Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana for an answer to that question. Would a Christian under the gentleman's legislation and H.R. 815 who is participating in a program run by the Wiccans be forced to participate in a Wiccan religious service?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the issue before the House today is not whether faith-based organizations can be an effective tool in solving America's social problems. The real question is whether, in effect, an unconstitutional direct funding of churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of religion would empower faith-based organizations or shackle them with Federal regulations. I am going to put aside my prepared remarks and ask the gentleman from Pennsylvania if he would allow us to exchange a discussion and questions. Since this did not go through a committee hearing process, I think it would be very helpful if the gentleman would answer some questions about the intent of this legislation, if the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) would allow me to have that exchange. Now, if I could ask the gentleman, under this bill, and H.R. 815 which it supports, it says, the program can basically require a participant in a drug and alcohol abuse program to, quote, ``actively participate in religious practice, worship and instruction, and follow rules of behavior devised by the organizations that are religious in content and/or origin.'' Now, if a Wiccan organization, Wiccan organization were to win a drug and alcohol abuse grant funding program for the Federal Government, can I ask, could a Christian participant in that Wiccan program be forced to participate in a religious ceremony honoring the sun or the moon? I would like to ask the author of the legislation, since only can we know by hearing from the author of the legislation, what the intent of this important legislation is that goes to the heart of the very idea and principle of the first amendment of the Constitution.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the answer is absolutely. Absolutely. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think this point, these answers to these fundamental questions are an example of why it is a poor reflection upon this House that an issue as important as religious freedom is defended by the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights. The last two times this was debated it was debated at 12 a.m. and 1 a.m. respectively, and today it is debated during a suspension calendar. Maybe that is appropriate. We are suspending the religious freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment of the Bill of Rights under the suspension calendar today. This deserves more consideration, and this measure should be defeated.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman admitting that under this legislation, we are going to endorse for the first time perhaps in this country's history federally- funded job discrimination based on race, sex, religion, marital status. I think that would be as good of an argument as I could make against this legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, without the Conyers substitute, nine licensed vendors could sell thousands of guns to felons at a gun show without doing one criminal background check. Let me repeat. Without the Conyers substitute, nine licensed vendors could sell thousands of guns to felons without doing one criminal background check. In the wake of the Columbine High tragedies, only the NRA and those who support them could call this progress. Vote ``yes'' on the Conyers substitute.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I live in rural central Texas where guns are a way of life. I am a hunter and a gun owner. But I am also a father and a husband, and tonight I will vote for the safety of my children and family and for my colleagues'. I will vote for the McCarthy amendment and for the bipartisan Conyers-Campbell amendment, which is identical to the Senate-passed language. Why? Because I believe that is the right thing to do for the safety of our children, our homes, and our neighborhoods. I will vote for effective criminal background checks at gun shows that minimize felon loopholes. I surely believe that a minor inconvenience for a handful is a very small price to pay for saving American lives. Several years ago, as a new Member of this House from the rural south, I voted in favor of an assault weapon ban and lived to tell the story. But far more important than that, somewhere in America tonight a child is alive, alive because Congress 5 years ago had the courage to pass a common-sense gun safety law. Tonight, with the Conyers amendment, with the McCarthy amendment, we have another opportunity to save the lives of more children by passing common-sense gun safety legislation. Now, I know and my colleagues know that some may fear the safety of their political seats for these votes, but I have greater faith in the American families and parents than that. It is time to put the interest of our safe schools and our children's safety above the interest of special interests here in Washington, D.C. Some suggest punishing gun offenders is the way to reduce some gun violence. But surely if we talk to the parents of crime victims, they would tell us that punishing their offenders is no substitute for effective prevention of their children's murder through common-sense gun safety laws. Vote for Conyers, vote for McCarthy, vote for our children.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, after hearing the last statement on the floor, I am reminded of a statement made by the 18th Century American Baptist preacher, John Leland, who fought mightily for a religious liberty amendment in the Bill of Rights when he said, ``Experience has informed us that the fondness of magistrates to foster Christianity has done it more harm than all the persecutions ever did. Persecution, like the lion, tears the saints to death, but leaves Christianity pure. State establishment of religion, like a bear, hugs the saints, but corrupts Christianity.'' Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with this picture? Our Founding Fathers decided that the issue of religious liberty, the concept of separating church and State in America was so important it should be the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights. But here we are, after midnight, more staff people on this floor than Members of this House, debating with the gracious allowance of 10 minutes on each side, 10 minutes to debate an issue that is fundamental to the point. It is the very beginning of the foundation of our Bill of Rights and the first amendment. That is wrong. Now, I would suggest it is absolutely disingenuous to suggest that tonight is a debate about the goodness of the Ten Commandments. I am a Christian, I would say to my colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barr). I am not going to debate my level of Christianity versus anyone else's. It is not my place in my Christianity to judge anyone else. But that is not what this debate is all about. This debate is whether government has the right to use its resources to push its religious views on other free citizens of this land. And do not listen to my words tonight. Listen to what the Supreme Court said. The Supreme Court has clearly stated in its cases that the preeminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on the schoolroom walls is plainly religious in nature. This debate does disservice to the Bill of Rights and the principle of religious liberty.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is the same language that not 5 or 10 Members of this House knew was in the welfare reform bill. And I was here on the floor of the House at 1 a.m. in the morning the last time we debated this. But would the gentleman please answer my question? It is a good-faith question to the gentleman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, it is now getting worse. Instead of having 10 minutes on each side of the aisle to debate the fundamental issue of separation of church and State, we now only have 5 minutes; 5 minutes in the middle of the night, with very few Members here, to discuss something that was so important, that was embedded in the very foundation of the Bill of Rights, the principle of separating government's power from the right of citizens in this country to exercise their own religious beliefs. I would make a suggestion. If it were my intent to undermine the religious tolerance for which we have great pride and respect in America, for intent to undermine that tolerance and to create a Northern Ireland in the United States of America, where one religion is pitted against another, let me tell my colleagues how I would do it. I would put billions of dollars out on the table and tell churches and synagogues that they ought to compete now for that money to help administer social programs. Five years from now we will have the Baptists arguing with the Methodists, with the Catholics, with the Jews, with the Hindus, with the Muslims, over who got their proportional share of the almighty Federal dollar. Since we were not given the privilege of having even a 10-minute debate in committee on this fundamental issue, I would hope the author of this amendment would clarify to this House before we vote on this crucial point whether this will allow money to go directly to pervasively sectarian religious institutions. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to yield to the gentleman if he would answer that question.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, considering the important nature of this issue, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed an additional 30 minutes to try to answer the questions that the author of the amendment just said he could not?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, despite the good intentions of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) in offering this amendment, I cannot believe at 10:30 in the evening, with more staff members than Members on the floor of the House, the gentleman from Indiana just rewrote the Constitution of the United States. I would suggest that Article III, Section 1 and Section 2 are very clear, that this body, this House, has no right to declare any action or law constitutional or unconstitutional. If the gentleman can show me where in this Constitution right now we have the authority to declare something as constitutional or unconstitutional, I will support this amendment. But I am confident it does not. We cannot rewrite 200 years of history in 5-minute debates on the floor of the House. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson spent 10 years debating the important principles of the separation of church and State because they realized how fundamental it was to the law of this land. Yet, late at night, with so few Members on this floor, we are debating that same principle, given not 10 years, not 10 months, not 10 weeks, not even 10 hours of committee hearings, but 10 minutes per side to debate this fundamental issue. That kind of short-shrifting of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the first 16 words of the Bill's amendments leaves numerous unanswered questions, not the least of which are who decides how many memorials can be on a public school campus, government employees? Who decides what those symbols can be, which religions are okay? Are wiccan symbols okay? How about satanic symbols? This does not do respect to our Constitution and Bill of Rights, no matter how well-intended the author is.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson debated the issues of church State separation and religious liberty for 10 years in the Virginia legislature. Our Founding Fathers dedicated the first 16 words of the Bill of Rights to the principle of religious freedom. But the Republican leadership in this House through this rule will limit amendment, debate on issues that go directly to the core principle of religious freedom to 10 minutes a side. Ten years for Madison and Jefferson, 10 minutes per side in this House today. That is an insult to this House, it is an insult to the Bill of Rights, and it shows disrespect to the principle, the important principle of religious liberty. If the school prayer, Ten Commandments and religious funding amendments in this bill are serious, I would ask my Republican colleagues to say why they limited the debate to 10 minutes a side. If they are not serious, why do they show disrespect to the principles of the first amendment to the Constitution by letting them be debated on such a superficial basis on the floor of this House. The Republican leadership that is not listening now owes this House an answer why they are denying us the right to debate these important issues.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the outstanding members of the 143rd Infantry Regiment and to recognize the proud tradition of that body upon their annual Regimental reunion. I would especially like to recognize the war veterans of the regiment, including one who has been with the group since World War I. This unique regiment has a strong and deep connection with the Waco community, which is in my Texas Congressional District. Throughout its long history, it has been made up primarily of Central Texans. The Regiment began as a Militia Company in 1873 and has seen many different designations and missions throughout its history. These have included service in the Spanish American War, World War I, and World War II. In World War II the 143rd distinguished itself as a truly outstanding military unit by becoming one of the first American detachments to land in Europe and then later one of the first to enter Rome. After World War II, the Regiment helped Waco recover from a devastating tornado, working around the clock in rescue and patrol operations. In the 1960's the Regiment was reorganized into an Airborne Unit and exists today as an active National Guard unit. The superb all volunteer paratroopers of the unit are among America's best, and today they continue the proud tradition of the 143rd Infantry. I ask Members to join me and offer our heartfelt thanks and congratulations to an outstanding American Regiment--the 143rd Infantry.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate a great Army officer and soldier--Major General Morris J. ``Morrie'' Boyd--and thank him for his contributions to the Army and the country. General Morrie Boyd will retire in June after a long and distinguished career. He is a consummate professional whose performance in over three decades of service, in peace and war, has personified those traits of courage, competency and commitment that our nation has come to expect from its Army officers. Morrie entered service on the 6th of April 1965. He was selected to attend Officer Candidate School and was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1966. He served as an artillery officer in Vietnam from October 1966 to June 1968 and again from April 1970 to March 1971. While deployed to Vietnam, he served as an assistant firing platoon leader, executive officer of a battery, commanded a howitzer battery, commanded a platoon from the 21st Aviation Company, and was the Intelligence and Security Officer for the 212th Aviation Battalion. Morrie was again deployed for combat during Operation Desert Shield/ Desert Storm. From December 1990 to May 1991, he served as the commander of the 42nd Field Artillery Brigade in Saudi Arabia. He came to Washington in the mid-90s to serve as the Chief, Army Legislative Liaison from June 1995 to June 1997. From June 1995 to June 1997, he ably assisted the Army's senior leadership in dealing with Members of Congress and their staffs. He was very focused on helping elected officials and their staffs understand the needs of the Army as it transformed itself from a forward deployed force to a power projection force. Morrie most recently served as the Deputy Commanding General for III Corps and Fort Hood. Throughout his career, he focused his talent and energy to improve the areas of Warfighting, Training, Modernization, Mobilization, and Quality of Life for soldiers and their families. On a personal note, I am pleased to call Morrie 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 Morrie must also be considered a tribute to his family, his wife of 30 years, Maddie and his son, Ray. As a wife and a mother Maddie has been a true partner in all of his accomplishments. General Boyd's career has reflected a deep commitment to our nation, which has been characterized by dedicated selfless service, love for soldiers, and a commitment to excellence. I ask Members to join me and offer our heartfelt appreciation for a job well done over the past thirty years and best wishes for continued success, to a great soldier and friend of Congress--General Morris J. Boyd.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my best wishes to Angela Lois Green and Alexander Todd Hewlett on their upcoming wedding. Miss Green and Mr. Hewlett will be united in holy matrimony on May 8, 1999 at seven o'clock in the evening at St. Paul's United Methodist Church in Houston. Reverend L. James Bankston will officiate the candlelight double-ring ceremony. The bride is the daughter of Congressman and Mrs. Gene Green of Houston. She is the granddaughter of Mrs. Mildred Albers and the late Leon Albers of Houston, and Mr. and Mrs. Garland Green of Bedford, Pennsylvania. The groom is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Robert Hewlett of Tucson, Arizona. He is the grandson of the late Mr. and Mrs. Frank Watkins, and of the late Mr. and Mrs. Floyd Hewlett, both of Tucson, Arizona. Serving as Matron on Honor will be Sarah Goggans. Melissa Murray will serve as Maid of Honor. Bridesmaids will include Marina Monteforte, Erin Mireur, and Karen Zientek. Members of the House Party will be Karen Rudich, Amy White, and Nichole Sepulvado. Serving his brother as Best Man will be Andrew Hewlett. Groomsmen will be Scott Davis, Brian Somers, Babak Mokari, and Chris Green, brother of the bride. Tony Chacon, Brian Ledden, and Matt Thompson will serve as ushers. Angela is a 1993 Honor graduate of Aldine High School in Houston. She was a member and section leader of the Aldine Band, a member of the Honor Society, and served as President of the Student Council. In 1998, she earned a Bachelor of Arts in Biology from the University of Texas at Austin, where she was a member and President of Alpha Xi Delta, and was a Robert C. Byrd Honor Scholar. She also served as Executive Vice President of the Panhellenic Council in 1996-97. She was recently elected President of the American Medical Students Association at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, where she is currently a second-year medical student. Alex is a 1992 graduate of Sabino High School in Tucson, Arizona, where he was a member of the state champion Sabino Sabercats football team. In 1996, he earned a Bachelor of Arts in Chemistry from Pomona College in Claremont, California, where he was a member of Sigma Tau fraternity, and played football for the Pomona College Sagehens. Alex is a fourth-year medical student at Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine in Athens, Ohio. He received the Tucson Osteopathic Foundation Scholars Award in 1997. He did clinical research at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City during the summer of 1997. He is currently doing clinical rotations at St. John West Shore Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio, where he is the CORE Site Representative. As Angela and Alex begin their new life together, may they always remember I Corinthians, which states: Love is patient and kind, love is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. I would like to express my congratulations to Congressman Green and his wife Helen. I also ask that the House join me in wishing Angela and Alex a long and fruitful marriage. May their love continue to grow.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) for graciously giving me this moment to speak. Mr. Speaker, I love Jake Pickle. He is a man of courage, a man of compassion, and someone who loves life, every day of it. He was a man of compassion as a freshman Member of this House when, in 1965, as a young southern representative he voted in favor of the Civil Rights Act, an act that made major changes in allowing equal opportunity for American citizens of all colors. He was a man of compassion in everything he did, especially in his leadership and saving the Social Security system back in the 1980s. We could all talk about the many accomplishments of Jake Pickle but, frankly, the reason I love Jake Pickle, in addition to respecting him for his legislative accomplishments, is because he personifies the biblical passage of, this is the day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. Jake Pickle brought light into any room, into anyplace where he came. He loves life and we love him. We miss Mr. Pickle of Texas, our dear friend.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the stability of Europe, which is supported by all of the NATO leaders, is very much in the interest of America's national security. I would also suggest that what is extreme and radical is not the action of our NATO allies. What is extreme and radical have been the actions of the modern day Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic. I do not think we should write a blank check in this matter, and this resolution does not. Let us be clear about that. What we can do in voting for this resolution though is check the power of someone who has killed not 3,700, but hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. How ironic it would be that the NATO leaders who left this Nation's capital just a few days ago unified to stand up to that reign of terror would have that unity now undermined by those of us who work in this Capitol. Let us recognize that if we stop the air war now, Milosevic wins, NATO loses; the ethnic cleanser wins, and Europe's stability loses. Every other two-bit terrorist in the world would be emboldened to emulate this modern day Holocaust. If this measure is defeated now, especially in light of the passage of the Fowler resolution earlier, what we will have done today is this: We have said we are not yet ready to support a ground war, and now we are not even sure we want to continue supporting an action of an air war supported unanimously by our NATO allies. Mr. Speaker, I would ask Members on both sides of the aisle, please, in a bipartisan vote, do not send this message to Mr. Milosevic. Let us send him a clear message, that while we are not quite sure if we want to commit to ground troops today or any day, we do not believe that God's gift of life and liberty stops at the American border. Let us support this resolution.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to my good friend and colleague from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), a leader in the area of dealing with issues of nonproliferation. He and I have worked together on a number of these issues and that is why I respect his opinion on this, but I wanted to respond specifically to some of his comments. The first one was, at the end of the day in this process, after the conference committee has finished its work, he would probably hope that this cut of $150 million to take 50 tons of bomb-grade plutonium off the Russian marketplace, he hopes that rescission, that cut, would be thrown out. And what I would suggest is that if this is such a terribly dangerous area we are dealing with, if we know it is the right thing to cut it out at the end of the day, why do we not cut it out on the first day right here in the House, let the House speak its voice today, saying we do want to do anything that might possibly risk the proliferation of such potentially catastrophic levels of nuclear bomb materials. Secondly, he made a good point that I do agree with. He said that we should fund other programs to protect nuclear materials, whether they be in Russia or the United States, or elsewhere for that matter, and I agree with the gentleman. I want to work with the gentleman. But that does not in any way take away from the argument that when we have a real opportunity, as we speak today, to take 50 tons of nuclear materials off the marketplace that could be exposed to purchase and purchased by international terrorists or the very powerful Mafia in the former Soviet Union, we ought to take advantage of that today. He talked about very delicate negotiations, and I would agree with that. And I would say to my respected friend that that is one of the very reasons I would use to argue during the middle of very delicate negotiations that not only include Russia and the United States but bring in other nations of the world, we ought not to be tinkering with this. I do not know if there is a 5 percent chance, a 10 percent chance, a 95 percent chance this $150 million cut could destroy those negotiations. I do not want to take a 1 percent chance that we might potentially unload bomb-grade nuclear materials on the world marketplace for terrorists. And I do not think there is any Member of this House, Republican or Democrat, who has spoken with the negotiators on the American and Russian side who would come to this floor and honestly say, after having talked with the negotiators involved in this process, there is a 99 percent chance that the negotiations would go on. When we talked about national missile defense the other day, no one said there is a 90 percent chance someone is going to send an ICBM into New York City. But through the Republican leadership and bipartisan support of people like myself, we said we want a national missile defense system even if there is a 1 percent chance that a foreign nation would send their missiles into our Nation. I have got to say to my friend that I recognize and I am fearful of the fact of the 200 tons of plutonium in the Russian area in terms of what we need to get our arms around. But where I disagree with my colleague, I do not think that fact makes it any less important to try to take 50 tons of that 200 tons off the international terrorist marketplace while we have that opportunity. Ultimately, I think we have to have some respect for the people directly involved in this. And I would like to read briefly the statement made by the Secretary of Energy, who has direct responsibility for overseeing these negotiations, part of which have already proven to be extremely successful. He says, ``Such a reduction,'' as proposed in this bill today, ``would have severe consequences,'' severe consequences, ``for the ongoing negotiations in pursuit of a bilateral agreement with Russia on disposing of enough plutonium to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. ``To now withdraw this earnest money,'' he says, ``would be to call into question U.S. reliability. Russia may well perceive such a withdrawal as a breach of good faith. Withdrawing this money would severely set back, and might even bring a halt to, our constructive discussions on this important nonproliferation and national security issue.'' Now, if any of the proponents of this $150 million cut have talked to the chief American negotiator and the chief Russian negotiator, I would be willing to donate my time at this time to listen to that Member tell me what they were told by those negotiators and to assure me that it is no risk to my family or their family to risk the breakdown of these negotiations. The truth is there is not a House Member who has spoken directly to either one of those sides of negotiations and can come to this floor and say this is not risking potential catastrophe for the American civilian population or our servicemen and women abroad.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, last week I heard a lot of speeches in this House about the crucial need to protect American families with the National Missile Defense System. Frankly, it is a concept I support. I heard a lot of speeches about the threat of nuclear missiles launched against the United States. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why I am so amazed and disappointed that this bill, less than 1 week after those very speeches, eliminates crucial funds designed to stop the nonproliferation of nuclear bomb grade materials in Russia. Specifically, this measure would cut $150 million that, as we speak, is being used to develop an agreement between Russia and the United States that would take 50 tons of plutonium, 50 tons of plutonium, and make it unusable for nuclear weapons. Mr. Speaker, 50 tons of plutonium is enough nuclear material to build as many as 20,000 nuclear bombs. That is 20,000 nuclear bombs that could be put on missiles and aimed toward the United States, or 20,000 nuclear bombs that could be hidden in a truck and detonated in any American city, 20,000 nuclear bombs that terrorists and thugs across the world would pay any price to get their hands on. According to the chief American negotiator in these ongoing negotiations with Russia, according to that negotiator, this bill could cause Russia to walk away from these crucial anti-proliferation negotiations. Mr. Speaker, we all know there is serious economic instability in Russia. We all know that there is a serious presence of organized crime in Russia. We all know that there are terrorists throughout the world that would do anything to get their hands on even 1 percent of this 50 tons of plutonium and use that to build weapons that could be used against American servicemen and women abroad or against American families in their own homes, in their own hometowns. There is no logic, absolutely no logic, to spending billions of dollars for a National Missile Defense System and then at the very same time stopping a process that could prevent the potential development of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. This action would give new meaning to the term ``penny-wise and pound-foolish.'' Now, proponents of this proposed $150 million cut allege it will not undermine our nonproliferation negotiations with Russia. That is what they allege. Well, that is not what the American negotiator says. That is not what the Russian negotiator said, and said as late as yesterday to a number of Members of the House. That is not what the Republican author of this crucial funding says, and that is not what the Secretary of Energy said, the former U.N. Ambassador, who has ultimate responsibility for these ongoing nonproliferation debates. Let me quote Secretary Richardson, the Secretary of Energy, when he said in a letter dated today, ``Such a reduction would have severe consequences,'' severe consequences, ``for the ongoing negotiations of pursuit of a bilateral agreement with Russia on disposing of enough plutonium to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. To now withdraw this earnest money would be to call into question U.S. reliability. Russia may well perceive such a withdrawal as a breach of good faith. Withdrawing this money would severely set back and might even bring a halt to our constructive discussions on this important nonproliferation and national security issue.'' He goes on to say that, ``The U.S. has also been working closely with the international community to gain commitments for additional support for the Russian plutonium dispossession effort. These potential donors would perceive a reduction in available U.S. funds as a dilution of our leadership and resolve and our leverage would be drastically undercut.'' Mr. Speaker, we should do the prudent thing today. We should send this bill back to committee and have it withdrawn, have the provisions withdrawn that would basically put a greater risk on American servicemen and women abroad and American families right at home. No Member would have the intent to harm any serviceman or woman or not a single person in this country. But I would suggest that, despite the best of intentions, if we listen to the negotiators, we listen to the experts involved in these nonproliferation debates, this measure today and this unwise, difficult, terrible cut could put at risk our negotiations and, most importantly, millions of Americans all across this land of ours. Let us do the right thing. Let us send this bill back to committee. And if that fails, let us vote for the Obey amendment that takes out this unwise and dangerous and I hope and pray not catastrophic proposal.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my best wishes to the members of the University High School's Mariachi Cultural. This group represents Texas' multicultural heritage and helps instill pride in our Hispanic culture. The group was started in March 1997, under the capable leadership of Jose Nino. Since then, the volunteer student group has performed at numerous events and was featured on Univision, the international cable station. Earlier this year, the group was able to purchase new uniforms after a successful fundraising effort. The Waco community came out full force for this talented musical group and made the new uniforms a reality. I ask members to join me in congratulating this special group on their musical successes.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my congratulations to the City of Waco on its 150th birthday. A dedicated and hardworking breed of Texan has taken Waco from a sleepy pioneer village settled in the 1840s to a bustling business and commercial hub ready to move into the 21st century. For a century and a half, Waco has taken the best and made it better, faced the worst and never retreated but always, always moved forward. Waco has seen its fair share of boom times and depression, war and peace, hot summers and freezing winters. Waco has always shown an amazing ability to adapt, and to always remain true to the spirit of the first settlers who put down roots on the banks of the Brazos River. The first settlers and those who followed in their footsteps would be amazed by how Waco has grown and prospered over the past 150 years. They would see that the famous Chisolm Trail where millions of cattle were driven to northern rail heads is now replaced with an Interstate Highway. Interstate 35 is the new concrete and asphalt Chisolm Trail that streams with goods going to market and people traveling to the four points of the compass. The settlers would also see that several bridges now span the great Brazos River. A century ago the only way to cross the river was by ferry or on a single suspension bridge. These days, Waco has moved from ferry rides to family vans and four-wheel drives that easily cross the river on steel and concrete bridges. The settlers would also see that the Bosque River, has been dammed and a glittering lake now provides a stable supply of clean water to thousands of Central Texas families. The settlers would also be amazed to see mile after mile of homes, schools, hospitals and churches that have sprung up in the past 150 years. The settlers would see that the clothes are different, the homes are nicer, the people are healthier and life is safer. What would not amaze those settlers are the people who now call Waco home. The early settlers would see in the 21st century Wacoan a strength handed down through the generations--a strength reinforced by faith and family. What is clear to me is that the settlers of yesterday and Wacoans of today share traits that will hold the future citizens in good stead for the next 150 years. Those traits includes a devotion to family and faith, a willingness to work, a strong streak of independence and an ingenuity and doggedness to overcome any obstacle. I ask members to join me in congratulating the people of Waco on 150 years. I also want to extend my best wishes and every wish for success to Waco--a city with a proud past and a promising future.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 17 on H.R. 350, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, there has been much said recently about the rule of law and bipartisanship. The proposed amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) to Rule XXIV, clause 14 of the Rules of this House would enhance both. With his amendment, we can cast a bipartisan vote that would protect the integrity of the lawmaking process. With this amendment, we can strengthen the rule of law by improving the rules by which we pass our laws. Specifically, this amendment says that our power as Members should be used to pass public laws, to punish private citizens for their political party affiliation. Mr. Speaker, for a half a century, our Nation and its veterans stood up against a form of government that said one's job depended upon one's political party affiliation. It was wrong then, and it is wrong today. This is a common-sense amendment that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley) has proposed. In the spirit of the comity of this day, I would urge Republicans and Democrats to support that amendment. Let our words and deeds be bipartisan. In conclusion, let me let the amendment speak for itself. It says that a Member, Delegate or Resident Commissioner may not in his official capacity intervene, including threatening to deny access, to prevent the hiring of, or to encourage the dismissal of an individual by any lobbying organization, trade association, or law firm based upon the political party affiliation of such individual. A Member who is a member of the leadership may not attempt to intimidate any interest group by threatening to base its decisions about scheduling legislation for consideration by the House based upon the pattern of political contributions by such interest group. I urge Members on a bipartisan basis to vote against the previous question. Let us add this common-sense, fair amendment to the rules of the people's House.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as Speaker Jim Wright asked from the well of this House in 1989, ``When will this mindless cannibalism end?'' How many good public officials must be destroyed because of their private sins and human imperfections? When will we stop using the fallibilities of dedicated public servants to overturn the will of the American people expressed in free elections? When will we stop the sin of focusing on the faults of others while ignoring the faults of ourselves? When will we recognize that the genius of our Founding Fathers was that they designed a system of government two centuries ago that would survive not because of the perfections of those who serve but despite the imperfections of all of us who serve? When? When? My colleagues, I would suggest only when we recognize these things will the rule of law and equal justice under the law prevail in this the people's House.