Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to first thank the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen) for yielding me this time and for her courtesy and leadership on this legislation. I also want to commend and thank my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), for his courtesies, his comments, as well as his leadership and long understanding of the importance of these types of historic sites in our country as a way to educate future generations of young people in America about our history. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1925 is called the Waco Mammoth Site Study Bill; and as mentioned, it authorizes the study by the National Park Service to consider including the Waco Mammoth Site as a unit in the National Park System. Since there are numerous different designations in the National Park System, one of the goals of this study would be to determine the best fit for this historic site. Mr. Speaker, as we have also heard, the Waco Mammoth Site is the largest concentration in the world of prehistoric mammoths dying from the same event. That is what makes this particular site unique and so historically significant. It is located within the city limits of Waco, Texas, my hometown, which also happens to be a suburb of the community of Crawford, Texas, a well-known central Texas community today. It is located at the confluence of the Brazos and Bosque Rivers. The site was first discovered in 1978; and since 1984, Calvin Smith, director of the Strecker Museum at Baylor University, has been leading the effort to discovering the bones of now, I think there are even up to 24 mammoths so far. We would not be here today had it not been for the vision and dedication of Calvin Smith, and I want to thank him for his role in this legislation. What makes this site unique, as I mentioned, is the fact that so many, in fact this could be twice the size of any previous mammoth deaths at any one site for any one given cause. What I find absolutely fascinating about it is that in the mud, again considering this was 28,000 years ago, we now have the remains of a 55-year-old bull and a 45-year-old female mammoth as they tried to lift their young calves above the flood that consumed them all. It is my understanding that this is the first known recording in history of parental instincts being shown in a prehistoric setting such as this. This discovery has received worldwide attention. Experts such as Dr. Gary Haynes at the University of Nevada at Reno have said this site is a valuable and unique treasure that should not be lost. Dr. Haynes states the mammoth site, and I quote, ``is a part of America's rich heritage from the far past, when a much more diverse animal community populated the continent.'' This site can be valued as a learning tool for school children across Texas and our country, as well as a site for study by professionals. Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to approve this bill, thus bringing an invaluable archeological find one step closer to being part, as I hope, and as it should, a unit of the National Park System. I thank all of my colleagues for their courtesy, again, their leadership; and finally, Mr. Speaker, if I could just say that nothing ever happens positive in this country or in this Congress without a real team effort, and there were a lot of folks back home as well as here in Washington that worked on this. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the chairman of the Committee on Resources, for his support; the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member, for his support; the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich); the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley); the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen); and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder). Again, we would not be here today without their leadership. And back home, those who first had this vision and have worked to protect this site for years without Federal help so far, the city of Waco, its leadership, represented by Mayor Linda Etheridge and the Waco City Council and staff; people such as Margaret Mills; my friend Sam Jack McGlassen, now diseased, who originally donated this property to the city of Waco, Baylor University, for its important role in this effort; and people such as Allen Samuels and Mr. and Mrs. Buddy Bostick and so many others, who care about preserving our important history for future generations. I urge, Mr. Speaker, the House to vote in support of H.R. 1925.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this evening, Tuesday, May 14, 2002, the people of Waco and Central Texas will gather to celebrate a 44-year association that has enriched the lives of people and improved the lives and futures of young men and women. Patricia McKee became a Camp Fire volunteer in 1958, when her daughter, was a Bluebird. Pat continued as a volunteer for twelve years, and then in 1970, became Executive Director of the Camp Fire USA's seven-county Tejas Council. What followed was thirty-two years of energetic service and determined leadership in her community. Pat began by conducting a community needs survey to find ways that Camp Fire could help. She established an after-school program that continues today and is now on seven campuses of the Waco Independent School District. Camp Fire has offered parenting education, conflict resolution seminars, nutritional courses and money management classes at three of the city's public housing developments. And, in 1977, the Camp Fire Activity Center opened to provide a safe place for children to go after school. Mr. Speaker, during her tenure, Pat McKee has established partnerships with more than forty community agencies to develop programs that help young people grow into productive, contributing members of society. She has been recognized with national Camp Fire USA awards for such innovative programs as Kids Care, Teen Leadership Waco, Teen Volunteers Center, Life Enrichment Programs and Campus Camp. Those remarkable achievements on behalf of others have not gone unnoticed elsewhere. Former Governor Ann Richards recognized Pat with the Yellow Rose of Texas Award. She is a recipient of the Community Builder Award from the Masonic Grand Lodge, and the Pathfinders Award from YWCA. Now, after forty-four years of service, Pat has retired to rest and travel with her husband, Goodson, although everyone who knows her is certain that she will be volunteering her time to some nonprofit organization very soon. Mr. Speaker, Pat McKee's life has defined service to others. While the Waco community is sad to see her retire, we are, at the same time, delighted for her. And, most importantly, we are all better people for having known her.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, common sense tells us if you want to get out of a hole, you do not dig it deeper. Well, our Nation is in a deep fiscal hole; and this fiscally irresponsible bill would dig that hole much, much deeper. These are the facts. Our present national debt is right at $6 trillion. Interest on that debt last year alone costs the American taxpayers $360 billion. Last year's dreams of huge surpluses have disappeared. That is a fact. Instead, the reality is we will have a $100 billion deficit this year. And the administration is presently asking us in Congress to immediately raise our national debt ceiling by $700 billion. Yet, despite all of those facts, we are debating today a proposal that would cut taxes by $374 billion more in this decade and, yes, by $4 trillion more in the next decade. The hole is getting deeper, Mr. Speaker; and sadly, it will be our children and our grandchildren who will be trapped in it for their entire lives, paying massive amounts of taxes just to pay the interest on the debt. Our generation has no right, whether we are in an election year or not, to put that kind of unfair burden upon our children and future generations of Americans. Increasingly, the national debt harms our present economy by driving up interest rates on homes, cars, credit, and family businesses and farms. Mr. Speaker, I want to say this: if a Member wants to take credit back home this week for cutting taxes $4 trillion in this bill, then I hope he or she would be honest enough to tell his or her constituents just where you want to cut that $4 trillion. You want to cut it out of defense, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, interest on the national debt, which are increasing. Those five programs represent 70 percent of the budget. I am an appropriator. It will be interesting to look at how many Members who want to take credit for this tax cut today have letters sitting over at the Committee on Appropriations at this very moment. The fact is there are thousands of them asking for hundreds of billions of increased spending. This is an unfair rule and a bad bill. We should defeat both.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, talk may be cheap, but this bill is not. In fact, it is expensive, fiscally irresponsible and unfair. This bill is unfair to our children and grandchildren because it will add billions of dollars to the already huge $6 trillion national debt that will burden them for the rest of their lives. It is unfair to senior citizens because it takes tens of billions of dollars over the years ahead from the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. It is unfair to the Army soldiers in my district who, as we speak here today, are overseas in harm's way, sacrificing for their country, while special interests walk around the halls of Congress with their hands out and special deals. This bill is unfair to unemployed workers because it delays the extension of unemployed insurance, which we could pass today and send on to the President and help those families in the days ahead. This bill is unfair to workers, to small businesses and family farmers because while they work hard, pay their bills and pay their taxes, huge profitable corporations are saying they should not have to pay taxes. So much for shared sacrifice. We should vote no on this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I cochair the Bipartisan House Army Caucus. I represent the largest Army installation in the United States, Fort Hood. I represent over 65,000 military retirees and veterans. I will match my record in supporting veterans and a strong national defense with any Member of either party in this House. This amendment is not about fighting for veterans. If we want to fight for veterans, then maybe some Members of this House can vote ``no'' tomorrow on some tax cuts, that because of those tax cuts we will have less money for veterans' health care. This amendment would actually allow an anti-veteran, anti-defense group to run a sham ad in the last hours of a campaign under the guise of a Texans for Veterans group. So let no one be deceived. Despite the good intentions perhaps of this amendment that this is all about pro-veteran, pro-military, pro- senior citizen groups wanting to come in and want ads, most veterans I represent in my district do not have $1 million to put into a soft- money account. They are hard-working, decent Americans like most others, trying to struggle to pay their bills. Mr. Chairman, if we want to fight for veterans, let us fight for funding for veterans' health care and not try to make this amendment look like it is a litmus test vote of whether you are for or against military might or veterans and our servicemen and women. This is a bad amendment; it is a Trojan horse; it is a poison pill. We should vote against it.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, on September 11 our democracy was tested by foreign terrorists. With unity and resolve, we met that test. Today our democracy faces a different challenge, a cancer from within, in the form of massive campaign contributions called soft money. The victims of this cancer are the millions of decent, hard- working Americans whose voices are being drowned in a sea of special interest contributions. Trying to call million-dollar contributions ``free speech'' gives a new meaning to the phrase ``money talks.'' And Americans know that in Washington, D.C., money is talking too loudly. Free speech is a fundamental right, but in a democracy, the strength of a citizen's voice should depend upon the quality of one's ideas, not the quantity of one's bank account. Let us unite once again in defense of our democracy. Let us affirm the great American ideal that this should truly be the people's House, where the voice of every citizen is heard, not just a privileged few. Vote for Shays-Meehan and oppose all Trojan horse substitutes.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, January 31, 2002, Central Texans were saddened and diminished by the death of Frederick Wittenburg, Jr. of Lometa. Fred Wittenburg was a warrior. For three decades, he fought for the disadvantaged, the elderly, the infirm, the homeless, and for hungry and neglected children. He devoted those thirty years to improving the communities of the Texas Hill Country and the lives of its people as Executive Director of the Hill Country Community Action Association. Fred joined President Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty in 1966, administering a brand new community action agency that provided a wide range of services in Llano, Mason, Mills and San Saba Counties. In 1968, he became Executive Director of the growing organization, expanding its services to Bell, Coryell, Hamilton, Lampasas and Milam Counties. He tirelessly raised local funds for Hill Country Programs to provide and expand services to those who needed them. Fred Wittenburg was born in Belton, Texas in November 1930, one of four children. His parents moved to Goldthwaite, where Fred attended elementary school. Always active in sports and extracurricular activities, he graduated from high school in the Lometa School System in 1948, and was recognized as the Senior Class ``Best All Around Boy.'' He attended St. Edward's University in Austin for two years and then transferred to Texas Tech University in Lubbock. A Red Raider through and through, Fred was a member of the Silver Key Fraternity and the Saddle Tramp service organization. It was in a line at the campus bookstore that he met a freshman named Mary Alice Close, who would become his bride and share his life for nearly fifty years. In thirty years as Executive Director of the Hill Country Community Action Association, Fred's dedication to the war on poverty and his vision of ``building people and communities'' were reflected in the commitment and energy of his staff, one of his most enduring legacies. When Fred retired as Director in 1996, he left a dynamic organization providing Senior Centers, Head Start, family planning, nutrition and day care services, and housing, energy crisis and rural transportation assistance to more than 30,000 people in thirteen Central Texas counties. In his 1964 State of the Union speech, President Johnson described Americans living ``on the outskirts of hope,'' and he declared an unconditional War on Poverty. ``It will not be a short or easy struggle, no single weapon or strategy will suffice, but we shall not rest until the war is won.'' Fred Wittenburg heard President Johnson's words, took them to heart, and made that war on poverty his life's work. An old saying tells us, ``When eating a fruit, think of the person who planted the tree.'' Through his long and distinguished career of service to others, Fred Wittenburg planted thousands and thousands of trees. And, the people of the Central Texas Hill Country will enjoy the fruit of those trees and think of him for generations to come.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly fitting, in the wake of the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 and the courageous and selfless acts of heroism by New York's police, firefighters and rescue workers which were witnessed and acclaimed by the world, that we extend our gratitude to police, fire and emergency service workers in all of America's communities. The citizens of Bell County and Copperas Cove, Texas in my congressional district are honoring these public servants, from November 18-24, during the 10th observance of Local Heroes Week. This expression of appreciation to our local public safety workers for their service to Central Texas, which has grown every year since its inception in 1992, raises funds from area businesses and organizations to endow scholarships at Central Texas College for their immediate families. As a community, we owe a special thanks to the police officers, fire fighters and emergency workers we honor and our sincere appreciation to those who organize Local Heroes Week. The recent tragedies at the World Trade Center in New York and at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia remind us that every day, in every city and county in the country, these men and women put their lives on the line to protect us from harm. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of the House of Representatives to join me in honoring these local heroes, in Copperas Cove and Bell County, and across the nation. They define the spirit of public service and we are grateful.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this is not a eulogy. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) is alive and well, I am happy to say. But I must take this opportunity as we end this session of Congress and his career as the Democratic whip, recognizing he will continue to serve his district and our country in Congress next year, I want to say that knowing the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) personally and professionally has been one of the tremendous rewards of all of my years in public service, whether that be in Texas or here in the Nation's Capital. Many Americans may not know the name David Bonior, but millions of decent working families across America are living a better life today, making higher wages. Even those living at the bottom of the economic rung on minimum wage, have a higher minimum wage today than they would have had had it not been for one person's passionate commitment to working families and their opportunity to have a decent life for their children, and that is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior). David Bonior, I am convinced, will be the next Governor of Michigan. While I do not know all of the voters of that great State, I have to believe that they recognize integrity and decency when they see it. What I have seen for 5 years working under the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) as the chief deputy whip is the epitome of decency and integrity. For anyone who might be cynical about our democratic process in America, I wish they could have seen up close and firsthand what I have seen in the person I call my friend, David Bonior. His accomplishments are too numerous to mention in this brief time today, but they are well earned. They are significant. But I would conclude my remarks with two thoughts. It is not the tremendous accomplishments of making the difference for working families of America, and there is a list of specific achievements that I will ultimately respect the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) for, and although they are tremendously important, it is the kind of person that he is, the kind of human being he is, so honest, treating everyone as we would want others to treat us. I would just conclude with this thought. Winston Churchill, during some of the darkest hours of World War II, spoke to the British people and the world when he said, ``We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.'' By that high standard, David Bonior has lived and will continue to live an extraordinarily successful life. His passion, his decency and his integrity will be a model for future public servants for generations to come, and I am honored to be his friend and his colleague.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, nuclear terrorism is a serious threat to our Nation and our families, but this Congress is not acting like it. Inexplicably, in the waning hours of this session of Congress, we will have spent less on nuclear nonproliferation this year than we did last year. Considering the consequences of September 11, considering all that we have learned in recent weeks since then about even al Qaeda trying to get its hands on nuclear materials which could, in effect, kill millions of American citizens in one nuclear incident, I just cannot understand how we can go back home to our constituents and say we should be spending less to protect them from the potential holocaust of nuclear terrorists. President Bush recently said that preventing nuclear terrorism should be a top national priority. I agree. The President is right. I think today it is time we start following through on that belief. We have had enough rhetoric about dealing with nuclear terrorists. Tonight, in this Obey motion, we need to actually take concrete action to prevent it. We must decide whether we just want to talk about stopping nuclear terrorists or really want to prevent them. I believe we have an obligation to our constituents and families and, yes, even our children and grandchildren to do everything possible now, not next year, not the year after, to do something now to stop a nuclear holocaust in our country. How serious is this threat? Well, this year, former Senator Sam Nunn and Howard Baker, a Democrat and a Republican together, after a year- and-a-half study concluded, and I quote, that ``Nuclear terrorism is the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States.'' In my opinion, as of this moment, this Congress has failed in our serious responsibility to the American people to take responsible, effective, proven steps to keep nuclear materials away from terrorists. Nobody in this House or this country would intend to help nuclear terrorists, but I would suggest that we have to do more than just talk against them; we have to fund the programs that help protect nuclear materials from these kinds of people. The Obey motion that we will vote on in just a few moments will add over $220 million to proven, effective programs that our Department of Energy has carried out in Russia to protect Americans from nuclear holocaust. The question of timing has been raised. Well, let us just wait until next year. The President will have a proposal, let us fund it then. If that is what happens, I hope and pray that that will be soon enough. But taking action next year will not do Americans and future generations any good if grapefruit size of nuclear material needed to kill 2 million Americans is stolen next month or in the next several months. We must support this Obey motion.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that we extend our congratulations to the Central Texas Labor Council on the occasion of its One-Hundredth Anniversary, celebrated in Waco, Texas on October 20, 2001. Originally chartered as the McLennan County Labor Council on October 31, 1901, the member-unions included the Leather Workers and Horse Goods, Local 45, the Stationary Fireman's Union, the Tailors Union, Local 96 and the Federal Labor Union 8892. Another member, the Typographical Union, Local 188, was first chartered in 1881. In later years, the Musicians Union local represented organists who accompanied silent films in local movie houses. In the 1920s, local unions held a forty-hour workweek strike, and helped establish that as a basis for all contracts of labor. Other early job actions were for air conditioning, worker respect and safer workplaces. In 1901, only unions in McLennan County were affiliated with the Council. Over time, it expanded to include eight counties, and in 1992, the name was changed to the Central Texas Labor Council. The organization now includes forty unions representing 14,000 workers. Mr. Speaker, the nature of collective bargaining and labor-management relations have changed dramatically since the Council was born a century ago. Today, in Central Texas and across the nation, the vital role of labor unions and labor councils have been widely recognized for their contribution to safer and more productive workplaces with highly- skilled workforces, leading to more competitive enterprises, and ultimately, to a stronger and more stable U.S. economy. Much has changed in one hundred years. However, the Central Texas Labor Council continues to speak, and fight when necessary, for the rights, the interests and the dignity of working men and women.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan). I am a Member of his subcommittee. He has made a genuine effort to try to increase necessary funding to protect Americans from the threat of nuclear terrorism. I would, though, differ with the gentleman on several points. First of all, my comments, I did not say in my statement a few minutes ago that we are not spending one dime on these programs. What I did say is that in this bill we found $250 million above whatever else we were already spending to protect 535 Members of Congress; but in this bill, while we were doing that on one hand, we could not find one dime of additional money to spend on the programs designed to keep nuclear material in Russia from getting into the hands of terrorists. Furthermore, the gentleman said we will give everything to these programs they will need. I respect the gentleman. I think if the gentleman could individually make a decision, we would have additional funding this year for this. But that is the same promise that was made to me just a few weeks ago when my amendment to add more nuclear nonproliferation funds was defeated in the energy and water bill. I was told if I will just wait until we get to the defense appropriation and supplemental bill, we will add additional funding. The real question and the fair question to ask is should we act now or act next year? I would suggest our own Department of Energy has listed specific programs where there is a tremendous need now. The gentleman said if we had more money, could we spend it now? The answer to that is yes. In fact, it is the Bush administration that on September 26 signed a new agreement with Russia that opens up numerous new sites where nuclear materials are located. Right now we have a window of opportunity to go in and provide security for those sites so that nuclear material will not get in the hands of terrorists and end up in downtown New York or Los Angeles in a bomb. We not only can spend more money now efficiently and effectively, I think that is a responsibility. I think that is our obligation. We could do it in this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, God forbid if the terrorists of September 11 had a nuclear bomb parked in a truck placed in lower Manhattan, 2 million innocent American citizens would have died on that terribly tragic day. That is 500 times more people than were actually killed, as horrible and as inconceivable as that was. I find it incredible that in this bill, after September 11 and all that we have learned about nuclear threats and terrorist threats, that this House could find $265 million to protect 535 Members of Congress and our staffs but could not find one dime to protect 281 million Americans from the real threat of nuclear terrorism. In fact, without the Obey amendment, this Congress will have actually reduced funding for the programs designed to keep nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists. We might ask, how serious is the threat of nuclear terrorism against American citizens? Just earlier this year, a bipartisan commission, after a year-and-a-half study headed by former Senators Howard Baker and Sam Nunn as well as Lloyd Cutler, called nuclear terrorism against the U.S., and I quote, ``the most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today.'' More recently, President Bush on November 6 made this statement: ``We will not wait for more innocent deaths. We will not wait for the authors of mass murder to gain the weapons of mass destruction. We act now because we must lift the dark threat from our age and save generations to come.'' Have we acted now? Have we acted in this bill to protect 281 million Americans from the threat that President Bush, Senator Baker and Senator Nunn have talked about of nuclear terrorists exploding a bomb right here in the United States? The answer is no. Worse than taking no action, we have actually reduced funding for those programs. For this Congress to reduce funding for those important programs at this particular time in our history is a dangerous and irresponsible mistake. The Obey amendment would add specifically $131 million to protect 600 metric tons of highly enriched uranium in Russia that our Department of Energy has said is in urgent need of immediate upgraded safeguards. Protecting the Congress from terrorists is a legitimate thing to do in this bill. Protecting Congress, our Capitol and Members of Congress, as part of our democracy is a valid thing to do, but no program is more important, no priority should be more important than protecting the American family from nuclear holocaust at the hands of terrorists. We should support the Obey amendment, Republicans and Democrats alike. As President Bush said, we must, we should act now.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, despite all of the good efforts, and they have been good efforts, of the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), the bottom line is this: despite the tragedy of September 11, this Congress, without passing the Obey amendment today, will have cut funding for the primary programs intended to keep nuclear materials in Russia from getting into the hands of terrorists and killing 2 million innocent men, women, and children here in America. We can do better than that. My hope is with the bipartisan leadership of this House, we will do better. We ought to do better in this bill by passing the Obey amendment. I certainly hope we will do better in conference committee and adequately fund these important programs that our Department of Energy has said should be funded now.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) on his efforts of moving the government forward during this time of national crisis. He has worked on a bipartisan basis, and for that, I have the greatest respect. Madam Speaker, God forbid, had the terrorists of September 11 chosen as their weapon a nuclear bomb with just enough uranium to fill a soda can, placed it in a car in New York City, 2 million people, men, women and children, would have been killed that day. To put that in perspective, one nuclear bomb parked in one car in a major American city would kill 400 times the number of people that the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11 killed. I know we would all agree in this Chamber, Democrats and Republicans alike, that there is no greater responsibility of the Federal Government than to protect the lives of American citizens and families. In so many ways since September 11, this body has acted responsibly. Chairman Young especially has led the fight to address vital national needs when it comes to homeland protection. But, Madam Speaker, I come today to point out one area where I think this Congress has failed the American family. It is the area of protecting American citizens from the real and devastating threat of nuclear terrorism. I think most Americans would be shocked to find out that even despite all we have learned since September 11 that this Congress this year will actually reduce funding for the programs designed to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Let me repeat that because I think many Americans will not believe it. Despite the occurrences of the tragedy of September 11, this year this Congress has voted to actually reduce funding for programs intended and designed to protect the American homeland and families from terrorists making nuclear bombs as weapons against our country. I find that incredible. Intentions have been good. No one has intended to make America more vulnerable to nuclear terrorists. But in government good intentions do not protect anyone. It is our priorities and our funding decisions that really count. I find it somewhat amazing that last night in the defense appropriations bill we were able to find $256 million to protect this Capitol and me, Members of Congress and congressional employees from possible terrorist attack; yet we could not find one dime in that $20 billion budget to fund defense of 281 million Americans against the real threat of nuclear terrorism. I am not here to criticize anyone who helped put together necessary funding to protect this Capitol, its Members of Congress, 535 of them, and staff. This is the center and the symbol of our democracy, and it is right that we should protect it. But I would suggest if we can find $256 million in this bill coming up this week to protect a couple of thousand people here in our Nation's Capitol, then we surely should be able to find $100 million to protect 281 million Americans from nuclear terrorism. It is fair for anyone to ask just how serious or how real is the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear materials, making a bomb, putting it in a car and exploding it here in the United States. Let me give you the answer that the U.S. Department of Energy would give us to that question. They say, and these are their words, we are in urgent need, urgent need, to immediately upgrade the protection of nuclear materials, 600 metric tons of which exist in Russia that are not presently adequately protected. That is enough nuclear material to potentially build 41,000 nuclear bombs, any one of which could kill 2 million to 3 million American citizens. How real is the threat possibility of nuclear terrorism against our families? In Russia, it has been documented since 1992, we have had 14 instances of bomb-grade nuclear material being stolen from Russian facilities; and in eight of those cases, the stolen nuclear bomb-grade material was not found until it had actually left the country of Russia. I find that frightening. Even more recently, today's press reports are suggesting that materials have been found from the facilities left behind by fleeing al Qaeda and Taliban leaders that actually had materials that instructed those terrorists on the means by which to take nuclear material and build a nuclear bomb. I find that frightening. But let us not just take the Department of Energy's word for it. Let us not take today's press reports for it to answer the question of how serious is the nuclear threat against American families. Let us look at what President Bush said yesterday in the Washington Post from actually a press conference of 2 days ago with Mr. Putin, and I quote our own President, Mr. Bush: ``Our highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.'' Our highest priority, the President said. ``We agree that it is urgent that we improve the physical protection and accounting of nuclear materials and prevent illicit nuclear trafficking.'' What did President Putin say on November 7, just over a week ago? Referring to nuclear proliferation, he called it one of the most foremost threats of contemporary times. How important did President Bush think it was that we act immediately in regard to protecting Americans against the threat of nuclear proliferation? On November 6, just a few days ago, he said, ``We will not wait until the authors of mass murder can gain the weapons of mass destruction. We act now because we must lift this dark threat from our age and save generations to come.'' I support President Bush's effort to say we must act now. It is our responsibility to act now to protect Americans from the threat, the real threat, of nuclear terrorism. But this Congress has taken no action. In fact, if anything, we have rolled back the clock and reduced funding for those important programs. Madam Speaker, I think it is absolutely essential for the protection of our homeland that the Congress, the Committee on Rules in the days ahead allow the gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment to be voted on on the House floor, because it would put into action what President Bush has said in his words, that we must act now. Finally, some said last night in the Appropriations Committee hearing that we just wait till next year. Sometimes waiting is the responsible thing to do. I would argue that when it comes to protecting Americans from the threat of nuclear holocaust, waiting is a dangerous mistake. I am not willing to ask other families to pay the price of playing that waiting game. Let us follow the lead of President Bush in this time of national crisis. Let us act now by voting for the Obey amendment and adequately funding the programs to keep terrorists' hands off nuclear materials.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, let me first respond to the statement of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones). He said, ``God has made a comeback in our schools.'' Frankly, the God I pray to never left the schools. And the God I pray to is so powerful that no government body in any nation has the ability to take God or prayers out of our schools. The gentleman, it is interesting, talks about the importance of this resolution and says it is a nonbinding resolution. Well, the gentleman needs to make up his mind. If it has no impact, perhaps we should not be taking the time of the Congress tonight to debate it. But if it does have impact, I would argue the case, with which many religious conservative organizations, including many Christian organizations in this country, that would agree with my position that government ought not to be suggesting or dictating prayers; and especially should not be dictating what the content of American citizens and school children's prayers should be. The fact is, if Members read the resolution, it does not just say schools should consider as one option possible prayers. Schools should, should set aside a sufficient period of time. That word is with all of the authority and respect that the institution and the United States Congress might have in this country. It also, by the way, talks about what to pray for. It does not mention, as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) mentioned, silent prayers or out-loud prayers. If silent, that is not what this resolution says. If these prayers are out loud, my question is, who is going to decide in the classroom whose prayer is heard and what prayer is given. Are we going to have third graders deciding who is going to give the prayer on the subject that Congress has suggested they should pray about? It would be helpful before the end of the debate if the gentleman could answer the question raised by the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) as to whether his resolution contemplates prayers being given out loud in our classrooms. If so, I would suggest that raises use constitutional questions. If not, then the gentleman needs to rewrite his resolution, which is exactly why we should have had a committee hearing on an issue of such great importance. This resolution should not be on the floor of the House tonight.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as a person of faith, I believe in the power of prayer. Like millions of Americans, I have prayed often for the victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, and my prayers tonight are also with America's servicemen and -women now in harm's way in our war against terrorism. What makes our Nation different, what makes our Nation different from Afghanistan is that in America citizens do not need their government to tell them when and how to pray. The millions and millions of prayers offered up by Americans since September 11 did not occur because the Federal Government dictated or suggested them to do so in legislation. Rather, those prayers occurred because of citizens' personal faith and choice to pray. That is as it should be in a free society. One might ask, well, what could be wrong with a congressional resolution suggesting that public schools should set aside time for prayer or quiet reflection for our Nation? I would suggest there are several things wrong with this resolution. First, in the first amendment to our Constitution, our Founding Fathers made it clear that government involvement in religion should be considered with the utmost care. In fact, they dedicated the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights to the principle that religion is a private matter, not a government responsibility. Whether one supports or opposes this resolution, to bring legislation to this House floor that deals with the fundamental matter of religion and prayer, without a single committee hearing, without any testimony, is wrong. In my opinion, such a frivolous handling of the issue of prayer demeans the sanctity of religious faith. Second, this resolution may or may not be constitutional. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) does not know for sure. This resolution is worded differently from the Virginia law. Would it not be better to discuss those vital questions in a committee hearing of constitutional scholars before we vote on this matter on the floor of the House rather than after? Third, this resolution sets a dangerous precedent by suggesting what the subject should be of school children's prayers. As a parent, I want my children to pray for our Nation in this time of need; but as a citizen, I will say here and everywhere, that the U.S. Congress has absolutely no right telling my children how to pray. The Federal Government and this House has no business telling any citizen, much less children, what the subject of their prayers should be. If the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), President Bush or I want to encourage others to pray for our Nation, there is nothing wrong with that; but there is something terribly wrong with the United States Congress passing legislation that tells my children what they should pray about in a public, tax-supported school. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) has no right to tell my children or anyone else's children how, when or about what they should pray. In addition, this resolution refers to former President Eisenhower's description of religion and prayers as ``spiritual weapons.'' I have great respect for President Eisenhower, but millions of Americans of deep faith might not agree that religion and prayer should be thought of as ``weapons.'' Does this Congress really have the wisdom and the constitutional authority to start dictating or suggesting the subject of school children's private prayers? If so, are we then to set up a congressional committee, vote on what subjects are and are not appropriate for prayer in public schools? It seems to me that process would be more appropriate in the Taliban's Afghanistan than in the United States. The fourth problem is that this resolution says ``a sufficient period of time'' should be allowed for prayer or quiet reflection in our schools. Does this resolution envision Federal, State or local governments having debates on what is ``sufficient time to pray"? To someone, a 1-minute prayer might be appropriate. In many religions, a 1-minute prayer would be considered superficial. To Muslim children, only one prayer a day would be considered sacrilegious. Under the recent Supreme Court decision the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones) addressed, schools will face complex and difficult decisions in determining whether or how to establish time for prayer and meditation. Congress should not complicate that matter tonight for local schools by getting into the debate of defining what is ``sufficient'' time to pray and what the subject of children's prayers, however well intentioned, should be. Mr. Speaker, it is already legal for children to pray in school. No law, no government body has the power to outlaw private prayer. Children may already pray quietly in the classroom or out loud before and after school. They may pray out loud during their lunch periods during school. The only prohibition, and rightly so, is against government-organized, government-sanctioned prayers in our public schools. Mr. Speaker, another serious objection I have to this legislation is that it frankly implies that congressional action is needed to encourage American citizens to pray. Nothing could be further from the truth. All of human history, including the world today, has proven that religion and prayer flourish best when politicians and government stay out of our matters of personal faith. It was wrong when House Republicans in the last Congress tried to pass a similar resolution dictating that it was the ``necessary duty'' of Americans to pray. Fortunately, that measure failed. My hope is that Members of this House will recognize that it is just as wrong to dictate to school children or to even suggest to school children through legislative action of this Congress the subject of their prayers. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is unnecessary at best. At worst it raises serious constitutional questions and sets the dangerous precedent of Congress suggesting the subject of our children's prayers. As an individual, I hope that American citizens will continue to pray for our Nation; but as a matter of conscience, those prayers should be their choice, not Congress', not the gentleman from North Carolina's (Mr. Jones), and not mine. Americans do not want and Americans do not need government getting involved in our prayers or our personal faith. Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is particularly fitting, in the wake of the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 and the courageous and selfless acts of heroism by New York's police, firefighters and rescue workers which were witnessed and acclaimed by the world, that we extend our gratitude to police, fire and emergency service workers in all of America's communities. The citizens of Bell County and Copperas Cove, Texas in my congressional district are honoring these public servants, from November 18-24, during the 10th observance of Local Heroes Week. This expression of appreciation to our local public safety workers for their service to Central Texas, which has grown every year since its inception in 1992, raises funds from area businesses and organizations to endow scholarships at Central Texas College for their immediate families. As a community, we owe a special thanks to the police officers, fire fighters and emergency workers we honor and our sincere appreciation to those who organize Local Heroes Week. The recent tragedies at the World Trade Center in New York and at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia remind us that every day, in every city and county in the country, these men and women put their lives on the line to protect us from harm. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members of the House of Representatives to join me in honoring these local heroes, in Copperas Cove and Bell County, and across the nation. They define the spirit of public service and we are grateful.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his time and for his leadership, along with the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan). The primary statement I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, at this moment is that I deeply appreciate the very bipartisan, fair, conscientious leadership of this subcommittee through the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). The work of this subcommittee, Mr. Speaker, is often passed over by members of the press in Washington, D.C., but to the communities who are affected by floods, devastated by floods, this bill is as important as any that will ever be considered in this House. To communities that benefit from the infrastructure commitments of that bill, this legislation, is terribly, terribly important. This bill deals with important university research across our country; it provides Department of Energy funding to protect American citizens from the threat of nuclear attack, terrorists; it deals with a whole range of issues that have a direct impact on the quality of life of American citizens. It is a pleasure as a member of this subcommittee to see its leadership work in a totally fair, totally nonpartisan manner. I also want to compliment the staff for their work on dealing with unlimited numbers of very legitimate requests from flood control to energy projects, to research, yet making logical, carefully drawn out, fair decisions on how to allocate our limited resources. A lot of people do not understand, Mr. Speaker, that this subcommittee, as a part of the Committee on Appropriations, does not make the decision on how big the pie is we spend under which committee's jurisdiction; the Committee on the Budget and other decisionmakers give us a size of the pie and the committee then has to decide how to divide it up. I think they have done excellent work. The chairman and others know of my great concern about the overall lack of commitment of actual funds in this Congress to nuclear nonproliferation, and I frankly do wish we had been successful in convincing our colleagues in the other body in this bill that we should have spent somewhat less on strengthening the finest offensive nuclear arsenal in the world and spent significantly more using those dollars on protecting American citizens from the threat of terrorists getting their hands on nuclear material. But we did the best we could, and the leadership of this committee by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) deserve great credit for stopping a proposed reduction of $100 million in nuclear nonproliferation programs. I look forward to joining with them in their efforts to convince others in this body and in the other body in the Capitol that we have an obligation to the American people to put homeland defense as our first priority, not as our second, third or last priority. I am confident that will happen in the days ahead with the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky). I again want to thank them and their staff for their tremendous effort in putting together this very important piece of legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I would just like to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), who just spoke, for his leadership to date on this effort. I am convinced had it not been for his work, along with that of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), we would be looking at this administration's proposed $100 million cut in nonproliferation nuclear programs. I would have been much more comfortable had I been able to say to my colleagues and the American people that we are taking care of this problem today in this energy and water appropriation bill, but I failed in my effort to add an amendment which would have given $131 million extra to these programs. But I appreciate the leadership of the chairman to date, what he has already done, and I am especially deeply grateful for his commitment to this Congress to continue those efforts and see that we adequately fund this budget, in light of what has happened September 11. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for putting together this energy and water appropriation bill on a genuine bipartisan basis. This bill, because of their leadership, funds vital flood control and water projects for communities throughout the Nation. It funds important energy and research programs. I also commend the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for working hard to plus up about $85 million in the administration's ill-advised and dangerous budget proposal that would have cut $100 million from our programs designed to keep nuclear material and weapons out of the hands of terrorists. I know this bill will pass by a strong margin on a bipartisan basis because of all the good things in it. However, Mr. Speaker, in good conscience I cannot remain silent about some decisions that have been made by this Congress, some of which go beyond the authority of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. I find it unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, unbelievable that just 1 week ago this House said that we could afford to give $7.4 billion in unearned corporate rebate checks to just 16 Fortune 500 corporations. Yet, this Congress to date will have cut programs designed to keep nuclear weapons and materials away from terrorists. I find it irresponsible and dangerous that even in light of the September 11 terrorist attacks, this House has said, in effect, by our votes that giving special huge tax breaks to corporations like General Motors, they got nearly $1 billion, IBM got $1.4 billion, General Electric a little under $1 billion, that those tax rebate checks to those corporations are more important than protecting 281 million Americans and their families from the threat of nuclear terrorists. Mr. Speaker, a recent report from a committee co-chaired by Republican former Senator Howard Baker and former Senator Sam Nunn, a Democrat, said that the threat of nuclear terrorism against the United States is the single most important national security concern facing this Nation. I do not question anyone's intentions in this House. I believe genuinely that every one of us in this House shares the belief that protecting Americans' lives and security is the first responsibility of our government. But in government, good intentions do not count if our budget decisions undermine the principles we preach. We can talk about homeland defense all we want, but may God help us in our war on terrorism if this Congress decides corporate tax rebate checks are more important than keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention five facts about the possibility of nuclear terrorism against American citizens: Fact No. 1, had the September 11 terrorists been able to use a nuclear bomb built with a Coke can size of plutonium and placed it in a car in Lower Manhattan, over 2 million American citizens, not 5,000, would have been killed; Fact No. 2, there are over 600 metric tons, enough for 41,000 nuclear devices, of weapons-usable material in Russia that is in urgent need, urgent need of additional security improvements, according to our own U.S. Department of Energy; Fact No. 3, we know of 14 separate seizures of highly-enriched, bomb- grade uranium that had been stolen from Russian nuclear sites since 1992. Frighteningly, in eight of those 14 cases the uranium was not seized until it had escaped out of Russia, and was found in Germany, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria; Fact No. 4, we know that since 1993 Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization have made attempts to obtain nuclear material from Russia; Fact No. 5, because of an agreement just signed on September 26 of this year, just last month, between the United States and Russia, we have a window of opportunity to put in place antiterrorist safeguards at numerous Russian nuclear sites, some of which we have never been able to visit prior to this agreement. Mr. Speaker, no one knows when that window of opportunity might close. I believe it would be dangerous for this Congress not to take advantage of such a chance and carry out our responsibility to get better control of Russian nuclear material so it will not some day, God forbid, end up in a major American city as part of a terrorist bomb. Based on these known five facts and the devastating potential of nuclear terrorist attacks, I believe strongly that Congress should act immediately, not next month, not the month after that, not next year, but we should act immediately to work with Russia in providing adequate safeguards at their numerous nuclear sites. I find it hard to believe, frankly, that in this energy and water appropriation bill we are adding $400 million to improve the U.S. offensive nuclear arsenal, which everyone would agree in all nations is by far the most powerful nuclear force in the world; yet, in my opinion, we are cutting what is generally considered the single most effective program in keeping nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists: a materials prevention and control accounting program. Mr. Speaker, I know every single Member of this House would do almost anything, personally or publicly, to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States. Sadly, though, sadly, though, our spending and tax decisions in this Congress are not consistent with that commitment. I believe the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), who already worked hard to support these programs, are genuine in their efforts to convince this House and the other body that we in this Congress have a moral obligation to the American people to do everything possible to prevent terrorists from using nuclear weapons against the American family. If the decisionmakers beyond the scope of this appropriations subcommittee's jurisdiction do not this year either expand the budget allocation for nuclear nonproliferation programs or add significant funding in the supplemental appropriations bill, if we fail to do that, then we will have failed the American people in our sworn oath to protect and defend them. We know terrorists are at war with us. If we Americans are truly at war with them, then this Congress must make homeland defense our top priority, not just our favorite rhetoric. The clock is ticking and our children's future is at risk. I intend to work with the gentleman from Alabama (Chairman Callahan), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), and other Members of this Congress who agree that we must act now, immediately, to ensure that our families and children never have to witness an American holocaust perpetrated by nuclear terrorists.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Members on both sides of the aisle for having put together this legislation, and I will not object and will, in fact, support this rule and the legislation. I think it is at this particular time in our Nation's history important that we spend our resources protecting the symbol of our democracy, our Capitol and all of the Senate and House office buildings associated with it. In fact, in light of recent revelations, we find that perhaps this capital, if not our entire country, could be the targeted attacks of weapons of mass destruction at the hands of terrorists, and it is that issue which I think is appropriate to discuss during both this debate as well as the debate in a few moments on the Energy and Water appropriations bill. In particular, I would like to bring to the attention, Mr. Speaker, of Members of this House an article from today's Reuters News Service from its Washington Bureau, and I quote from that article: The September 11 attacks have increased concerns that extremists would use weapons of mass destruction, including possibly nuclear weapons, against the United States, Undersecretary of State John Bolton said on Wednesday. Answering questions at a breakfast with defense writers, Bolton predicted that if extremists possessed weapons of mass destruction, a term that encompasses nuclear, biological and chemical arms, they will use them. The article then quotes Secretary Bolton, I am concerned about weapons of mass destruction everywhere, and my concern about weapons of mass destruction everywhere has gone up since, end of quote, the U.S.- led anti-terrorism war began, he said. The article then says, Bolton, the State Department's top official dealing with arms control and international security affairs, said he was worried, and this is his quote, there will be the use of a weapon of mass destruction. The term encompasses nuclear, chemical and biological arms. Mr. Speaker, and my colleagues, I think this article and Mr. Bolton's comments point out the obvious. Those who would use airplanes as a tool, as a weapon against the United States and our citizens and all we care about and our values, and certainly they would not stop, in fact, would be encouraged to use weapons of mass destruction, be they biological, chemical or nuclear. While I think it is important in this Legislative Branch bill we do try prudent efforts and steps to protect this Capitol, the symbol of our democracy, I think in further debate today, we are going to find that some of us are deeply disappointed that while we are protecting the Capitol, as we should in this bill, we are not doing what we must do and have responsibility to do in other legislation to protect American citizens from the threat of nuclear terrorism. While there will be more discussion on that in a few moments, let me quote Mr. Bolton when he says, basically, that one consequence of the U.S. attacks was a heightened awareness of the interrelationship between nonproliferation and terrorists and that as a result efforts to halt the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological arms will receive more attention in coming months. Mr. Bolton's comments are correct in regard to biological and chemical weapons. We are already taking action. Yet in other legislation we will debate on this floor today we are actually reducing funding for perhaps the single most effective program designed to keep nuclear weapons and materiels out of the hands of terrorists. This is a good bill, designed to continue forward our democracy and the symbols of our democracy and the operating offices of our democracy, but we must not stop here with this bill. We have an obligation and a moral responsibility to protect the American people from what I think is a serious threat; that is, the threat of nuclear materiels getting into the hands of terrorists who would gladly kill millions of American citizens.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you. That is the theme of this outrageous bill. While American pilots and soldiers today are fighting for our safety in Afghanistan, supporters of this bill are fighting for special tax breaks for themselves here safely at home. How do I explain to a young military family that they do not have adequate housing where their loved one is halfway across the world fighting to defend our safety and our freedom? This bill is not only unfair to the people of this country, the average working families who get really no benefits from it, it is fiscally irresponsible. Maybe we should oppose this bill and remember the words of John Kennedy who said, you should not ask what your country can do for you, you should ask what you can do for your country. In that spirit, we should soundly reject this outrageous legislation. Mr. Speaker, ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you. That is the theme of this outrageous bill. While firefighters and police officers have given their lives in New York, profitable corporations would pay no taxes under this bill. While American pilots and soldiers are fighting for our safety in Afghanistan today, supporters of this bill are fighting for special tax breaks for themselves here at home. How do I explain to a young military family living in substandard housing while their loved one is fighting in Afghanistan that we cannot afford to give them better housing, but we can afford to give IBM a $1.4 billion tax break in this bill? To working families who have lost their jobs because of the attacks of September 11 and have no health care, how do we explain how we can afford to give the wealthiest families in America a multibillion dollar tax break under this bill? Mr. Speaker, in addition to being blatantly unfair, this bill is fiscally irresponsible. It will lead to huge Federal deficits that will ultimately increase long-term interest rates on homes, cars, and businesses. The billions it puts into the pockets of a few will be paid in higher mortgage and loan rates by millions of hard-working families that can ill afford it. No one knows what the final costs will be for America's military and security response to terrorists. For sure it will be tens of billions of dollars. To pass massive tax cuts before we know those military and security costs not only is fiscally irresponsible, it will undermine our ability to fund crucial homeland security programs. In this time of national crisis, American citizens have shown their willingness to serve and sacrifice for their country. Perhaps some of the supporters of this bill misunderstood President Kennedy's inaugural address. In a time of national crisis, in a time of national war, in a time when our service men and women are in harm's way, his words should shame those who would seek selfish gain from this bill. ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that this bill should be soundly defeated.