Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have gone from being concerned about the language of this bill to being alarmed by some of the statements I have heard from the leadership of this House. First, we heard the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) say the establishment clause of the first amendment really was not in the original Constitution, as if, my colleagues, that is to suggest that the Bill of Rights somehow has less power or force in our constitutional government because it was only part of the Bill of Rights, it was only the first amendment to the Constitution. Then the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) came up and said separation of church and State was invented in the 20th century. My colleagues, that would be a great surprise to Mr. Jefferson who mentioned that very phrase in the 18th century. It would be a great surprise to Mr. Madison and the writers of the Bill of Rights who felt deeply about this. The fact is that this bill is going to allow Federal funds to go to faith-based organizations but it is going to follow not only the Bill of Rights but the Supreme Court decision of 1988, that is this century, not two centuries ago, that said you cannot send Federal dollars to pervasively sectarian organizations. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that prayer is nothing less than heartfelt communication with our Creator. I believe in the power of prayer and the reverence for prayer and the sanctity of prayer. That is why I believe any debate on prayer and religious freedom deserves more than a 40-minute debate on a suspension calendar after no committee hearings and with so few Members of this House even present. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleagues, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), and their genuine concerns, but it is the process of handling this resolution, however, on which I wish to comment. In my opinion, the subject matter of prayer and religious freedom deserves a full and open debate and Committee on the Judiciary hearings and on this floor. To do any less potentially undermines the importance of the first freedom guaranteed in the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights, the freedom of religion. Let us also recognize that the Constitution, in Article III, makes it clear that the Supreme Court, not the Congress, has the power to determine what is or is not constitutional. Several weeks ago, the House leadership supported a resolution that said it was, quote, the necessary duty, end quote, of Americans to pray. That resolution, like this one, was on a suspension calendar and had no committee hearings. I am therefore compelled to question when the leadership of this House will start treating profound issues such as prayer and such as religious freedom and church-State relations with the reverence that our Founding Fathers exhibited in writing our Bill of Rights and our First Amendment. I would plead with the House leadership today to stop dealing with the principles of the religious establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment with the same quick process and time limits reserved for the naming of Federal office buildings. The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the high principles enumerated therein deserve far more than a superficial review. Resolutions and legislation on prayer and religious freedom should always undergo carefully considered hearings and debates of principle and conscience, not hastily organized mini-debates that deny most House Members even a chance to speak. Mr. Speaker, as a citizen I would hope the Supreme Court would clarify for school districts whether and under what conditions public prayers and invocations at school sporting events are allowed under the First Amendment. It is not right, in my opinion, for schools and communities to be divided by possibly conflicting lower court decisions. I would hope the Supreme Court would expeditiously review any such cases. Mr. Speaker, to all of us in Congress, however, I would say we have an obligation in the future to review any question affecting the sacred issues of prayer and religious freedom with the careful, thorough and reverent consideration they deserve.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, Al Capone can claim he is a crime fighter, but it does not make it so. Republicans can claim they are really trying to protect Social Security, but it does not make it so. Here we are the second day of the second month of the new fiscal year, and the majority party, months late, has just passed its final appropriations bill, albeit with no effort to be bipartisan. There are just a few problems with this gimmickry Republican budget plan. First, the plan does not add one year, not one month, not one week, not one day, not even one hour to the Social Security or the Medicare trust funds. Second problem with their plan. It hurts, in some ways, every American family. Head Start, cut; college loans, cuts; defense readiness, cut below the President's request. Even worse, the Republican budget has rules crafted in a way that actually cuts bone marrow in order to protect pork. Perhaps the Republican budget plan should be renamed the 1999 Pork Protection Act. Third problem they have is their numbers do not add up. Their plan shows more gimmickry than a French chef. We should reject their plan.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today, this House honors Mr. Zachary Fisher for his generous and tireless efforts on behalf of America's servicemen and women and veterans. I never knew Mr. Fisher personally, but his spirit of gratitude for our veterans and their sacrifices symbolizes America's debt of gratitude owed to all other veterans. In the spirit of Mr. Fisher, I also want to say thank you to another citizen who has dedicated her adult lifetime to service for our veterans, someone who is about to retire, my friend, the veterans' friend, Mrs. Jill T. Cochran. For 25 years, Mrs. Cochran has worked as a key staff member on the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. For the past 15 years, Mrs. Cochran has been the Democratic staff director of the VA Subcommittee on Benefits, formerly the Subcommittee on Education, Training, Employment and Housing. It is amazing that, in this capacity, she has worked with nine subcommittee chairmen and ranking members. Millions of veterans, whether they know it by name or not, have benefited from Mrs. Cochran's appreciation for and love of veterans. Her quiet but effective fingerprints can be found on such major programs as the Montgomery G.I. bill, the Emergency Veterans Job Training Act, vocational rehabilitation for service, disabled veterans, and oversight of veterans preference in Federal jobs, only to mention a few. Mrs. Cochran has received more awards from veterans' organizations than any of us has time to list. But I have to believe that, as appreciative as I know Jill must be of these awards, I have got a feeling that her greatest satisfaction in her 25 years of work for veterans would be that her father, a distinguished veterans of World War II and former chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, would be proud of her. Mr. Teague, Tiger Teague, affectionately known as Mr. Veteran in this House for so many years, is now in his final resting place next to General Omar Bradley, the people's general, in Arlington National Cemetery. But I have to think that his spirit is soaring today with the belief, the understanding that his daughter has carried on the Teague family tradition of service to America's veterans. To Jill Cochran, my friend, I say, thank you. To Mrs. Freddie Teague, Jill's mother, I say, Job well done. To my political mentor, Tiger Teague, I say that his spirit and legacy lives on through his family and his daughter. My colleagues, it is amazing to think that, in a few days, for the first time since 1946, there will not be a Teague in the U.S. Capitol, fighting for veterans in association with the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. But I know that the Teagues' love of veterans and their impact upon them will last far into the 21st century. To Zachary Fisher, to Jill Teague Cochran, let me say, on behalf of all of my colleagues, thank you for not letting our veterans ever be forgotten.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, day 21. Day 21 of the new fiscal year, and I have one question. Where is the secret Republican budget plan? I asked this 2 days ago, and no Republican colleague could find it for me. I have asked the pages, I have looked in committee hearing rooms, I have looked on the seats of the floor of the House, but I cannot find it anywhere. The Constitution says that the Congress, not the President, must pass appropriations bills. Yet while they are criticizing the President, 21 days into the new fiscal year, I cannot find the Republicans' secret budget plan. Maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe it is because the CBO says their individual proposals would spend billions of dollars of Social Security money, at the very time they are running ads against Democrats saying we are spending Social Security money. I would suggest for the Republicans to pretend like their proposals are protecting Social Security, is kind of like Al Capone claiming to be a crime fighter. Day 21. It is time for the Republicans to show the country and the Congress their secret Republican budget plan.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, 19 days after the beginning of the new fiscal year, I have just one question for my Republican colleagues: Where is the Republican secret budget plan? I cannot find it anywhere. I cannot find it in the seats on the floor of the House. I visited committee rooms; I cannot find the secret budget plan of the Republicans there. I have asked some of the pages. They do not seem to know where it is. I have asked my Democratic colleagues. They have not seen the Republican budget plan, the secret plan they have to balance the budget without using Social Security taxes. Maybe I should ask the FBI. I wonder if the CIA knows where the secret Republican budget plan is 19 days after the beginning of the new fiscal year. As my colleagues know, that could be a problem. It might be 25 years if the CIA has it as a classified document. Perhaps we should go up into the classified room at the top of the capitol and find the Republicans' secret plan now in mid-October. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to yield the rest of my time to the author if he can show me a copy of the Republicans' secret plan to balance the budget. Even if they have a nonsecret plan, I would be glad to yield the rest of my time. But if he does not have a copy of the plan, I imagine he has not seen it because nobody else has found it anywhere. At least let me make this point. While I will vote against this resolution, I imagine the President does not even support it and the author will not support it. At least the President was honest enough to present to the American people a plan to pay for his budget. The same cannot be said of the Republicans who are running television ads that suggest they have a plan that they will not even present on the floor of this House. Where is the secret plan?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am personally disappointed that the leadership has chosen to make the naming of a Federal building in Texas, my home State, a partisan issue. There is something ironic about that, because I have known very few Members of this Congress in my service here that were more nonpartisan, that were more bipartisan than J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle. But, nevertheless, I come to this floor for the primary purpose of saying thank you to my friend, our friend, Jake Pickle. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, at the outset that it takes a great deal for a Texas Aggie to come to this well of the House to compliment a University of Texas graduate. In this case, I will make an exception. No one deserves accolades better than our friend, J. J. ``Jake'' Pickle. I love Jake Pickle. To me, he represents the very best of public service, truly committed to helping people for all the right reasons. He epitomizes the very best of public service, someone who has served his country in time of war, someone who continued to serve it in time of peace. There are a lot of people today, Mr. Speaker, on both sides of the aisle claiming to be the saviors of the Social Security system. We will be debating that issue in the weeks and months ahead. But in the 1980s, and particularly in the 1983 Social Security bill, Jake Pickle, through his leadership position on the Committee on Ways and Means, truly did help save the Social Security system. Millions of senior citizens, past, present, and future have been and will be the beneficiaries of Mr. Pickle's strong far-sighted leadership in that effort. We could go on and on about all his many accomplishments, but it is not the accomplishments. It is the character of Jake Pickle that I most admire and love. I think the Bible verse that says, ``This is the day the Lord hath given us, let us rejoice and be glad in it.'' is basically the verse that, to me, represents what Jake Pickle is all about. When he walks in the room, he brings light and life into that room. He has brought light and life to all of us who have known him. I honor Mr. Pickle today along with my colleagues.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's philosophical consistency. I respect that. Unfortunately, many of the others supporting the bill saying life begins at conception are not being consistent, are not being straightforward. I respect the gentleman greatly for being consistent. Even though I might disagree with the conclusion of his beliefs, the gentleman is consistent.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to speak, but I must make an observation that concerns me. It seems to me that there comes now a pattern among our pro-life colleagues here in the House. They begin by defining a legitimate concern. The last 4 years the concern was about late-term abortions. But then they come up with a solution, a law, almost written for the purpose of being defeated, knowing that the bill is going to be vetoed, with no intention of working with the administration to pass a solvable law that can deal with the problem that they claim concerns them so greatly. Just as we could have had a partial-birth late-term abortion bill signed into law prohibiting frivolous late-term abortions 4 years ago if our pro-life colleagues had been willing to sit down in good faith and deal with their concerns, now today we find ourselves with another legitimate concern, the concern that no one, no one in this House, man or woman, wants to condone anyone harming a woman or her fetus at any stage in her pregnancy. Yet, once again, like they did for the last 4 years, they wrote a law without consulting with the administration, without considering how can we actually solve this problem together, how can we protect pregnant women by working together. Instead, it seems to me the greater goal in developing this legislation was to make a point, that a fertilized egg a second after conception is a human being. We could have solved this problem they talk about today; but it seems to me, once again, as with the other legislation, that was not the ultimate goal. Finally, I must raise the question if in this bill you define a child as a fertilized egg, then how can you philosophically be consistent in saying it is okay to allow abortion in cases of rape and incest? How can you say in this bill itself that it is okay for a woman to take drugs, it is okay for a woman to do something that might end up terminating her pregnancy. It seems to me if you accept the definition of a child as being conception, then you are saying okay, it is okay to have murder in some cases, but not in other cases. My primary point is, is it not time we stop this political posturing and sit down on a bipartisan basis with the administration? Whether it is the issue of late-term abortions or harming pregnant women, let us work together to find a solution that can be passed into law and actually do some good.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to rise to compliment the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), and the ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), for their hard and bipartisan efforts on this bill. A lot of times this bill is below the radar screen for many Members of this House and members of the general public, but the fact is that there are some key infrastructure programs in this legislation that is essential to the future economic development of America: flood control projects to save our cities and families from massive floods that we have witnessed throughout the country; navigation projects that are so terribly important for commerce in America; vital university research programs; perhaps those things that do not have an overnight payoff but investment in the brightest minds in America that help make life better for all American families; and finally, something that we do not talk enough about on the floor of this House and that is the threat of nuclear proliferation in the world. This subcommittee, under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), plays a very key role in trying to limit the proliferation of nuclear arms, a threat that could virtually touch every family in America, if not every family in the world. I wish we had had more funds to work with on this subcommittee, but given the allocation that the chairman and ranking member had, I think they did an excellent job truly working on a bipartisan, fair basis to fund these terribly important programs.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Brigadier General Robert A. Glacel on a distinguished military career and wish him the very best on his retirement. I hope Members will join with me to thank General Glacel for his contributions to our Army and our country. General Glacel is a consummate professional whose performance in over three decades of service, in peace and in war, has personified those traits of courage, competency and commitment that our nation has come to expect from its Army officers. Robert Glacel entered service after graduating from the United States Military Academy and being commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1969. He served as a forward observer, artillery liaison officer and assistant executive officer in the 3rd of the 319th Field Artillery battalion in Vietnam. There he received the Bronze Star Medal for his valor. He immediately assumed command of an artillery batter in Germany in 1971, followed by successful command of a division artillery platoon and as the division artillery intelligence officer. After earning two masters degrees from MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, General Glacel instructed and was an assistant professor at West Point in the Engineering Department. He also earned his MBA while tenured there. After the West Point assignment, he returned to the field and served as the Operations Officer and Executive Officer for the 1st of the 37th Field Artillery battalion in Fort Richardson, Alaska. With a stint at the Pentagon as an Operations Research/Systems Analyst in between, General Glacel was then selected to command the 1st Battalion, 4th Field Artillery, 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division in Korea from 1987 through 1989. After attendance at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, General Glacel returned to the Pentagon as a Military Political Planner in 1990 with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He became the Chief of the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Branch, and was the lead negotiator in the historic CFE Treaty process and was a mainstay on the United States planning teams in Washington and Brussels, Belgium. He was also a major contributor to the new European security structure. General Glacel was then selected by the Army to command the 7th Infantry Division (Light) Artillery Commander out of Fort Ord, California. Following his successful command, he served as the Executive Officer to the Under Secretary of the Army. In this role, he ably provided guidance and direction to the Army staff, and served as liaison between the Under Secretary, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and assistant secretaries and Army Staff. He demonstrated diplomacy, decision making, leadership and perseverance. General Glacel was then selected to serve as the Chief of the Requirements and Programs Branch for the Commander, SHAPE. He was the SHAPE commander's subject matter expert for the Defense Planning Process across the whole of the Allied Command Europe. His most recent assignment put the general at the head of the Test and Experimentation Command (TEXCOM) at Fort Hood, Texas, which is in my congressional district. He quickly gained credibility with senior Army leadership through the data collection effort for the Division Warfighting Experiment (DAWE), making TEXCOM the Army's data collector of choice for all future experiments associated with the digitized division and corps design through the Force XXI process. On a personal note, I am grateful to call Robert Glacel a close, personal friend. He is a role model for all of us: a man of integrity, decency, and compassion. Let me also say that every accolade to Robert Glacel must also be considered a tribute to his family, his wife of 30 years, Barbara, and his three lovely daughters, Ashley, Sarah and Jennifer. As a wife and mother, Barbara has been a true partner in all of Robert's accomplishments. Robert and Barbara have made their community and our country a better place in which to live. They have touched so many lives, through their consideration and sincere caring. Robert Glacel's career reflects a deep commitment to our nation, which has been characterized by dedicated, selfless service, love for soldiers and a commitment to excellence. I offer my heartfelt appreciation for a job well done over the past thirty years and best wishes for continued success, to a great soldier and defender of freedom. I ask Members to join me in wishing Robert, Barbara and their three daughters every success and happiness in the future.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. First of all, let me again say the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) did as well as they could for veterans health care funding given the constraints of the budget that have been built in by the tax bill. I do not understand, frankly, the point that this would not be real money. If it is not real money, then it should not have been part of the tax bill that was passed and has been talked about greatly by my Republican colleagues over the last 30 days. If it is real money, which I assume it was when they voted for this in the tax cut bill, then it should be real money, just as real for veterans health care as it could be for tax cuts.

Mr. EDWARDS. I do have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. It is about the question, Mr. Chairman, one of the questions that has been raised: Is this legislating on an appropriation bill? I think in the committee discussion it came up, the point that perhaps there were some tax provisions in an appropriation bill. My parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman, is that on October 21 of last year, less than 1 year ago today, public law 105-277 was signed into law. This was the omnibus appropriations bill, and could I inquire to the Chair how was it that that appropriation bill allowed 6 different provisions dealing with research and other tax provisions, the research credit, the work opportunity tax credit, the welfare to work tax credit, contributions of stock to private foundations that tax credit, subpart F exemption for active finance and income tax credit, and finally the disclosure of returned information on the income contingent student loans. All of those provisions were legislating in effect and dealt with the issue of taxes, and my question is: What rules of this House allow the House to pass less than 1 year ago an appropriation bill that funded, as my colleagues know I think it was $37 million for King Cove, Alaska, a community of 800 people, and yet today the House might not be allowed to offer this tax provision which pays for the veterans health care increase on a similar appropriation bill.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), the ranking member, for the plus-up that they are responsible for on a bipartisan basis in the Committee on Appropriations for VA health care. Because of these two gentlemen, veterans will get care that they otherwise would not have received. I, among others, appreciate that effort. But my amendment is very straightforward. It tries to more adequately fund VA health care. It says that Congress should delay for one year the capital gains tax cut recently passed in this House and take that $730 million and add it for additional spending for VA health care so that we can at least try to maintain present levels of services for our Nation's veterans. What this amendment says, in effect, is a Congress that can afford to offer Bill Gates a multimillion dollar if not a billion dollar tax cut ought to be able to afford to fully and adequately fund veterans health care. Let us look at where we are today, even with the $1.7 billion plus-up that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) have been responsible for pushing. Let me quote Andrew Kistler, national commander of disabled American veterans. ``While we greatly appreciate the $1.7 billion increase over the administration's budget request contained in the VA appropriations bill, it does not go far enough to provide for the health care needs of a sicker, older veterans population.'' Let me read from the American Legion a letter dated August 4 of this year from Steve Robertson, director of the National Legislative Coalition. He says: ``The VA currently has an extremely long list of veterans seeking various types of long-term care. The VA's budgetary constraints limit its ability to effectively and efficiently meet their needs. Currently, waiting times for appointments in the VA system are staggering. We are not talking days or weeks but months. If a veteran needs a specialist, the wait is even longer.'' He goes on to say: ``The American Legion supports this amendment and any waiver that may be in order for the amendment to proceed to the floor.'' Mr. Chairman, virtually every major veterans organization in this country has come out in support of this amendment which failed by only one vote in committee, and I would urge its passage on this floor.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. No, I did not make that representation to anyone.

Mr. EDWARDS. Right, but I guess the point I would like to make is that if the Republican leadership felt $730 million was available for a tax cut, capital gains tax cut for 1 year for some of the wealthiest families in America then I would say I would argue that money is available, should be made available, to veterans. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized on the point of order?

Mr. EDWARDS. If I could just finish very, very briefly, I guess my point, Mr. Chairman, if this is ruled out of order is that I want to make it clear that this House had the right to, through its Committee on Rules, to write a rule that would have made this amendment in order that was supported by virtually every major veterans organization in America, and a very similar thing was done on issues I thought were far less important less than a year ago on a very similar appropriations bill.

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