Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, except for a declaration of war, a U.S. Representative can never be called upon to make a decision requiring more serious or solemn consideration than on a vote to impeach a President of the United States. I believe what President Clinton did was indefensible and immoral, but I do not think his actions, however, wrong, reached the high constitutional threshold for impeachment and the overturning of the only national election in our democracy. Over 200 years ago, George Mason proposed the language in Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution establishing the grounds for impeachment as ``treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.'' He defined these actions to mean only ``great and dangerous offenses'' or ``attempts to subvert the Constitution.'' Having a private affair and hiding it are wrong under any circumstances, but I am not convinced such actions ``subvert the Constitution'' and justify nullifying the votes of 47 million American citizens. I condemn the President's actions and believe bipartisan congressional censure and the possibility of future criminal action would be appropriate punishment for his affair and subsequent misleading statements. Consider the chance that a Senate conviction would be extremely remote, the specter of a three to nine month Senate trial with tawdry televised testimony from Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, and Kenneth Starr would punish the nation and our families far more than it would punish Bill Clinton. The President should be strongly censured by Congress and then have his day in court like any other citizen. He should not be above the law and he should not be below the law. History and God will be his ultimate judge. The hindsight of history will be harsh on this Congress and this unfair process. For some to speak of their vote of conscience today even as they deny a vote of deep conscience for others is in itself unconscionable. A process whose goal was to emulate the Watergate legacy, sadly, will leave a legacy more akin to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, a legacy of partisanship, unfairness, and rush to judgment. In the name of the Constitution, this process trampled on the Constitution, Article II and VI. In the name of ``the rule of law'' this process ignored the fundamental principles of due process and fairness that form the foundation of that rule of law. In the name of ``no person is above the law'' this process forgot that no citizen should be below the law. In the name of justice, this process ignored the pillar of justice that in our nation, a citizen is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. In the name of America, this process raised the ugly debate of who is a ``real'' American. History will judge this process as a combination of Kafka, ``To Kill A Mockingbird,'' and Keystone Kops. Mr. Speaker, if the Golden Rule were to be our guide, who among us in this House would want to be a defendant in a case where the rules of law and fairness were ignored? Where secret grand jury testimony was released to the world? Where there was not one direct fact-witness? Where your defense attorney was limited to one hour of cross- examination of your chief accuser, who spent four years and forty million dollars investigating you? Where your attorney was forced to give your final defense before even one formal charge had been presented against you? Where the charges of perjury that were finally presented at the 11th hour failed the test of decency to list which statements were allegedly perjurious? Surely, Mr. Speaker, no Member of this House would ever want or deserve to be a defendant in such a case. Yet, if we would not want to be judged by such an unfair process, then what right do we have to judge anyone else by that process? To even suggest that such a process was somehow fair because impeachment is not a trial would be to hid behind a fig leaf of legalism for those who claim to revere the principles of ``the rule of law'' and ``equal justice under the law.'' I will not question the final decision of any Member of this House for these are votes of conscience. However, just as we are judges today, history will judge this Congress tomorrow and for generations to come. Perhaps the ultimate justice is that history will judge that on this matter, the Congress and the President both failed to meet the highest standards in the sacred stewardship of the public trust. As we end this Congress, regrettably, on a note of partisanship and ill will, one week before Christmas, perhaps it would be good if the President and all of us of all faiths, myself included, paused in the days ahead to reflect on the values of a small child born in Bethlehem whose life taught the world the power of love, forgiveness, and compassion. Maybe then the next Congress and our President could share the common bond and highest ideals of public service.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give special tribute to my constituent and good friend, Mr. Ernest J. King of Temple, Texas. On January 2, 1999, Mr. King will retire from government service upon serving his country for forty-two years and nine months. Born in Palestine, West Virginia, Mr. King joined the Army National Guard in 1956 and served with distinction as a guardsman until 1971. In that capacity, he became a specialist in the Nike Ajax and Nike Hercules military fire control systems at Fort MacArthur, California. Throughout his tenure there, he earned various awards and commendations befitting his exemplary service in the Guard. Upon completing his military service, he began his twenty-seven year tenure as an electronics technician with the Federal Aviation Administration. His breadth of experience highlights Mr. King's service in the FAA. He received numerous citations for his dedication to excellence, often described in accolades from his superiors as having ``a can-do attitude'', ``a keen sense of personal initiative'' and ``a professionalism maintained at a level far beyond the call of duty''. Mr. King played an instrumental role in attaining the FAA's Best Regional Sector Field Office of the Year Award for 1974 and Best Regional Sector of the Year Award for 1981. He was also lauded for his efforts in the Panama Canal Zone. After President Carter signed the Panama Canal Treaty in 1978, Mr. King and his colleagues were charged with the air traffic and radar control transition from United States to Panamanian jurisdiction. They did this with particular distinction, earning high praise from the regional headquarters in Atlanta. The King family has resided in my Congressional district since 1981. My admiration and fondness for them run deep. Furthermore, I extend my sincere appreciation to Mr. King for his commitment and duty to his country for over forty years. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me today in recognizing and honoring a gentleman who has served his country and community well.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the hindsight of history will be harsh on this Congress and this unfair process. For some to speak of their vote of conscience today, even as they deny others a deep vote of conscience, is in itself unconscionable. A process whose goal was to emulate the Watergate legacy sadly will leave a legacy more akin to the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. In the name of the Constitution, Article II, this process trampled on the Constitution, Articles II and VI. In the name of the rule of law, this process ignored the fundamental principles of due process and fairness that formed the foundation of that rule of law. In the name of no person is above the law, this process forgot that no citizen should be treated below the law. In the name of justice, this process ignored the pillar of justice that in our Nation every citizen is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. In the name of America, this process raised the ugly debate of who is a real American. History will surely judge this process as a combination of Kafka, To Kill a Mockingbird and Keystone Kops. Mr. Speaker, if the Golden Rule were to be our guide, who among us, who among us, Democrat or Republican in this House, would want to be a defendant in the case where the rules of law and fairness were ignored, where secret grand jury testimony against us was released to the world, where there was not one direct witness, where your defense attorney was limited to one hour of cross-examining your chief accuser, where your attorney was forced to give your final defense even before one charge had been formally presented against you, where the charges of perjury against you were finally presented at the 11th hour and failed the test of decency which statements were allegedly perjurious. Surely no Member of this House would want to be judged by that process. We should not judge this President by that process.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak from my perspective as cochairman of the bipartisan House Army Caucus and as the representative of Fort Hood in Texas, the largest Army installation in the world. In 1991 when President Bush sent U.S. forces into Kuwait and Iraq, our Nation stood united in support of our troops. Even congressional Democrats and Republicans who preferred economic sanctions rather than war against Iraq at that time put aside their personal and partisan differences once our armed forces were in harm's way. I can tell everyone here that it meant everything to the morale of our troops in Iraq in 1991, including 25,000 of my own constituents, that Congress and the American people stood together in support of them. That is why I am glad to be here to support this resolution today. However, Mr. Speaker, a resolution supporting our troops must be backed up by our words on this floor and off this floor, by our words and our deeds. I am saddened that last night a number of Republican Members of this House precipitously and without fact charged that the timing of this action was totally political. One representative was even quoted as saying, without any proof whatsoever, that the President was willing to risk the lives of American service men and women to protect his own political standing. Mr. Speaker, that type of unsubstantiated personal attack against our President at a time when brave American pilots and armed forces are in harm's way is wrong. It is irresponsible. It does harm to the morale of our forces in the Persian Gulf. This morning former Secretary Henry Kissinger, a Republican, said that political attacks on our Iraqi missions such as some of those made last night by Members of Congress would demoralize our troops in the Persian Gulf. The truth is the timing of this attack was unanimously supported by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, and an attack on the integrity of this operation is in effect an attack on the integrity of our Joint Chiefs. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, a Republican who served with dignity and integrity in this House and in the Senate said this yesterday, and I quote: ``I am prepared to place 30 years of public service on the line to say the only factor that was important in this decision is what is in the American people's interest. There were no other factors.'' Mr. Speaker, today is a time to put partisanship and these kind of attacks behind us. I urge some of my colleagues to reconsider their ill-advised comments of last night. Today we must have two goals: One is to say together, the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats do indeed support our troops. Finally let us send a clear message to Saddam Hussein, do not underestimate the ability of the American Congress and people to come together when our national security interests are at risk. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Shame, shame, shame. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in Congress owes the American people an explanation and an apology. In articles in the Washington Post and Rollcall newspapers Republican leaders are bragging that they held up two major international treaties in this House. Why? Because they demanded that the Electronics Industry Association fire its new president simply because he is a Democrat. Let me repeat. The Republicans in Congress held up legislation that was going to benefit millions of American citizens because they wanted to force a private association to fire a private citizen because simply he was a Democrat. That is wrong. Mr. Speaker, the American people and press should be outraged at this arrogant, arrogant abuse of power. In a free society to stop the business of this Congress to punish a private citizen for his political affiliation is outrageous, mean-spirited and, most likely, illegal. The American people deserve an apology and an explanation. [From the Washington Post, Oct. 14, 1998] No Democrat Need Apply, House GOP Tells Lobby (By Juliet Eilperin) Electronics industry lobbyist John Palafoutas told the Electronic Industries Alliance weeks ago it shouldn't hire former Democratic representative David McCurdy (Okla.) as its new president, but the industry association he belongs to didn't listen. In an August meeting, Arne Christenson, chief of staff for House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA.), had made it clear to Palafoutas, a fellow Republican, that the House leadership would not look kindly upon seeing another Democrat promoted to a key job at a business lobbying group. ``He said, Tell EIA they ought to be careful about Dave McCurdy,''' recalled Palafoutas, a lobbyist for AMP Inc. who dutifully relayed the message to EIA vice president John Kelly. ``It's fair [to say] that the leadership is angry.'' In fact, House GOP leaders became so enraged when the EIA announced McCurdy's selection last week that Gingrich declared in a closed-door meeting that he would not discuss legislation with the former lawmaker, according to Republicans who attended. Gingrich and most other top Republicans also instructed their staffs not to meet with any EIA officials. Republican leaders, who had hoped the group would select retiring Rep. Bill Paxon (R-N.Y.), also delayed passage of noncontrovrsial legislation concerning international copyrights, a bill the EIA supports, for four days in an effort to send a message to the group. Gingrich spokeswoman Christina Martin said she could not comment on private conversations but made clear how displeased Republicans were with the association's choice of a Democrat. ``Any smart business executive will tell you it is always a good idea to have someone who can walk the walk, talk the talk,'' Martin said. ``When dealing with a Republican- controlled Congress, that means hiring Republicans.'' Rep. John Linder (R-Ga.), chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee, who confirmed that the leadership was sending a message to EIA by postponing a vote implementing two 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties, said Republicans want to expose the hypocrisy of former Democratic staff members and lawmakers now representing business groups. ``They whisper in the ear of the people who hire them that they're with them, then they go to a Democratic prayer group and meet and pray for a Democratic majority'', Linder said. The unusually public spat, which started Thursday when Gingrich, Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Majority Whip Tom DeLay (D-Tex.) pulled the WIPO bill from the House calendar, marks the latest flar-up in the occasionally tense relationship between GOP leaders and business lobbyists. Every since they captured the majority in 1994, Republicans have complained that lobbyists have failed to give them either the campaign contributions or the respect they are due. Even Republicans who made the transition from Congress to the private sector say that the lobbying community is still dominated by Democrats who thrived by virtue of their connections to Hill barons of the past. ``There is still a disconnect,'' said Ed Gillespie, Armey's former press secretary and now president of Policy Impact Communications. ``That's a result of Democrats being in control for 40 years and Republicans being in control for four.'' In the leadership meeting Friday, Republicans said, lawmakers mused about how powerful trade associations were savvy enough to hire Republicans as consultants but had failed to install GOP stalwarts at the helms of their groups. A slew of recent Democratic appointments has angered leaders, including those of Thomas M. Downs as the National Association of Home Builders' chief executive; John Hilley, who had been White House legislative liaison, as executive vice president for strategic planning at the National Association of Securities Dealers; and Tim Forde, who worked for Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), as the Investment Company Institute's vice president for strategic analysis. By appointing Democrats to such prominent posts, argued Mark Rodgers, chief of staff to Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), trade groups undermine their ability to forge close ties with Republicans. ``At what point can you trust that what you're sharing on inside strategy or tactics aren't going directly back to the Democratic leadership?'' Rodgers said. The EIA says it was only trying to find a leader who combined business and political experience. While some member companies are considering challenging McCurdy's selection when the group's board meets today, outgoing president Peter McCloskey said he was confident McCurdy would win its backing. ``The job is to be a spokesperson for the industry, not so much a lobbyist for the industry,'' McCloskey said. ``I'm not saying there's no political component to the job, but it's not the overriding component.'' Some Democrats openly mocked the GOP leaders' strategy. Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) referred to the incident Monday before the WIPO bill finally passed by saying, ``That was not one of the finest hours of this institution when this bill got derailed because of a dispute about a job.'' Even some Republicans who believe the lobbying community has to change its approach were leery of this open feuding. Said Rep. Jim Greenwood (R-Pa.). ``You can look a little power-hungry at times.''

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the issue before this House is education, and the question is which party, the Republican party or Democratic party, best stands up for our Nation's public schools? Let me remind the American people, Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans would have had in the law had it not been for Democrats. They would have eliminated the Department of Education, the agency that administers Head Start and college student loans. They would have stolen money from public schools where 90 percent of our kids are educated to subsidize private schools, wealthy private schools in America's neighborhoods. They would have eliminated title I reading programs. They would have reduced funding for Head Start. They would have cut school nutrition programs for the children of low income working families. They would like us to forget that they tried to throw out funding for summer youth jobs. They wanted to get rid of the Safe and Drug-free School Program. These are the education platform proposals the Republican party would like us to forget. The Democrats will continue to fight for our children in public schools.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Absolutely. This is a bad bill, Members. Vote no.

Mr. EDWARDS. Beware, senior citizens; beware, middle class working families; beware, hard-working farmers and ranchers. This bill, if enacted into law, could put them into debt for the rest of their life. Mr. Speaker, this is a perfect example of a good idea, the idea of personal responsibility, being turned into a horrible bill in the last hours of this Congress behind closed doors by special interests who simply went too far. Three points: First of all, these were the words my Republican colleagues used about the Internal Revenue Service this year: dictatorial, unfair, arbitrary. And yet, incredibly, in this bill our Republican friends turn over the definition of necessary expenses, they turn over to the IRS the ability to put people in debt for the rest of their lives. They turn over to that IRS that they have been berating all year long. Incredibly, under this bill, the Internal Revenue Service could deny hard-working families the right to use their hard-earned money to pay for child care for their children, to pay for health care or other living expenses for their parents that live in their home. Our Republicans would allow the IRS under circumstances to exclude major health care expenses. So, a hard-working family, a responsible family that has a $100,000 health care bill, could be determined by the IRS, be forced into bankruptcy, actually forced into debt rather, for the rest of their lives.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this debate is certainly not about statutory rape, nor is it about taking aspirin. What this debate is about is the real world consequences of the Istook amendment, regardless of the intentions. I often hear my Republican friends and colleagues talking about taking responsibility for one's actions. They are right, and I agree. And what taking responsibility means on the Istook amendment is that the supporters of this amendment must honestly face the real world consequences of the actions of this amendment and the result of this amendment, if it were to pass into law. According to the expert opinion of the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and even the American Family Physicians, is that this type of amendment could cause several things to happen. First, more unplanned pregnancies. Because of that, more abortions. It could also cause in the real world a lot of young teenagers to have serious health problems that otherwise could have been prevented, including lifelong infertility for young women who would love to some day have a family of their own, like many of us are blessed to have our own family. I do not question the intentions of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) or his supporters but I do ask them to face not the ideal world in which we would like to live but the real world and the real world consequences that we actually do live in. I will finish. To suggest that there is anything in the Greenwood language that would come between families and teenagers and parents is absolutely simply not true.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I do support this legislation, and I want to compliment the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), for their great work. This will be a better country, and communities and young people, people of all ages, and particularly children, will live a better life because of this legislation. However, I must rise, even at this time of the morning, with strong reservations that I share with my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott). Mr. Speaker, just a few months ago, in a major national debate and a vote on the floor of this House, this Congress went clearly on record in defending the first 16 words of the first amendment in the Bill of Rights. Those 16 words are these: ``Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' These cherished words have served our country well for over two centuries. They are basically the foundation of religious liberty in America, a liberty of religion that is envied across the world. The provisions of so-called charitable choice were added in this bill unbeknownst to many Members of the House or Senate at a time when we were cluttered with many other issues in Congress. This charitable choice language, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others, could directly undermine the intent of those first 16 words of the Bill of Rights. Let me quote from the Working Group for Religious Freedom and Social Services, which includes American Baptist Churches USA, American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Anti-Defamation League, Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, and numerous other religious organizations. They say this: ``The primary constitutional problem with the religious provider provisions, the so-called charitable choice provisions, is that they permit and encourage grants to and government contracts with pervasively sectarian organizations, such as churches and other houses of worship.'' Mr. Speaker, I have no question that the intent of those who put this language into this bill was positive; to allow religious-based organizations to help communities address their problems. But good intentions are not enough, particularly when they hit at the very core of our constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom. So what are the specific problems that could be caused by this language? First, it could violate the intent of the establishment clause by funding ``pervasively sectarian organizations''. It is unclear what the intent of the Senate author was on this particular matter. Secondly, it could require the Federal Government to have to make a choice as to whether to provide community service block grants to the Heaven's Gate religious organization, an organization that believed it was divinely inspired to commit suicide. If our government officials are bothered by that particular religious view of the Heaven's Gate organization under the charitable choice organization, then our government has been put in the dilemma of having to choose which religious organizations' views are appropriate and acceptable and which ones are not. The next concern I have is that approximately one-half of our States have constitutions that expressly prohibit public funds going into the coffers of religious organizations. It appears to me that the language of this bill could override that constitutional language of so many States in our Nation. Next, as pointed out by my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Scott), if I understand this correctly, it appears that under this language we could actually use Federal tax dollars to discriminate based on one's religious faith. I hope that is a misreading of this language, but according to a number of organizations, including the one I just mentioned, representing numerous religious organizations, this would do exactly that. And that is why they are so firmly opposed to this particular language. According to other organizations, this language could also result in government having to provide financial audits of churches and pervasively sectarian organizations who might possibly be eligible for funds under a charitable choice program. I think it is anathema to all of us who believe that the strength of religion in America is that we have had a 200-year wall of separation between church and State. I think this would cause great concerns for those reasons. Mr. Speaker, for those and many other reasons that can be discussed in the days and weeks ahead, I hope this Congress will think through very carefully the implications of the language of the so-called charitable choice provisions.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, considering the historical importance of this vote today and the precedent we will set for decades to come, would it be within the rules of the House for me at this time to ask unanimous consent that each Member of this House, who feels in his or her conscience that he or she would want to speak for 2 minutes on this issue, be allowed that opportunity as they try to represent the 560,000 people in their district?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disappointed that the Republican leadership has placed an incredibly unfair gag rule on a constitutional debate of historic proportions. If this gag rule is the first test of the Republicans' fairness in this inquiry, they have failed that test. The most important issue today, Mr. Speaker, before us is not the November 3 elections, or even the fate of President Clinton. The most important issue before us is the historical precedent we set in beginning the process of undoing an election for the most important office of our land. The right to vote is the foundation of our entire democracy. To override the votes of millions of Americans in a Presidential election is an extraordinary action. It is a radical action, and, in effect, it is allowing the votes of 535 citizens to override the votes of tens of millions of citizens. In its rush to begin an impeachment inquiry just days before a crucial election, this Congress will have lowered the threshold for future Presidential impeachment inquiries in such a way that compromises the independence of the Presidency as a coequal branch of government. The truth is the Committee on the Judiciary has not even had 1 day, not even 1 hour of hearings on our Founding Fathers' original intent about the threshold for impeachment. I find it ironic that the very Republicans who have preached all year long that we should impeach Federal judges for not abiding by our Founding Fathers' constitutional intentions have now decided we can start an historic constitutional process without even 1 hour of hearings. How ironic that those same Republicans will today force us to vote on a truly historic constitutional issue without even 1 hour, 1 day of hearings on our Founding Fathers' intent about high crimes and misdemeanors. To begin a formal impeachment inquiry after only a cursory review of the Independent Counsel's report, in light of a standard that has not been defined, within the context of a pending congressional election weeks away, at the very least undermines the credibility of this House on this important issue, and at the very worst has set an historical precedent that we can easily begin the process of undoing the freely exercised votes of millions of Americans. To even begin this radical process without the greatest of deliberation, regardless of one's final vote, is in itself, in my opinion, an attack upon the very core of our democracy.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the real question today is whether Republicans, Gingrich-led House Republicans are once again willing to undermine Social Security. Let us look at the record. The number two leader in the House, the Republican majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), said, in 1994, I would never have created Social Security. Earlier, when he was running for office, he said, You know, what we really need to do is just phase out Social Security over a period of time. Let us look at the record. Today dozens of Republicans in this Congress are trying to privatize and change Social Security as we know it. Let us look at the record. A year ago Republicans said, trust us, senior citizens, we will never cut your Medicare. Ask hundreds of thousands of seniors who have been kicked out of home health care programs under Medicare because of their language in their budget bill. Ask them if they kept that promise. Let us look at the record. Just a few months ago, it is stealing to take money from the highway trust fund. Today they say it is not really stealing when you take money from Social Security. That is why seniors do not trust Republicans to protect their Social Security.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as a Democratic supporter of fast track, I say here today that the Republican leadership of this House has killed the possibility of fast track's passage for years to come. Let us be clear about what has happened and let us be honest about what has happened. Republicans have enough votes right now today to pass fast track without one single Democratic vote. You know that and I know that. But you also know you cannot do that, because there are a lot of Republicans not supporting fast track. So what you have done basically is to say, ``We can't pass it on our own,'' and then you gleefully let your leaders go out and say this is a great vote to have right before the election because it will give Democrats grief, and then you make no real effort to put together a bipartisan bill, and then have the audacity to have some Members come to the well of this House and blame the defeat of this on Democrats. I would say that is disingenuous. I want fast track to pass. I think it is the right thing to do. But I hope that every American farmer and rancher and every American business that understands the importance of fast track knows that the Republican leadership today is putting the nail of death into the coffin of fast track's passage.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if I robbed a bank of 10 percent of its cash or its revenues, I seriously doubt the police and judge would accept my excuse that, Officer, Judge, I was really trying to save the bank. Yet, incredibly, that is what my Republican colleagues are doing today. They are saying, we just want to take 10 percent out of Social Security taxes that should be used to protect Social Security, and use that money for election-year promises and gimmicks. Mr. Speaker, a judge would never believe my excuse as a bank robber. I do not think the American senior citizens are going to believe this explanation of the bill today. The fact is, the American people will have to choose today, who do they trust better to protect Social Security, Democrats or Republicans. In my brief time, I would only point out that the number two ranking Republican leader in this House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), said on September 28 of 1994, ``I would never have created Social Security.'' I think the American people will answer the question today. That answer will be, resoundingly, we trust the Democrats to protect our Social Security retirement.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, along with my colleagues, I share the feeling that this is one of those moments where it is awfully difficult to explain our true feelings about a friend of ours and a true public servant. I would imagine that these speeches will not make the national headlines tomorrow, because there is no controversy, there is nothing but unanimity in this House about the public service and the character of our friend and colleague, Vic Fazio. I wish his life would be in the headlines tomorrow, because he would be a reminder to young people, from California to Maine to Texas, that it is a noble calling to be in public service. Winston Churchill once said that we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. Based on the high standards of that statesman, the life of Vic Fazio has been a rich life, and I am confident will continue to be a rich life, for what he has given, given to his district, given to the State of California and given to the Nation. There will be other occasions where I am sure we can list all of his many accomplishments. Having served with him on the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, I am grateful for what he has done to help save families all across this country from the devastation of future floods and for what he has done to preserve future generations in America by bringing about programs, important programs, to put aside the waste from nuclear power plants. There are millions of families who will benefit from Vic Fazio's life, but they will never know that, because their home will not be flooded, or perhaps there will not be a nuclear incident. But just as surely as we are here today to express our gratitude to Vic for his life of accomplishment, there are Americans all across this land of ours that should be and will be deeply grateful and will have benefitted from what he did. Finally, in a body and in a process that usually rates people by the list of their accomplishments, I must say that while Vic's list would be lengthy, the fact is that all of us respect him and will remember him even more for the kind of person that he is, for the character, the decency, that we could only dream about and want to have in public service. So to our friend and colleague, we say God speed and wish you all the best in the years to come. Thank you for your great service to our country.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have genuine respect for my colleagues who care deeply about human rights anywhere in the world. It is a noble cause to commit oneself to human and individual rights, whether we be talking about Nagorno-Karabagh, South Africa, Armenia, Azerbaijan, or frankly right here in the United States of America. I know there has been much discussion today about the history of war and human rights in this area, in the area of the former Soviet Union. Frankly I would imagine that if the truth were to be known, there have been human rights abuses on both sides of this serious conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia. I would imagine if the truth were to be known, we are not dealing with saints in either situation. I am not clear we will ever know the true history of some of the terrible human rights abuses in this part of the world. But what I do know is that this debate is not about who is for and who is against human rights in the world. I think this debate is about what is the best way, what is the best policy to bring about peace in a terribly critical part of the world, a strategic part of the world. For myself, I side with the Bush administration, the Clinton administration and our present Secretary of State in saying that 907 has not worked, it has not brought about peace, and that we should try repealing that particular sanction. I would like to make one comment on a personal note about the whole energy question that has been brought up. Some have said, that those of us that favor repeal of 907 are fighting for the oil companies. This is not about who is for or against the oil companies. But I would like to talk about the importance to our national security of having an independent source of energy outside of the Middle East. In 1991 when I voted to send American soldiers to fight against Saddam Hussein, we knew that we were sending soldiers to fight for, one, the democracy of Kuwait, but let us be honest, we were also fighting for stability in a part of the world where we depend upon their great resources of oil. I had to welcome back some of the families to Fort Hood in my district who were there to accept posthumously the silver medals and the bronze stars that were given to people, young men, who fought in that war. I had to see people come back in body bags rather than come home to families and communities to heroes' welcomes. The reason I say that is I think it is not just in the interest of the oil companies, far more importantly it is in the interest of American national security, and it is in the interest of those American soldiers who might have to go to other parts of the world like they did in 1991 in Kuwait and put their lives on the line if we do not diversify our source of energy. All it takes is one more war in the Middle East and unless we diversify our oil resources, we are going to have more soldiers from my district and citizens from your districts have to put their lives on the line to fight for, not oil companies but stability in the world economy and stability of our political system in the world. I think it is important in saying that in my opinion, repealing 907 perhaps will save some other young American soldier someday from having to come back to this country in a body bag or in a casket. So while I have tremendous respect for all of those who fought mightily and successfully over the last several years for human rights in this part of the world, I think that policy has not worked. Peace has not prevailed because of that. It is time to change that policy, to have an evenhanded policy. In the eyes of the Bush and the Clinton administration now, let us push an evenhanded policy that has a chance of bringing about peace in that part of the world, a chance of stabilizing a critically important part of the world, and a chance of preventing American soldiers from having to go back to the Middle East someday and put their lives on the line. That, Mr. Chairman, I think is important.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, next week Republicans will push for a vote in this House to steal $80 billion from the Social Security trust fund. On behalf of the seniors of central Texas, I will strongly oppose that effort. It is interesting, the same Republicans who just a few months ago right here in this House were saying it was dishonest to raid money from the highway trust fund are now saying it is okay, though, to raid money, to steal money, from the seniors' trust fund, their Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, if Republicans felt it was dishonest to steal from the highway trust fund, then I assume they are admitting it is dishonest to steal from the Social Security trust fund. Mr. Speaker, I support tax cuts. But I will not vote for a tax cut next week pushed by Republicans that steals money from our seniors' future, from our seniors' security and our cherished Social Security trust fund. I think Republicans should think twice before they say highways and concrete and election promises are more important than saving our Social Security trust fund.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Oklahoma and I share the belief and hope that all children in this world grow up in a stable, loving family. For that, I applaud his intent. But there is a reason why this amendment was defeated so soundly in committee that the Republican members did not even ask for a recorded vote in committee. The reason is this was poorly drafted. Members need to know despite the good intent of the gentleman, the impact of this measure would be, for example, to allow a philandering married husband who abuses his wife on a regular basis to be able to legally adopt a child. But if two nuns felt God's calling to adopt a disabled, blind child from Romania under this amendment, they would be prohibited from doing so. Another example. Under this well-intended effort by the gentleman, the real result would be if a couple that had been married for a few years, had never been faithful to each other, both were alcoholics and both abused each other, wanted to adopt a child, they could. Yet a man and woman who lived committed to each other, yet for reasons perhaps that I would disagree with had never signed a marriage contract but yet they lived together faithfully for 30 years wanted to adopt a child, they could not. I would ask Members, which children would be better off, adopted by two nuns that felt God's calling or an abusive husband and wife? It is not the intent of the gentleman from Oklahoma with which I disagree. It is the impact. Unfortunately intent is not good enough when you have real consequences, and the real consequences I believe of this amendment could be children, in this country, from Romania and throughout the world who desperately need a loving home in which to be raised would be denied that loving opportunity.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, when my Republican colleagues talk repeatedly tonight about they are the party that cares about educating children, let me remind the American people these are the same people who, one, tried to abolish title I reading programs for children; two, tried to reduce school lunches; three, tried to reduce Head Start programs; four, proposed the largest education cuts in the history of America; five, tried to eliminate college work study programs; six, tried to cut college student loan programs; seven, they are trying to zero out this year's summer student job programs; and, finally, they even want to zero out LIHEAP programs that allow little children and children of all ages to get heating in the winter and air-conditioning in the summer. If my colleagues believe that is a good track record for helping little children get a good education, perhaps they should vote for the latest program of the Republican Party to educate America's children.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, at a time like this, it is difficult to find appropriate words that do justice to the people you are honoring. Officers Jacob J. Chestnut and John Gibson made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the People's House--the U.S. Capitol. A great American-- President Abraham Lincoln--would see the great significance of their sacrifice and understand what J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson gave their lives to protect. The rotunda where their bodies will lie in state is shielded by a great dome built during the dark days of the Civil War. President Lincoln knew in his heart that the Capitol is more than just a building, that the Capitol stands as a symbol of freedom and serves as the seat of democracy. President Lincoln believed this so strongly that he demanded the work being done to raise the dome proceed, despite the war and its drain on government resources. He knew that completing the Capitol dome would show America that the United States would stand despite the grueling war then being waged. Soldiers fighting to preserve the United States and protect the Capitol camped on the same floor where officer's Chestnut and Gibson will lie in state today. President Lincoln's words uttered on a Gettysburg battlefield nearly 135 years ago are proper to honor these two protectors of freedom who fell in the line of duty. . . . We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow--this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. In their lives and deaths, these two brave officers helped keep the dream alive, the dream shared by Abraham Lincoln and by Americans from coast to coast and from year to year, the dream to preserve a government of, by and for the people. Our prayers go out to the families of these brave men and our thanks for the sacrifice that was made to protect and preserve freedom.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it would be convenient if we lived in a country and a world that had no low-level nuclear waste. We would all like that. But we do not have the luxury of enjoying that convenience, because that is simply not the real world in which we exist. The fact is that, from hospitals to medical offices to dental offices, we have low-level nuclear waste. The question today is not are we going to have it or what amount are we going to have; the question is what to do with it. And that is exactly the question this Congress considered in 1985 when it passed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act. In this act, Congress' intent was to give States the authority to work together so that we could provide sites for the location of low- level nuclear waste, so that we could encourage management of low-level nuclear waste, so that we do not have literally thousands and thousands of sites, perhaps unsafe, low-level waste in utility companies' arenas and the back doors of hospitals all across this country. There was a reason why this Congress passed that compact and the reason is it was supported by the American people at that time. Since then, there has been a good reason why 42 States have chosen voluntarily to participate in this process of safely and smartly managing the inventory of low-level waste. Today, those of us from Texas that support this, and let me point out for the record, despite my good friends, whom I greatly respect, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), despite their opposition, the majority of the members of the Texas delegation here in the House support this compact. Republican Governor George Bush supports it. Democratic Governor Ann Richards at the time she was governor of Texas supported it. This is a compact that 42 other States have had the right to participate in since the passage of the original bill in 1985. Today Texas, Maine, and Vermont are not asking for anything special. We are just asking other delegations to respect our right to do what they chose to do under the 1985 law. Late last year, Mr. Speaker, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 629, and the Senate passed it without objection. I believe it is time to put this issue to rest. It is time to vote on H.R. 629 so we can finally resolve the question of how to effectively manage low-level waste in our three particular States. Mr. Speaker, we gave the States responsibility to handle this waste and, as I have said, the governors have negotiated an interstate compact which comports with our policy and all three legislatures overwhelmingly approved that compact. Now, the opponents to this bill, and they have legitimate reasons and I respect their concerns and their reasons for opposition, but they want, in many cases want to change Federal policy regarding low-level radioactive waste. They want Congress involved in individual States' decision. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this rule and urge passage of the bill.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I am strongly opposed to late term abortions. In fact, in 1987, as a Texas State Senator, I helped pass a bill that prohibited the late term abortions. That bill is still law today in Texas. But, there are major differences between the Texas law and this bill today. First, in Texas, we outlawed all procedures--this bill still allows late term abortions. Second, in Texas, our law was written to meet constitutional requirements. This bill is unconstitutional--as federal judges have ruled across America, this bill clearly oversteps the constitutional guidelines established in Roe versus Wade. The Texas law wasn't written to maximize political sound bites, it was written to save babies' lives. Third, in Texas, we trusted women to make responsible choices--this bill does not. Specifically, the Texas law said that in rare, tragic cases where the serious health of a woman is at risk, the difficult decision of terminating a pregnancy should be made by a woman and her doctor, not by politicians in Washington, DC. In my opinion, if there is one frivolous late term abortion anywhere in America, that is one too many. It should be stopped. But, when a mother's life or health is at risk in rare cases, in those cases, government has no right to tell a woman what to do. This bill would force a woman to put her health or fertility at risk, even when her baby has zero chance of survival after childbirth. To me, it is cruel and mean-spirited to tell a woman that she must risk her ability to have children in the future when she is about to face the tragedy of delivering a child that is doomed to die. To the Republican men who refused to make changes in this bill to address this tragic problem I would say--what right do you have to tell a woman that she should risk her fertility--risk her ability to enjoy the joy of having a child--because you were more interested in political sound bites than in the rights of a woman? Let us be clear. This bill could jeopardize a woman's future fertility even when her present baby is a troubled pregnancy and has no chance of survival. This bill would force a woman's doctor to end her pregnancy with riskier procedures, and that is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose this bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I know this veto will be overridden for two reasons today. First, many members believe that life begins at conception. Second, many other members privately recognize that there are serious flaws in this bill, but they know that the Republican authors have written this for maximum impact in 30-second TV ads. To those who genuinely believe for religious reasons that life begins at conception, and not only want to pass this bill, but have said that they want to restrict a woman's access to contraceptives--to you I say that I respect your religious views, but I question your right to force your religious views on others. Last week, you accused women and mothers who use contraceptives of being abortionists. Today, you are willing to risk women's fertility in rare, tragic cases of troubled pregnancies. Finally, the sad thing about this debate today is that if some of its sponsors had been more interested in stopping late term abortions than in having a sound bite campaign issue, we could have passed a similar bill three years ago that would be saving lives today