and give an eloquent speech about standing up and fighting for veterans. So they have done that over the last couple of hours, knowing full well that this bill is going to pass even though they vote ``no.'' So they were missing in action when we needed them; but after the cease-fire was drawn, the agreements were made, they came running in with their rifles and said, boy, I want to stand up and fight for our veterans. Step 9. This bill will pass and we all know it. VA health care funding will be $2 billion less than it should be. Step 10. The Members who were missing in action and voted against veterans when they voted for this rule that stopped our helping veterans with more money, they will put out press releases telling veterans how they gave eloquent speeches on the floor of the House opposing this terrible bill. Mr. Chairman, this is how our veterans get the shaft while Members are covering themselves. It is wrong. We ought to pass this amendment that will now be ruled out of order.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank and commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for her farsightedness in writing a bill which now will be incorporated into this measure to name the Houston VA Medical Center after the renowned American, Dr. Michael DeBakey. My mentor in politics, Olin Teague, one of the greatest of all World War II veterans, has a VA hospital named after him in Temple. I think that kind of honor meant more to him than all the awards given to him through his lifetime. And I want to congratulate the gentlewoman from Houston for honoring our veterans, for honoring Dr. DeBakey by writing the legislation, which now, through this bill, will become the law of the land. This is an honor deserved by Dr. DeBakey, and I appreciate her for bringing this legislation to the forefront so that it could be put in this bill.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the most powerful statement made in this debate this morning is the deafening silence of House Republicans. I hope veterans all across America have noticed that only one Republican out of over 200 in this House had the courage to say that we should have just the right to be able to vote for an amendment to increase veterans health care spending this year by $2 billion. Deafening silence. Broken promises to veterans in time of war, inadequate funding for veterans health care. That is what Republicans are saying when they vote yes on this rule.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as we speak from the comfort and security of this House Chamber, tomorrow's veterans are putting their lives on the line in Iraq today. That is why this rule is shameful. With this rule, the House Republican leadership has guaranteed inadequate funding for veterans health care during a time of war. And to add insult to injury, the House Republican leadership has broken its recent promises with this rule to veterans. How? By ensuring that we cut VA health care funding by $1.8 billion less than they promised our veterans just a few weeks ago. Do not listen to just my voice; more importantly, listen to the voices of America's veterans' leaders. Let us go to Ron Conley, the national commander of the American Legion. He said this: ``I have visited over 60 VA medical facilities across the country only to find that budgetary shortfalls are preventing hundreds of thousands of Americans from receiving timely access to quality health care.'' He goes on to say that to fund VA medical care short of that recommendation in the House budget resolution ``sends a chilling message to those who served in the liberation of Iraq.'' Shameful, Mr. Speaker. Let us talk about broken promises. It would be wrong to break promises to veterans in any year, but to do so in a time of war is absolutely inexcusable. The VFW in its national press release just a week ago calls this bill without the amendment that has been prohibited with this rule to increase veterans funding by $2.2 billion ``a clear betrayal of the assurances made to America's veterans by the House Republican leadership.'' VFW Commander in Chief Ray Sisk said on July 17, ``The House leadership has deceived us.'' The national legislative directors of AMVETS, Paralyzed Veterans, and Veterans of Foreign Wars said this: ``This represents a flagrant disregard to promises made to veterans by this Congress.'' I think I know what is happening. The Republican leadership is carrying out the will of its majority leader, Tom DeLay, who said not long ago that in time of war nothing is more important than tax cuts. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. DeLay would tell that into the eyes and into the faces of the 20,000 soldiers from my district that are presently putting their lives on the line in Iraq. This rule that prohibits a $2.2 billion increase in veterans health care guarantees broken promises to our veterans in time of war, and it guarantees inadequate funding for veterans health care. That is shameful. Vote ``no'' on this rule and in doing so let us support America's veterans. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor the distinguished career of Dr. James L. Williamson. At Baylor University in my hometown, he is not just a teacher, but he is also a mentor and an exemplar of professionalism upon the educational landscape. His service in the development of educational leadership, founded in the principle of integrity and manifested in research and the identification of best practice, continues to positively impact children. His passion for education has directly resulted in a growing association of principals, superintendents, and other school leaders who mirror his model of servant leadership. As a beacon of guidance and hope, Dr. Williamson has dedicated his life to creating a covenant between intellectual scholarship and the call to serve in building foundations for learning, leadership, and life. That is why I rise today to honor the dedication and service Dr. Williamson has given to both Baylor University and to the education profession.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, no American citizen should have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a federally funded job. That is why I am strongly supporting the Woolsey amendment allowed under this rule. Without the Woolsey amendment, private groups could actually receive millions of Federal Head Start dollars to run Head Start programs, and then with those public tax dollars, they could hire and fire people not based on whether they could help educate and support children, but whether they passed a religious test. That is wrong. For any citizen to have to choose between his or her job and personal religious faith makes a mockery of the free exercise clause in the first amendment of our Constitution. Let me be specific, without the Woolsey amendment, a group associated with Bob Jones University could receive a multimillion dollar Federal grant and use those tax dollars to put out a sign that says this: No Jews or Catholics need apply here for a federally funded job. Now, if you think it is okay to have that kind of religious discrimination using Federal dollars, then vote against the Woolsey amendment. If, like many Americans and the vast majority of Americans, you think that that kind of religious bigotry is wrong, then vote for the Woolsey amendment. Without the Woolsey amendment, American women could be denied a federally funded Head Start job simply because a grant recipient says, in their religious beliefs, women really should not have the right to work. Without the Woolsey amendment, a Federal Head Start grantee would ask job applicants the most private of religious questions and then refuse to hire someone based on their answers. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, how Members on the floor right now would feel if somebody, while they were applying for a job, somebody asked them these questions: Are you a Christian? Are you Jewish? Are you Muslim? Did you tithe to your church last year? Do you believe in evolution or creationism? How many times did you attend church last year? What religious beliefs are you teaching your children? How many times did you pray yesterday? Protect the fundamental American principle of religious freedom by voting for the Woolsey amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, no American citizen, not one, should have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a federally funded job. That is the principle behind the Woolsey amendment. Frankly, I am appalled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would be mischaracterized by some to defend the act of religious discrimination and bigotry when using Federal tax dollars. Mr. Chairman, I want you to imagine for a moment that you are applying for a Head Start job which is funded by Federal tax dollars. You have a college degree in early childhood education. You have excellent references and 10 years of experience in working with prekindergarten children. Prior to your job interview, you prepare for days for possible questions regarding teaching methods and enhancing children's self-esteem. Then when you sit down for your job interview, the first question asked of you is this: Are you Jewish or Catholic? Puzzled about why you would be asked such a question for a Head Start job interview, you answer that your faith is a private matter and it has nothing to do with your job qualifications. But the job interviewer responds by saying, no, your job interview is over. You are not being hired because we do not hire Catholics or Jews. Offended, you say you are an American citizen and you cannot be denied a federally funded job based solely on your private, personal religious faith. The interviewer says, no, you are wrong. On July 24 of 2003, the House of Representatives in Washington passed the Head Start bill which allows me to make hiring and firing decisions based solely on your personal religious faith. Mr. Chairman, I find this scenario to be deeply offensive and so do the vast majority of Americans. I would repeat: no American citizen should have to pass someone else's religious test to qualify for a federally funded tax-supported job. Yet, by saying no to the Woolsey amendment, Members of this House would be legalizing Federal subsidies of religious discrimination and bigotry. That is wrong. Stand up for the fundamental right of religious freedom. Vote for the Woolsey amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, several weeks ago, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader of this House, said that in time of war nothing is more important than tax cuts. Well, this bill proves it. Because of the tax cuts, including dividend tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, because of the $88,000 tax cut that every American on average making over $1 million a year will receive, we now bring a bill to this House that should be an embarrassment to the Members of Congress who stood on this floor and said we should honor our servicemen and -women. I noted the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) a few minutes ago said this bill is more than a signal to our servicemen and -women. Well, I agree. It is a flashing red light. It says that while we honor you with our words, we cut your quality of life programs with our deeds and with our votes. Yes, it is more than a signal. This bill is a slap in the face to every serviceman and -woman, every military child in America who this year and in years past has made tremendous sacrifices, including the sacrifice of life, to defend our country and our way of life. The dollar figures in this bill are not the fault of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), the great chairman of this subcommittee, of which I am the ranking member. He did the very best any human could do to fairly put together the highest list of priorities given the woefully inadequate funding in this bill; but let us tell the American people, Mr. Speaker, like it is. They deserve the truth and so do our servicemen and -women. What this Republican leadership in Congress this year has said is that it is more important to give a person making more than $1 million dollar a year an $88,000 tax cut rather than an $83,000 tax cut. It is more important to do that than it is to provide adequate housing and day care and health clinics and training ranges for our brave servicemen and -women, many of whom are serving in Iraq today. Let us be clear. What this House leadership is saying is that while we salute our troops as they get on the airplane to fly to Iraq or Afghanistan and risk their lives for us, we are handing them a slip saying the administration wants to cut their children's education funding and the IMPACT aid program; and on the very night of March 21 when we voted to salute our troops in Iraq, 8 minutes later the House Republican majority voted to cut those troops' future veterans benefits by $28 billion. There is a clear record here; and, yes, it is a clear signal to our servicemen and -women. It is that we are going to cut your benefits, your housing, your children's education, your day care clinics, your health facilities in order to pay for the promise of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who said that in time of war, nothing is more important than tax cuts. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the 44,000 Army soldiers that I have the privilege to represent at Fort Hood in Texas will not get anything or very little at all out of those tax cuts, while the millionaires will average, not the millionaires but the people making over $1 million a year will average more than $88,000 in tax cuts. How serious is the housing problem for our servicemen and -women? Maybe they already have quality housing. Perhaps there is some Member of this House or some member of the public, Mr. Speaker, that has not visited our military installations recently. Maybe they think they live in the lap of luxury. Let me present the facts. The fact is that there are 83,000 servicemen and -women living in inadequate barracks that do not even meet the lowest Department of Defense standards. The truth is that there are 128,860 military families, people that on this floor just a few minutes ago were called professional, the best, clearly dedicated, 128,000 of those families are now living in housing that does not meet very low DOD standards. By the way, just for the record, let me point out what is defined as meeting the quality standard required by the Department of Defense. In the Navy that means that $15,000 could fix up your house where it could meet those lowest minimum DOD standards and you are living in adequate housing. Forget the fact that you may never get that $15,000 to fix your leaky roof or to fix the washer and dryer that are not working or to repair the damage to the structure of the house. If $15,000 would fix it, even if you never get that money to fix that house, you are living in adequate housing. The truth is, as the gentlewoman from North Carolina said, we ask a lot from our servicemen and -women; and I stand in this House today to say that this bill, despite the tremendous, valiant efforts of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) who did the best anybody could with the amount of money given to him, this bill is a slap in the face to our servicemen and -women; and just as the ``Army Times'' in its editorial recently said that our soldiers are in effect getting tired of lip service from Congress, this bill salutes them by insulting them. It defines our rhetoric of appreciation with the reality of a $1.5 billion cut in important programs that would have meant a better quality of life, better training so that many of our troops might come home safely to the hugs of their families rather than in body bags. What this House is saying, despite all the intentions that one might have, good or bad, what this House is saying with our votes is that we value more an $88,000 tax cut for millionaires, those making more than $1 million, more than them getting an $83,000 tax cut, we value that more than treating with respect our servicemen and -women. We should oppose this rule, support the Obey amendment, and back up our rhetoric with our actions.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking Democrat on the full Committee on Appropriations who made an effort earlier this day to offer an amendment that was closed off by the Republican leadership to add nearly $1 billion of commitment to our servicemen and women's quality of life programs.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) for his comments. There is no Member of this House, Democrat or Republican, over the years who has been more committed to our servicemen and -women. As critical as I am of the funding level in this bill, I know if anyone will work hard to see if we can find more money to more adequately show our respect to our servicemen and -women with our dollars in military construction, the gentleman from Florida will be the person to fight that fight and to lead that fight. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to my colleagues that my comments, my critical comments about the funding level of this bill, not the way it was put together because the gentleman from Michigan did an excellent job and a fair job in doing that, but I want people to know this criticism does not just come from one Member of Congress. I would like to read an editorial dated June 30 of the ``Army Times.'' It says, ``Nothing But Lip Service.'' ``In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.'' It goes on to say this: ``All of which brings us to the latest indignity, Bush's $9.2 billion military construction request for 2004, which was set a full $1.5 billion below this year's budget on the expectation that Congress, as has become tradition in recent years, would add funding as it drafted the construction appropriations bill. ``But Bush's tax cuts have left little elbow room in the 2004 Federal budget that is taking shape, and the squeeze is on across the board. ``The result: not only has the House appropriations military construction panel accepted Bush's proposed $1.5 billion cut, it voted to reduce construction spending by an additional $41 million next year.'' The editorial goes on after commending the gentleman from Wisconsin for his amendment to try to add nearly $1 billion to this bill to say this: ``Taken piecemeal, all these corner-cutting moves might be viewed as mere flesh wounds. But even flesh wounds are fatal if you suffer enough of them. It adds up to a troubling pattern that eventually will hurt morale, especially if the current breakneck operations tempo also rolls on unchecked and the tense situations in Iraq and Afghanistan do not ease.'' Mr. Chairman, that is a statement not from a Democrat or Republican in this House, but from the ``Army Times'' editorial. I think we should listen to the words and spirit of that editorial. I do not think our servicemen and -women are going to accept lip service. They give us dedicated service, including the risking of their lives. It is time for us to give them more than lip service when it comes to committing to making tough choices, committing to ensure that they can have a better quality of life, live in decent housing, have day care for their children and quality schools for their families.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am going to vote for this military construction bill for one reason and for one reason alone. I believe the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of our committee, has worked very hard and in a fair and bipartisan manner from day one on this bill. He and his capable staff have worked diligently and professionally to deal with a $1.5 billion military construction cut. This grossly inadequate funding level was not the decision of the gentleman from Michigan or myself. The gentleman from Michigan has a deep and genuine commitment to supporting a high quality of life for our servicemen and -women and their families. I know that firsthand. This decision was made above his pay grade and above mine. As the chairman and the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, our responsibility is to take whatever funding level is given to us and invest those resources in a way that will fund the highest possible military construction priorities. I believe that is what the gentleman from Michigan, our subcommittee, and I have done; and that is why I will vote for this bill. However, Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss and I believe it would be the height of irresponsibility for me not to speak honestly to our colleagues about what I consider to be the serious implications of cutting military construction funding by $1.5 billion. By the way, that is before the consideration of inflation. In my opinion, cutting military quality of life and military training investments during a time of war breaks faith with America's servicemen and -women and their families. I am deeply disappointed that the administration and the House leadership would say in effect that it is okay to salute our troops with our words while cutting critical military quality-of-life programs with our deeds. I believe it is wrong to salute our servicemen and -women with words while insulting them with our deeds. It is wrong in a time of war in Afghanistan for the administration in a separate bill to want to cut military education funds for military children by $173 million and to cut funds for military family housing, health care, day care and training in this bill by $1.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, we are starting to see a pattern of respect to our servicemen and -women in time of war with our rhetoric and disrespect with our priorities and our actions. Frankly, in my opinion, we are reflecting the values of the majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), who said during the Iraqi war that in time of war, nothing is more important than cutting taxes. I would like to invite the majority leader to my district to explain that statement and that value to the 44,000 soldiers I represent at Fort Hood, 20,000 of whom are overseas in Iraq today. I believe it adds insult to injury to make these cuts in military quality-of-life programs to help pay for an $88,000 tax cut for people in America living here safely, comfortably at home, not fighting in war, people making over $1 million a year. It is not just wrong; it is outrageous. As public officials, our spending priorities are a better reflection of our values than our speeches and our rhetoric. What does it say about our values in Congress when we ask Americans to go into combat in Iraq and then the administration is trying to cut those very servicemen's and -women's children's education funding by 14 percent? What does it say about our values when a person making $1 million in dividend income this year just received a $200,000 tax cut while a soldier in Iraq must read that the House has voted to cut military housing, quality-of-life and training facility projects by $1.5 billion? By the way, the House has voted to cut their future veterans benefits by $28 billion, a vote cast on March 21 just 8 minutes after we had overwhelmingly voted for a resolution saluting the service of our servicemen and -women in Iraq. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion that type of priority makes a mockery of the American ideals of fairness and shared sacrifice during time of war. What do these cuts mean? It means that tens and tens of thousands of servicemen and -women living in inadequate housing will have to continue to do so. We have 83,000 new barracks that are needed to meet minimum DOD standards for our single servicemen and -women. We have a need for 128,860 new housing units for military families who sacrifice so much for our country. This bill does not meet those needs. Why? Not because of the values or priorities of the gentleman from Michigan, but because the top leadership of this House and the administration decided that we must cut military construction by $1.5 billion to help pay for that massive tax cut that we have already signed into law. There is a lot of good in this bill, and the committee should be proud of its work. There are a lot of important priority programs funded. I salute the chairman and his very professional staff for, under very difficult circumstances, having to cut out important programs in order to adequately fund the highest-priority programs. I salute the gentleman from Michigan, his staff and the professional staff on both sides. This bill was put together without partisanship. It was put together under trying circumstances, with a last-minute decision by someone, I do not know and I do not know how, someone who said, we are going to have to cut our spending by $560 million below the amount authorized just a few weeks ago. I support this bill for the many good things in it and the good work that was done to produce it; but I say to my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, we should be ashamed that we are asking our servicemen and -women to have their housing, their quality of life, their day care, their health clinics, their training facility programs cut by $1.5 billion in time of war. We should salute our servicemen and -women and their families with our deeds, not just with our words. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there are any other speakers on this side. I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I never thought I in my 12 years in this House would come to the floor and speak out in favor of a military construction bill that cuts quality of life and training investments for servicemen and women even in time of war by $1.5 billion. I never thought I would ask my colleagues to vote for a bill that decreases Navy and Marine Corps family housing construction investment by $193 million compared to last year. I never thought I would ask my colleagues to vote for a bill that decreases family Air Force construction housing by $48 million compared to last year. But I do ask my colleagues to vote for this bill because we had to do the best we could with the allocation given to us. Because of the needs, the important needs, military family needs that this bill meets, I will vote for it. Because of the needs that will remain unmet, I will not be proud that this House will go on record as saying in time of war to our servicemen and women thanks for risking their lives, thanks for fighting in Iraq, thanks for taking care of their children at home while they are wondering if their loved one will ever come home alive, while at the same time cutting their quality of life programs by $1.5 billion. I guess it is a testament to my respect for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg), his fairness, his dedication to our servicemen and women, his commitment to working as hard as any human could to see that we make the best with an unfair, horrible situation in this funding level, that I will vote for this bill. And I do want to pay a special thanks to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) for standing up for people who often do not have someone speaking for them in this House, and that is our servicemen and women overseas, because I know there was an effort made to make additional cuts in some of those facilities. There is not much to be gained personally or politically by defending quality of life commitments overseas because those folks are not living in our districts at the time. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) said no to that kind of cut because he knew that would have been the wrong thing to do. I salute him and I hope with his dedication and the gentleman from Florida's (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Mr. Obey) and other Members of this House's dedication, we will see before this year ends we can pass a military construction bill that we can look our servicemen and women in the eye and say we are proud of them and we do salute them with more than just words. So I ask my colleagues, despite my reservations, to support the tremendous effort and work of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and our subcommittee.