Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, with heartfelt sympathy to the families of Officers Chestnut and Gibson, I express my gratitude to them and their families for serving our country.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I am strongly opposed to late-term abortions. In fact, in 1987, as a member of the Texas Senate, I helped pass a law that is law today that is saving babies from late-term abortions. But, Madam Speaker, there is a huge difference between the bill that we passed that is law today in Texas, that is working, and the bill that was designed for maximum political sound bite impact that we are voting on today. The first difference, in Texas our goal was to save babies. That is why we outlawed all late-term abortion procedures. This bill, if Members look at it carefully beyond the 30-second sound bite and TV ad appeal of it, this bill still allows abortions to occur in America on the 29th day of the eighth month of pregnancy. The sponsor of this bill just a moment ago said we should be honest in this debate. Let the proponents of this bill be honest to the American people in saying that this bill, this bill will allow abortions in America at the eight month, 29th day. We did not think that was right in Texas, and that is why we wrote the law differently. I think the supporters of this bill ought to discuss that point. That is one reason, frankly, I think this bill should go back to committee for further consideration, rather than political debate here today. Second difference. In Texas, because we wanted to save babies and not make a political point, on a bipartisan basis we crafted a bill that would meet constitutional guidelines. This bill is clearly unconstitutional, one of the reasons the President vetoed it under the guidelines of Roe versus Wade and as has been established by Federal judges and courts across this country from one State to another. The third difference between the Texas law today and the bill we are debating today is in Texas we trusted women to make responsible choices in very rare tragic pregnancies. This bill does not trust women to make those responsible choices. Specifically, the Texas law said in those rare cases where a woman's health was seriously at risk or her fertility at risk, the incredibly difficult emotional decision about how to preserve the mother's ability to have children in the future should be a decision made by that woman and her doctor and her God, and not by politicians in Austin, Texas, or in Washington, D.C. Madam Speaker, in my personal opinion, if there is one frivolous late-term abortion using any procedure anywhere in America, that is one too many and we ought to stop it. But this bill does not do that. What this bill does is potentially, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the experts in this field, this bill what it is really going to do is risk women's health and their ability to have children. Madam Speaker, we ought to send this bill back to committee and make a bill that works, not a bill that makes sound bites.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with members my memories of William R. ``Bill'' Courtney, a community leader in my 11th Texas Congressional District who recently passed away. William Courtney, a former mayor of Temple and a special friend of mine, died July 3 at his home following a brief illness. Bill Courtney was a highly esteemed citizen, a man who earned the respect and admiration of those in political, civic, and religious circles. I want to share with the Members his many accomplishments and invaluable service to his community. Bill Courtney was descended from a pioneer Central Texas family. He never forgot his Central Texas roots and his family and community always came first. He served as mayor of Temple from 1976 to 1980. During those two terms as mayor he implemented a single-member district election system in Temple. He served as a member of the State Democratic Executive Committee and his political and legal counsel were much sought after. Bill Courtney was a leading attorney in Bell County for 48 years. He was a senior partner in the law firm of Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee. He was an expert on real estate financing and belonged to many professional organizations including the American College of Mortgage Attorneys where he served as board member and president. In addition, he was a member of the State Bar of Texas, the American Bar Association, the Texas Bar Foundation, and the Bell-Lampasas-Mills Counties Bar Association. He attended Temple public schools and Temple Junior College. He earned his B.B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin in 1948 and his law degree from the University of Texas Law School in 1950. Bill Courtney was a World War II veteran and served as a 10th Mountain Division infantry officer fighting in Italy. He was a member of the Episcopal Church of Temple and served three terms as Vestryman and two terms as Senior Warden. Bill Courtney viewed his community involvement as a sacred duty and a cherished honor. He served as a trustee of the Scott and White Memorial Hospital, president of the Temple Industrial Foundation, and chairman of the Temple Economic Development Corporation. He was a past vice president and director of the Temple Chamber of Commerce, and past president of the Central Texas Council of Governments, and the Cultural Activities Center. He and his wife, Shirley, donated land for the Temple Ronald McDonald House. Recently, they donated more land to expand the house to provide more space for families to stay while loved ones are treated at the nearby hospital. Up until the time that he passed away, Bill Courtney continued to work for his community. Last year he used the skill and expertise accumulated during three-quarters of a century to help bring a new Texas Veterans Nursing Home to Temple. Within days of his death, Bill and I were actively working together to try to keep the state USDA offices in Temple. It does not surprise me that even in his last days on this earth, Bill Courtney was doing what he did his entire life--helping others. Mr. Speaker, Winston Churchill once said, ``We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give.'' Judged by that high standard, my dear friend, Bill Courtney lived life to its fullest. His family and many friends will dearly miss Bill Courtney, but his spirit of caring for others will live on in all of us who were touched by his extraordinary life of service. I ask Members to join with me in honoring the memory of Bill Courtney. Our thoughts and prayers go out to Shirley, his three sons, John Patrick, Joseph Sayles and David William and the rest of his family and friends.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to tip my hat and pay tribute to former Congressman Jake Pickle for his service to the state of Texas and the people of the 10th Congressional District. Jake Pickle served with distinction and honor during his 31 years in Congress. I consider it a great privilege to have served with him. I now find it an honor to support H.R. 3223 which names the Federal Building in Austin, Texas, as the J.J. ``Jake'' Pickle Building. The bill has my wholehearted support and the man has my deepest respect. Jake Pickle's legacy extends far beyond the naming of a building in his honor. His legacy lies in his many years of public service and the millions of Americans who have been touched by his devotion and dedication. Jake Pickle was an independent minded man who never shied from a fight, but who was always ready to listen to a problem and lend a helping hand. Jake Pickle looked beyond partisan politics to help insure that Social Security is solvent today and that the elderly have Medicare. He was instrumental in a wholesale reform of the tax code and in fostering government programs that spurred small business and created jobs for working families. Jake began to develop his political expertise at the University of Texas at Austin where he served as student body president. His political journey began in the early 1930s when he became a friend and political ally of Lyndon B. Johnson. Jake Pickle was a student of the New Deal era which taught that a person has an individual responsibility and that the government should be responsible for its citizens. Jake Pickle answered the call of his country and served in the U.S. Navy during World War II. After the war, Jake returned to Austin and was a business partner in a local radio station. He maintained his political ties, stayed involved in the community and continued to practice his philosophy of individual and governmental responsibility. He brought that philosophy with him to Washington when he took his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in December 1963, less than a month after LBJ assumed the presidency. Jake immediately got to work for the country and the constituents of his Hill Country congressional district. Jake Pickle cast important ground breaking votes for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. These votes were politically difficult for a new member from the South, but Jake Pickle made the right decision. Jake served on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, where he was a leader on many important issues and willing to take a stand for working families. He worked tirelessly on Social Security reform and on programs that provided a better life for this nation's senior citizens. I am proud to have served in this House with Congressman Jake Pickle. His service to the State of Texas and the people of the 10th district will be remembered for many years to come. It is appropriate and quite fitting that the federal building in Austin is designated in Jake Pickle's honor.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. No war was ever won with technology alone. Battles and wars, whether in the 15th century or in the 20th or 21st century, require quality men and women, dedicated to our country, well trained, capable of defending our national interest. That is why this piece of legislation is so important to our Nation and our children's future. It is important because in this legislation is the funding for quality of life issues for our military families. In today's all volunteer force, I can think of few things more important to our long- term national security than ensuring quality housing facilities and day care facilities for military families, often split by thousands of miles as the father or mother are off deployed to other nations, or even fighting for the interests of our country, while their children remain at home. I want to say that I am deeply disappointed that this bill spends $1 billion less before inflation is even taken into account than the military construction budget of just one year ago. It seems to me that a Congress that can somehow find $20 to $30 billion for increased funding for potholes and highways in the recent highway bill ought not to have to cut day-care centers and housing programs for men and women willing to put their lives on the line for this country. But that criticism, that disappointment has nothing to do with the leadership of the Committee on Appropriations or this subcommittee. That is a decision made at a different pay level. I would urge Speaker Gingrich and the leadership of this House and the Committee on the Budget, who made the decision to cut military construction funding by $1 billion this year, to reconsider that cut and that budget as we review the budget in the months ahead. I must say, as a compliment to those people who did not set the overall level of spending, no two Members could have done a better job in fighting for our military families and their quality of life than the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), the ranking member. I want to applaud them not only for their dedication to military families and a strong national defense, but I want to applaud them for the bipartisan manner in which they have put this bill together. The reason, Mr. Chairman, people will not see a lot of Members on the floor during this debate, the reason there will not be an visceral disagreement of debate on this issue is simply because the gentlemen have done the business of the House and our country the way it should be done, on a fair, bipartisan basis. For that, we all say thank you to both of them. I think the bipartisan nature of Mr. Packard and Mr. Hefner's work together should be a model, not an exception to the rule, for this and future Congresses. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the reason I truly wanted to be on the floor of the House this afternoon was to say thank you for a lifetime of service to our colleague and my dear friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner). In the 7\1/2\ years I have had the privilege to serve in this body, I have considered no one a better friend than the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), who took this young green Member from the State of Texas under his wing and helped me as I tried to learn the process of Congress in my effort to represent Ft. Hood, which is now the largest populated Army installation in the world. Not only through his service as chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Construction for over a decade but also because of his many years of service as a member of the very powerful military subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) has made a difference for the military families of this Nation. He has made a difference in ensuring that America has a strong national defense. On behalf of my two little boys, who will live in a safer world because of the service in Congress of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), I want to express my deep-felt gratitude to the gentleman from North Carolina. I know in the weeks and months ahead, many, many of my colleagues will join me in reflecting these feelings toward the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) and his service. Let me also say beyond the scope of these two important committees on which he serves, I have seen no Member that has shown greater courage on the floor of this House week after week, month after month. When one comes to floor and looks up at Mr. Hefner's light, yeah or nay on a bill, they may not know the best political vote but they know what the right vote is. As someone who was not here in 1981, I can only imagine how difficult it was for a southern Democrat from North Carolina to vote against President Reagan's tax bill, which, in the opinion of some, not all, had something to do with the increased national debt that we face today. But whether you agreed or disagreed with him, to have the courage to vote ``no'' on that bill and ``yes'' and ``no'' on so many other important pieces of legislation, to be motivated by doing what his conscience told him was right, that is the sort of thing that causes all of us throughout the country, as well as the constituents of his in North Carolina, to have a deep and abiding respect for the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner). So on behalf of my colleagues that serve on the committee and all others who are here and who will be here in the days ahead to speak of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner), recognizing this is his last time to come to the floor as part of leadership in bringing the military construction budget to this House, I want to express my lifelong respect and gratitude for Mr. Hefner's friendship and leadership on behalf of our Nation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 4060, the energy and water appropriation bill for fiscal year 1999. The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the ranking member of this important subcommittee, will be on the floor in just a few moments, but in the meantime, Mr. Chairman, I would like to pay tribute to two leaders of this subcommittee who, along with the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hefner) whom we honored a few minutes ago, are retiring at the end of this Congress. This will represent the last time that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joe McDade), the chairman, and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Vic Fazio), will be responsible for bringing the energy and water appropriations bill to the floor of this House, and on behalf of all of us who have had the privilege to serve with both of these leaders in Congress, I want to thank them for their lifetime of service to our Nation. Let me begin with the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and while we often say, Mr. Chairman, ``gentleman'' when referring to our colleagues on this floor, I think whoever coined that phrase must have had Mr. McDade in mind when he developed that word because I could think of no better way to describe the chairman, our friend and colleague of this committee, then to say he is a gentleman from head to toe. His lifetime of service, over 3 decades of commitment to our country and this House, are living proof of that. In all the times that I have known him he has served with great dignity and honesty and integrity. And while I have only had the honor of serving on his particular subcommittee for a year and a half, I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that when I was coming onto the Committee on Appropriations I asked a former member of this subcommittee, Mr. Chapman of Texas, which subcommittee I should consider serving on, and he said to me that the most important factor I ought to look at is not just the substance of the committee but the chairman of that committee. For that reason he said without doubt I should ask to be on that subcommittee because the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) is the kind of Member that all Americans could be proud of. And once again there is not a floor full of Members on this floor for the very reason that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) has handled this business like he handles all of his business, in a fair, evenhanded and on a totally nonpartisan basis. So, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of all of us in this House and families all across America from his district to mine who will live in a better country, better flood control, better safety in terms of the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world; for those and so many more important issues that are part of this bill and other bills the gentleman from Pennsylvania has been a part of, I want to express my lasting gratitude to the gentleman for his sacrifice and service on behalf of this country. Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the ranking member of this subcommittee, will be retiring at the end of this Congress, so this will also be the last time he comes to the floor as a ranking member to push the energy and water appropriations bill. Time will not permit me to list all of the accomplishments of the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), but no one in this House would doubt that he has been one of the true leaders in the House of Representatives for his many years of service as former chairman of the Democratic Campaign Committee, as being a leading spokesman for the Democratic Party and Democratic Members of this House. But in serving as a leading member of the Committee on Appropriations he put that partisanship aside, particularly on the energy and water bill, because he knew that providing flood protection and providing funds for research for renewable sources of energy to make our country economically sound for decades to come, he knew that in providing efforts to try to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, and through other countries in the world, he knew that those efforts were far more important than any particular party, and in that capacity Mr. Fazio has fought hard to bring legislation to this floor that will reflect well upon this body for many years and many decades to come. Finally, as a member of this committee, let me just thank the chairman and ranking member for working on this particular bill under the limits of a very difficult budget, but to work in a way that the taxpayers would be proud, and using limited resources to focus on priority programs from flood control to nuclear weapons proliferation. They spent these dollars in a way that I think will be good for this country, and I think the best reflection of that was the committee vote, which as the chairman said was a unanimous vote of both Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and congratulate an exceptional young man, Reginal Ryan of Itasca, Texas, which is in my 11th Congressional District. Reginal recently won the AMVET's Americanism state level competition for ninth graders with a strong and moving essay entitled ``My Favorite American Hero.'' Reginal is a 15-year-old sophomore at Itasca High School. His accomplishment is all the more extraordinary considering that late last year he was living on the streets in Austin, Texas. However, he now lives in the Presbyterian Orphans Home in Itasca where he spends time putting together prize winning essays. His prize for winning the AMVET's contest is an all expense paid trip to Valley Forge, Penn., to visit the Freedoms Foundation. Members of AMVET's Post 72 in Hillsboro were so moved by his essay that they took up an additional collection to finance a trip to Washington, D.C. While in Washington, Reginal's wish to visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and pay his respects was fulfilled. I ask members to join me in congratulating this special young man for his accomplishment. I would also like to share his essay with the members. My Favorite American Hero (By Reginal Ryan) My favorite American hero does not have a name, but I assure you he is real in many ways. Everyone remembers and knows what he did for our country and how he gives his life for others with devotion. He has shown commitment in many examples of his compassion as in the many wars in which he has fought such as World War I and World War II and even Vietnam. My favorite American hero represents the heart of our country, because he is the common American. When called to serve, he is always ready and willing to protect his country by fighting in strange and foreign lands far away from home, away from friends and family with no assurance that he would ever return to them. Nevertheless, it was important for him to go to ensure that the freedom of America would be preserved. My favorite American hero is visited by many people each year. They are always quiet and reverent in his presence. Flowers are often presented to him. The visitors come from all across America, and many shed a few tears as they leave because he may be their hero, too. It is the common thread that links and unites all Americans. Because he is a true hero, he is the most likely to come to my mind. Symbolically, he stands for all the freedom fighters we have today in America. His efforts have allowed me and all Americans to continue to exercise all rights as a citizen of the United States. He has helped to preserve my life, my liberties, and my pursuit of happiness. I hope by now that everyone who reads this, knows that my favorite American hero is the ``Unknown Soldier.'' It matters not that he does not have a specific name. What matters is that he stands for every soldier who has ever fought to keep our nation free. This gift is the greatest gift America can receive--the gift of freedom. I hope someday I get to pay my respects at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, following up with my exchange with the chairman of the Committee on Rules, it seems to me that one of the serious subjects of discussion and review of facts for this committee is, what was the role of the Loral Corporation in this process. The chairman of the Committee on Rules, on the floor of the House in response to my question, referred to Loral's sordid history and its involvement in this process. Once again, I would point out that for a judge, or one of the judges, in this basically being a court case or investigation, to say in the very first remarks that there has been a sordid history of involvement by one of the groups being reviewed by this investigation seems to me to be drawing conclusions before we get the facts. It seems to me to sound more like the Burton committee, which had a chairman that wanted to draw the conclusions before he even had the hearing. So, in the midst of this discussion, my intent is not to question the motives of the chairman of the Committee on Rules; my intent is to try to start out this process on a bipartisan, objective, fair basis. And I hope the distinguished gentleman would make clear what he means by referring to the ``sordid history'' of Loral or any others in this case.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, four years ago now, Speaker Newt Gingrich said this as quoted in the Washington Post, ``Clinton Democrats should be portrayed as, quote, the enemy of normal Americans.'' He then goes on to say, ``Republicans will use the subpoena power to investigate the administration.'' Some 4 years later, 50 investigations later in this House, some $17 million later of taxpayers' money, recently in the Congressional Quarterly, a senior Republican leadership aide was quoted as saying this, ``It has been very expensive, and it has not amounted to much.'' In light of the use of taxpayer dollars and duplicative and, in many cases, dead-end investigations, my original intent would be not to support with taxpayers' money one more investigation. But I think, because of the quality of the leadership of this committee and because of the importance of this issue, many of us, if not all of us, in this House want to support this resolution. But I must express one reservation. I would imagine what an appeals court would say in reviewing a previous judge's decision in a case if, in the first statement in that court, the judge stood up and said in reference to the defendant in the case, talked about his sordid history, sordid history. Those were the words used in the very first statement by the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, in opening up what I thought was intended to be an investigation to get the facts first and then make the judgment what those facts can be concluded to say. I would hope that perhaps I misunderstood, and I would be very happy to yield time to the distinguished chairman of the committee. I hope perhaps I misunderstood the context of his statement.

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. EDWARDS. So, to clarify for the record, the reference to ``sordid history'' refers to multiple administrations' policy in regard to technology transfer to China, and those remarks were not focused on this administration's particular actions that we are supposed to be reviewing in this matter? I think this is an important point. If the first statement on the floor of this House is to say we are now going to review the sordid history of the person we are supposed to be investigating before we draw a conclusion, then a reasonable person in or out of this House must conclude that perhaps this will be somewhat like the Burton investigation, where the chairman of the committee was quoted as saying he wants to ``get'' the President before he has even concluded the investigation. Again, I would hope to work with the distinguished chairman and others in reviewing all of the facts, listening to the committee before we determine whether this administration has been part of a sordid history or not. And, again, perhaps the chairman could better put in context the meaning of those words. I think that would be helpful to get this investigation started on a bipartisan, objective basis.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this is a risky tax scheme cloaked in a sound bite that could jeopardize our strong economy. Two weeks ago the Gingrich Republicans tried unsuccessfully to amend the Bill of Rights, our first amendment, after less than 17 days of committee hearings. Today, the Republican leadership wants to pass a bill to repeal the entire Tax Code without even having 1 hour of committee hearings. The pattern is clear: Gingrich Republicans seem more interested in sound bites than in sound public policy. This irresponsible approach to the serious business of governing our Nation was captured by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), head of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, in his recent memo to Republican House Members. He said this, and I quote: ``Write the 60- second commercial we want to run the last week of the campaign, then focus the rest of the year aiming toward it.'' Mr. Speaker, the American people are hungry for more than just meaningless sound bites. They want meaningful reforms on health care, education, and campaign finance. Let us kill this bill, which should be called the Full Employment Act for D.C. Tax Lobbyists.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, before there was a United States of America, there was an American Army, born on June 14, 1775. On the town square of Cambridge, Massachusetts, a small group of American colonists came to form an army, under the authority of the Continental Congress. Today, we look back over those 223 years and see clearly that the forming of the colonial Army was the prelude to the birth of our nation. The Army's Birthday marks over two centuries of selfless service to the United States of America by more than 42 million Americans, who have raised their right hands to take an oath, both in times of crisis and in peace. Since that distant day, the nation, like our Army, has evolved, but the liberty it stands for remains constant, as does the Army's constant vigil to protect that liberty. We look back to those early days, during the genesis of the ideas that would give birth to the United States of America. A nation--this nation--was preparing for its violent birth--a ripping apart of the bonds between the colony on the American continent and the mother country across the ocean. It all started with words. Patriots spoke publicly with bold rhetoric and other pamphleteers made the case for independence with the printed word, beckoning fellow citizens to resist oppression and insist on their inalienable rights. But in the end, independence was won on the field of battle, largely through the heroic deeds, sacrifices, and sustained determination of its newly created army. From that victory on the battlefield, a nation emerged offering the boldest experiment of government in the history of mankind. Freedom sprung from its roots. As it was during its birth, America today is a haven for freedom-seeking people everywhere. Other nations perceive our country as a place where freedom flourishes within its own borders and where the citizens care about the freedom of other peoples. For over two centuries, our nation has stood up against despots, totalitarians, and tyrants wherever they erupted. We are people who have taken seriously our mandate to be a shining beacon of freedom and a torchbearer for democracy for the entire world. Every step of the way, America's Army has been there to help those in need and carry the mantle of freedom's call. We have witnessed the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. These developments offer unparalleled opportunities for democracy to spread and flourish, but freedom is still endangered or absent in many parts of the world. To help satisfy that quest for freedom and stability, our Army is there. The traditional purpose of our Army has always been to fight and win our nation's wars--to gain decisive victory on the battlefield and to prevail anywhere in the world, whenever or wherever the country needed us to fight. Today, however, our Army is called upon to perform in more demanding roles in more complicated scenarios involving America's interests. Victory in today's complex world means more than destroying an opponent's army. In the ever-changing world we live in, victory means helping keep the peace in Bosnia and in Macedonia. It means working with close allies on the Korean Peninsula to deter a heavily armed state to the north. Victory means restoring democracy in Haiti and saving lives by producing and delivering clean water to refugees in Africa. Victory means protecting our borders from drugs. The men and women of the United States Army have demonstrated time and again that they are trained and ready to respond anywhere in the world when called upon. Today's Army is a full-spectrum force. The people of the United States can be confident that our Army today can project power internationally, to deter potential adversaries and protect vital interests. On the home front, our Army stands ready to support civilian authorities in domestic emergencies. Whatever the need, our Army is there. The nation should be proud of the achievements of our soldiers, men and women, who play a critical role in our nation's efforts to help shape the international security environment. This past year, for the first time, the Army had soldiers deployed in 100 countries. On any given day during the year, 30,000 soldiers are deployed to more than 70 countries on joint and combined operations and exercises. Proud of the past role played throughout the history of our nation, America's Army remains vigilant to the dangers of today while simultaneously preparing for future challenges. The Army is harnessing the tremendous potential of technology to achieve information dominance. This dominance will allow the Army to do things never before possible on the battlefield and in other military operations around the globe. America's Army is actively leading the way into the 21st Century. That position of leadership will ensure that the United States maintains the world's best Army, today and into the future. In the midst of these missions and prospects, the Army rightfully maintains a focus on our nation's most valuable resource--our people. In America's Army, we see clear examples of American ideals. We see drug free Americans living in law-abiding communities. We see men and women of different ethnic groups and religions working together in pursuit of common goals. We see the Total Army Team--active, National Guard and Reserve soldiers, Department of the Army civilians, and families--working together for the benefit of the nation. On this, the Army's 223rd birthday, we honor their dedication and selfless service to the Army and the nation. Soldiers willingly pay a heavy price. To be a soldier is to bear seemingly insufferable burdens--the physical burdens of hard and demanding work, the emotional burdens of separation from family and friends, and the lonely burdens of leadership. Indeed, to be a soldier, is to be changed in ways that can never be undone. To be a soldier is to believe in something other than what one can achieve as an individual. On this day--the Army's Birthday--we pause to remember what it means to believe in something greater than ourselves. To be a soldier means to believe that what we do for our country and for people we may never know truly matters. America's Army, stands ready today as it has for the past 223 years. Whenever the call comes, wherever the danger, and whatever the mission, the Army will be ready.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress, representing the citizens of the thirteen American colonies, authorized the establishment of a Continental Army with the expressed purpose of providing for the defense of a fledgling democracy and its bedrock principles and values. The next day, Congressman George Washington became General George Washington and prepared to take command of the new Army. The collective expression of the pursuit of personal freedoms that caused the authorization and organization of the United States Army, subsequently led to our Nation's Declaration of Independence and the codification of our bedrock principles and values in the Constitution of the United States. The birth and growth of that Army led to the birth of our great Nation. Today we celebrate the birthday of the United States Army, in recognition of 221 years of continuous, selfless, and valorous service to the citizens, principles, and values of the United States of America. For 221 years, our Army's central purpose has been to fight and win our Nation's wars. In years past, those wars have typically been fought and won on distant, foreign battlefields, while at home, the Army has provided for the security of a growing population. The Army's contributions include the development of our Nation's rail and water transportation networks, and innumerable medical and scientific achievements that have markedly improved the quality of life of our citizenry. Whatever the mission, the Nation turns to its Army for decisive victory, regardless of whether those victories are measured in the defeat of foreign armed forces or the timely delivery of humanitarian assistance at home or abroad. The 172 battle streamers carried on the Army flag are testaments to the valor, commitment, and sacrifice of those who have served and fought under its banner. Valley Forge, New Orleans, Mexico City, Gettysburg, Verdun, Bataan, Normandy, Pusan, Ia Drang Valley, Grenada, Panama, and Kuwait are but a handful of the places where American soldiers have won extraordinary distinction and respect for our Nation and our Army. Soldiers of character are today, as they have been throughout the Army's glorious history, the heart and soul of our Army. ``Duty, Honor, Country'' are more than mere words--they are the creed by which the American soldier lives and serves. Today's Army is without equal, not in terms of its size, but in the quality and dedication of the young men and women who have chosen to selflessly serve the Nation, at home and abroad, in peace and war, to accomplish the tasks directed by the Nation's leaders. Our young men and women--who receive tough, realistic training and are equipped with the finest equipment--are the envy of the world's nations. The Army's strength always has been, and always will be, the American soldier. Intelligent, physically fit, highly motivated and educated, and well trained and supported, soldiers are our Army's capital asset. While no one can predict the cause, location, or magnitude of future battles, there is one certainty--American soldiers of character, selflessly serving the Nation, will continue to be the credentials of our Army. The Army is prepared to answer the Nation's call, and such calls have been increasing in number and disparity in recent years. These wide- ranging missions highlight the complex global security environment our Nation faces today. The threats are less distinct and less predictable than in the past, but more complex and just as real and dangerous. Rising sophistication among terrorists and rogue states, the standing armed forces of potential adversaries, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction portend increasing challenges for the future. Our Army will continue to serve the central role in the Nation's response to these challenges. Our Army--the world's most capable and respected ground force--is in the midst of an unparalleled transformation as it prepares for the new challenges of the next century and a different world. The Information Age is already bringing rapid changes in the conduct of warfare. Future forces will be prepared to conduct quick, decisive, highly sophisticated operations anywhere, anytime. America's 21st Century Army will integrate emerging information technologies with sound doctrine, flexible organizations, and soldiers of character and commitment to make out Nation's land force more versatile, deployable, lethal, and survivable. Our Army was ready at Lexington and our Army is ready today. Our Army will be ready to fight and win our Nation's call to service at home and abroad. Whenever the time, whenever the place, whatever the mission, America can count on her Army.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people heard the gentleman point out on this floor that he does not consider the credit card companies in any way responsible for the billions of dollars in debt that have been increased, to a large extent because they have sent out easy credit cards, unsolicited credit cards, to teenagers and senior citizens. According to his philosophy of personal responsibility, I guess drug dealers should not be held responsible for the drug problem in America, because nobody forced those people in America to use drugs. If that is the kind of personal responsibility that is behind this bill, I do not want any part of it.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I speak as someone who had hoped to support a bipartisan measure to deal with a problem of increasing bankruptcies in America. But I am disappointed in the result of this bill. Specifically this bill would undermine the Texas constitutional protection for family homesteads. It is disappointing to me that in a Republican-led Congress that has paid a lot of lip service to the concept of States' rights, this bill would run roughshod over the States' rights and the property rights of Texas and 5 other States: Florida, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota and South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, there can be no more personal property right that a State can try to protect than the right of one's own home, and I am deeply disappointed that the leadership in this House refused to recognize our 6 States' efforts to protect that important property right. Let me say also, if this bill is about personal responsibility, it misses the mark because nowhere in it do I find any effort to ask multibillion dollar credit card companies to face their responsibility for having increased consumer debt by billions of dollars through unsolicited credit card mailings and through unsolicited increases in credit card limits. I will finish with a personal note. When my mother, my 74-year-old mother, died 5 years ago, I went to her one-bedroom apartment in Houston to collect her things and found on the kitchen table letters from credit card companies on one hand saying, ``You are 2 to 3 months late in your payments,'' and on the other hand on the same table found those same credit card companies and others saying, ``Congratulations, we're increasing your credit card limit by thousands of dollars.'' I believe this bill failed in its responsibility to make not only American families but also American corporations face the responsibility for the serious problem that has been created.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. For 207 years those eloquent words embedded in our Bill of Rights have protected America's religious freedom. Perhaps the single greatest contribution of our experiment as a Nation and democracy is the contribution of the freedom, the religious freedom that we have ensured to all of our citizens from all backgrounds as a result of these very words. Today, Mr. Speaker, we have heard Members say they admire the Bill of Rights. We have heard Members say they cherish the Bill of Rights. We have heard Members say they respect the Bill of Rights. Well, now all the Members of this House today will have the right to vote for the Bill of Rights; and not only the Bill of Rights, but the first 16 words of the first amendment dealing with religious liberty. Mr. Speaker, this is a very clear vote. It is very simple. If Members vote for this motion to recommit, they are voting to endorse the first 16 words of the first amendment. If they vote no and then vote for the Istook amendment, they are voting to change the Bill of Rights for the first time in our Nation's history. But what I would suggest at this moment that the Bill of Rights needs is not just respect or just those who cherish it or admire it, but the Bill of Rights deserves Members of this House voting for it. I urge a vote for the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, America already has a religious freedom amendment. It was not written by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook), and passed through this House after less than 1 day of committee hearings and 2 hours of floor debate. Rather, it was written by Mr. Madison of Virginia, after debating with Mr. Jefferson for well over a decade, 200 years ago. Those 16 words that begin the first amendment of our Bill of Rights have served this Nation extraordinarily well. We should not change it for the first time today. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the things I have heard on the other side of this debate today. First, I have heard that prayer and God have been taken out of our schools. In fact, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) this morning in a debate with me said the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) wants to take God out of our schools. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would say, Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and others that the God I deeply worship and pray to cannot be taken out of any classroom, anyplace, anywhere in America, any time, not by the Supreme Court, not by any Member of this Congress. I have heard it said that we are talking about, as we change the Bill of Rights, student-initiated prayer. I must wonder, that begs the question, are we going to have committees of 8-, 9-, and 10-year-old schoolchildren in the first, second, and third grade with the responsibility to defend the constitutional rights of the other children in that classroom? Children who have a hard time picking up their toys at home are going to be laid with the burden of protecting the constitutional rights of other children in their schoolhouses? We heard this will be voluntary prayer. There is nothing voluntary, Mr. Speaker, about an 8-year-old Jewish child who, because of his faith, must leave a classroom every morning, since 99 percent of the other children in that classroom and 99 percent of the prayers in that classroom are Christian. There is nothing voluntary about a Christian child having to leave because his parents do not want him to be forced to listen in a classroom that the law says he must attend, in most States, must listen to an Islamic prayer, or some other prayer. We have heard a lot about tolerance from the other side, Mr. Speaker. Let me tell the Members about the kind of tolerance that has been engendered by the supporters of the Istook amendment. The Christian Coalition sent out this letter in my district: ``The Edwards bigotry'', and they were saying my bigotry because I simply opposed the Istook amendment, ``The Edwards bigotry directed at Christians and other people of faith is outrageous and must be stopped. His attitudes have no place in Texas or anywhere in America.'' Mr. Speaker, I never thought I would be accused of being un-American because I stand with Jefferson and Madison in defense of that wonderful Bill of Rights. That is not the kind of tolerance we should have. If this is the kind of tolerance and respect we are going to have for diverse religious and political views in every classroom across America, that is the kind of divisiveness our schoolchildren do not deserve. I have heard that the modern day Supreme Court, the liberal Supreme Court, has somehow prostituted the original intent of our Founding Fathers. Let me first point out that seven of the nine Justices of the modern day Supreme Court were appointed by Republican Presidents, including that well known liberal, President Ronald Reagan. Let me point out that the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and I do not have the right to change the Bill of Rights every time we disagree with a court decision. Had we maintained that belief, there would not be a Bill of Rights. If we pass this today, what is next? Do we amend the freedom of speech, the freedom of association? I ask Members to vote against the Istook amendment. The Bill of Rights have served this Nation well for 207 years.

Mr. EDWARDS. So under the rule on this fundamental issue dealing with the Constitution and the First Amendment, Democrats were not given a block of time to even debate this issue which, regardless of one's point of view, is an extremely important debate.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, as we debate this fundamental issue dealing with whether the word ``God'' should be in our Constitution and the issue of whether there should be funding of religious organizations with taxpayer dollars, that fundamental issue, do I understand that under the rules of this bill, that Democrats who would respect the point of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop) but who would oppose his amendment were not given any block of time? Is that correct?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as we begin this important debate on the steps of this historic Capitol, religious leaders from all across America have gathered to voice their strong opposition to the Istook amendment, which would, for the first time in our Nation's history, amend the Bill of Rights. People of deep faith, because of their respect for the importance of religion in their individual lives, are standing with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and all of the evidence of human history, which proves that the best way to ruin religion is to politicize it. If one believes that the way to protect religious liberty is to get government, the Federal Government, involved in private matters such as children's prayers with their God, allow judges to push their personal political views through the use of their offices and positions, and to actually use taxpayer dollars to fund religious organizations, if people believe that is the way to protect religious liberty, I think they are sadly mistaken. Mr. Speaker, whether one supports or opposes the Istook amendment, and I vehemently oppose it, the fact is that this process, this rule, does a great disservice to that cherished document we call the Bill of Rights. Whereas Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson debated this very issue for over 10 years in the Virginia legislature, the Committee on Rules last night, with many of the Members not even present, decided to send the most important issue in this country, the issue of religious freedom, to this floor with such a limited unfair rule that each of the Members of this House, both for and against Istook, will have less than 13 seconds to express their deep convictions on the important issue of religion and religious liberty. Again, whether you are for or against the Istook amendment, I would suggest that a vote against this rule would be a vote in respect of the importance of the Bill of Rights. Whether 5 years or 50 years from now, it will set a terrible precedent to have such an important issue, an issue that we have not voted on in 27 years in this House, come to the floor after only one day of hearings in the full Committee on the Judiciary this year, and come to the floor of this House with a rule that only allows 12 to 13 seconds of debate. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friends on both sides of the aisle, my friends on both sides of the issue, I would urge you to search your conscience and think about the precedent we are setting when we say that we have such a cavalier respect for the Bill of Rights, and even the first amendment, and even the first 16 words of that Bill of Rights, that we think it is wise and smart to bring this amendment to the floor, prohibiting Members the opportunity to speak out from the heart of their conscience. That is wrong. We will debate in the hours ahead why I believe and why many religious leaders believe that the Istook amendment is wrong, but, for the moment, I would urge my colleagues to cast a vote of respect for our Constitution, cast a vote of respect for the Bill of Rights, and say that none of the Members should be gagged in their opportunity to express their conscience. If there is any right we ought to respect in this historic body, it should be our right and our responsibility as the voice for the nearly 600,000 people we represent in our respective districts to speak out for those people of our district, to speak out for the beliefs we hold deep and dear. Vote no on this rule.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Parents, beware, Mr. Speaker. If the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) in the next 5 hours is successful in beginning the process to amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in our Nation's history, public schools across America will begin to look like public airports, where religious groups, cults and fanatics can go to our public school grounds and try to convert small children to their particular religious beliefs. I do not think the parents of America want to send their children to school to be proselytized. They send their children to school to be educated. I am grateful, Mr. Speaker, that just outside the halls of this historic Chamber, religious leaders of great faith from all over this country, Baptists, Methodists, Jews, Episcopalians and many other faiths will speak out against the Istook amendment, because they believe as Jefferson and Madison did that the best way to ruin religion is to politicize it. That is what the Istook amendment will do. I urge parents, people and Members across this body and America to oppose the Istook amendment.