Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified in the new form at the desk, which I believe is acceptable to the committee chairman, subcommittee chairman and full committee ranking member.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this bill wisely brings together State and local officials in a commitment to improving the quality of training for our Nation's teachers. I strongly support that effort. My amendment would expand the focus of job development grants to include management training for school superintendents and principals. I believe it is critical for the future of our children that we provide better management training to our school principals and superintendents, because they play a very significant role in the lives of our students, they play a vital role in our public school system in America. Mr. Chairman it is interesting if we look at dozens and dozens of cases of school turnarounds around the country where a school district had essentially the same amount of funds, the same students, the same teachers, and yet from one year to the next over a period of 2 years there was a significant turnaround and improvement of morale and student achievement. The one common bond we find in all of those cases is that there was a strong leader as a principal or as a superintendent that came into that school or district and used all of the many management skills necessary to lead an educational institution. It is no coincidence that corporations provide millions of dollars for management training for their mid-level and upper-level management personnel. And yet historically our Nation has provided but a pittance for management training of those principals and superintendents who oversee products, our children, far more important than a product of any corporation in this country. Providing professional development opportunities and management training will allow school administrators to improve their skills. Improved management at both the school and district level will have a positive effect on students, teachers and parents. Students will learn more effectively in a positive environment and teachers, like all employees anywhere, are happier and more effective under good leadership and strong management. Better trained administrators will improve the overall quality of our Nation's education system. I believe it makes sense to focus on management training in business, and I believe in this bill it will make sense to focus a small amount of resources on management training of our Nation's school superintendents and principals. For that reason, I urge the passage of this amendment.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I respect my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and his genuine concern for high taxes, and I share that concern. But the more I study this constitutional amendment, the less I like it. It is bad policy, period. This resolution should be named the tax loophole protection act. And this is how it works. If they can afford a million-dollar tax lobbyist, just hide a special interest tax break in a huge tax bill; and then, once it becomes law, it would require a two-thirds vote in Congress to undo their special deal. Let us be specific. Just a few years ago, when we were trying to stop multi-billionaire American citizens from leaving this country and not paying their fair share of taxes, this would have been a dream come true for them. That is bad news for average working families. They will pay higher taxes to cover the costs of special-interest tax loopholes for multinational corporations and multi-millionaires. If they can afford to hire well-heeled tax lobbyists, this bill is a dream come true. But if they are a typical hard-working American trying to support their family, this bill is a nightmare. Mr. Speaker, what bothers most Americans is not paying their fair share of taxes. What bothers most Americans, and especially on April 15, is that their taxes are higher because some powerful special interest too often got back-room, one-of-a-kind tax loopholes. If they think it is a great idea that special interests get tax breaks and loopholes we do not get, they will love the tax loophole protection act. The American people need to know, and we certainly know, the congressional tax bills are filled with special-interest tax breaks. Sometimes these bills are hundreds, hundreds of pages long; and the effect of hiding taxes, tax cuts, loopholes behind vague language would make Rembrandt and Picasso green with envy. If there is a single Member of this House that claims that he or she is aware of every hidden tax loophole in our tax bills in recent years, I will relinquish the rest of my time right now. I did not think so. Mr. Speaker, we should not enshrine into law tax loopholes by requiring the same supermajority vote to amend those loopholes that it would tax to amend our U.S. Constitution. Somehow it just does not seem right to give special-interest tax loopholes the same protection we give our American Constitution. This resolution may lower taxes for the powerfully connected, but it will raise taxes for average working Americans. Vote no on this resolution.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, this highway bill will spend over $200 billion of taxpayers' money. The fact is that well over half of those taxpayers are women and minorities. It is only a matter of basic fairness that groups comprising a majority of American taxpayers should have a realistic chance to compete for 10 percent of the highway programs paid for by their tax dollars. It was that very fundamental issue of fairness that caused 58 Democrats and Republicans in the other body to vote ``no'' on this unfair amendment. The DBE program is not a quota. I oppose quotas. But what is good for America and good for our highway program is that when we are spending billions of American taxpayer dollars we should at least make it a goal to not exclude women and minorities from these programs. That is the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a few Members today talk about reverse discrimination in the highway business. Well, I have a suggestion for them: Go across this country and visit highway contractors and come back to me and tell me if they really think there are too many Hispanics and African-Americans and women owning and managing highway contractor firms. And while they are at it, take a look at those States who had gotten rid of goals and see what has happened. Then they and I can talk about real discrimination. Mr. Chairman, I have reservations about this bill, quite frankly. To all of those supporting this actively, I would suggest that the passage of this amendment would be seen as an insult by the vast majority of Hispanics, African-Americans, and women in this House voting, at least right now, planning on voting for this bill. If they want to see the wheels fall off this highway bill today, simply pass this amendment, sit back and watch. This amendment is not about quotas. It is not about reverse discrimination. It is about simple fairness. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the question before us today is not whether we want to improve transportation infrastructure. The answer to that question is clearly ``yes.'' The question before us today is this: Should Congress increase spending by $26 billion on any program without paying for it? I believe the answer to that question is ``absolutely not.'' Mr. Speaker, it is fiscal irresponsibility at its worst. Do not trust my judgment. Let us see what fiscally conservative groups said about this question. The National Taxpayers Union said, ``Unlike the Boston Tea Party, Congress' ISTEA party,'' this bill, ``will leave taxpayers with a huge fiscal hangover.'' To my Republican colleagues who have attacked Democrat spending habits for years, the National Taxpayers Union, their friend, also said, ``If the trend continues, the free-spending Democratic Congresses of the early nineties could look like misers compared to this one.'' The Wall Street Journal said just yesterday that this bill is highway robbery and that all in all the highway bill is the lowest moment since Republicans regained Congress, a highway bill that has become one of the great log rolling parties of all time. The Citizens Against Government Waste said that, ``If Congress persists in this attempt to break the highway spending caps imposed on the budget deal from less than a year ago, the balanced budget deal is dead.'' Mr. Speaker, if a principle is worth fighting for, it should be worth fighting for two days in a row. Yesterday, from this very well, our Republican colleagues said it was essential to have offsets to pay for our supplemental emergency appropriation bill and cover flooding damage in this country. Yet today, the same Republican leadership will force this House to pass a highway bill that does not pay for one dime of the $26 billion in new spending. I guess the Republican leadership is saying that yesterday fiscal responsibility was important, today it is not.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to recognize the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor Lady Crusaders of Belton, Texas for their determination in making it to the national women's basketball championship game. After posting an impressive season record of 24-6, the Lady Crusaders entered the women's NAIA Division II National Tournament unseeded. Fighting their way through highly ranked teams to the finals, they challenged Walsh University of Ohio for the championship trophy Tuesday night. Although they fell in the championship game, these young ladies combined effort, teamwork, dedication, and vision to fool the experts and outplay their opposition. The Lady Crusaders set several new tournament records and proved that the underdog should never be counted out. I ask you to join me in acknowledging the accomplishment of these outstanding athletes from my Texas Congressional District. Congratulations Lady Crusaders for a job well done.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, what America needs is English plus, not English only. What America needs is to teach English, not preach it. What America needs is to respect diversity, not divisiveness. The last time I visited the Statue of Liberty, that eloquent lady did not say ``Spanish-speaking people not accepted here.'' The blood spilled and lives lost by thousands of Spanish-speaking American veterans has not been limited to English only, and it is wrong to deny those veterans the very rights for which they fought. Whether intended or not, this debate on English only is divisive and insults the culture of millions of Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Korean Americans and others. Mr. Chairman, the brightest days of America's history have come when we were inclusive, when we added women and racial and religious minorities to the rights enumerated in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The darkest days of America's history have come when we excluded our citizens from full participation in our democracy; for example, when black veterans were allowed to die for the very freedoms they were denied right here at home. I hope this will be a bright day for all of America's citizens, not a dark day that will turn us backwards into a quagmire of divisiveness. The 3 percent of American citizens that do not speak English, many of them seniors living with their children in their homes, hardly pose a threat to the greatest democracy in the history of the world. If Hispanics and other Americans, such as Korean Americans in my district, are willing to work hard and pay taxes and serve us in uniform, then surely we should show them the brightest, the best of America today. Vote ``no'' on the Solomon amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished minority whip for recognizing me to speak for a few minutes on an issue that is very near and dear to my heart. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to discuss an issue that I believe is of critical importance to our Nation and to every American family. The issue is religious freedom. Specifically, I want to comment on Federal legislation that I believe will do great damage to our Bill of Rights and to the cause of religious liberty. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has introduced a constitutional amendment that, if passed into law, would for the first time in our Nation's history amend our cherished Bill of Rights, that Bill of Rights which has for over 200 years protected American's religious, political and individual rights. On Wednesday the Committee on the Judiciary is expected to vote on this ill-conceived legislation. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) has mislabeled his work the Religious Freedom Amendment. More appropriately, it should be called the Religious Freedom Destruction Amendment, because that is what it will do. In my opinion, the Istook amendment is the worst and most dangerous piece of legislation I have seen in my 15 years in public office. It is dangerous because it threatens our core religious rights and would literally tear down the 200-year-old wall that our Founding Fathers built to protect religion from the intrusion of government. That is why I will be working with a bipartisan coalition of House Members and religious leaders from across the Nation to defeat this measure. The Istook amendment would allow satanic prayers and animal sacrifices in the name of prayers to be performed in our public school rooms. It would step on the rights of religious minorities and allow government facilities, including county courthouses and elementary public schools, to become billboards for religious cults. Mr. Speaker, America already has a religious freedom amendment. It is called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is the first pillar of our Bill of Rights. It is the sacred foundation of all of our rights. The First Amendment begins with these cherished words: ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' For over two centuries that simple but profound statement has been the guardian of religious liberty, which is perhaps the greatest single contribution of the American experiment in democracy. To tamper with the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights has profound implications. In the name of furthering religion, the Istook amendment would harm religion. In the name of protecting religious freedom, it would damage religious freedom. With no disrespect intended to my colleague, if I must choose between Madison, Jefferson and our Founding Fathers versus the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) on the issue of protecting religious liberty, I shall stand with Madison, Jefferson and our Founding Fathers. If history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us that the best way to ruin religion is to politicize it. Our Founding Fathers deleted the mentioning of God in our Constitution, not out of disrespect but out of total reverence for their faith in God and the importance of religion in our lives. It is that same sense of reverence that should move us in this Congress to protect the First Amendment of our Constitution, not dismantle it. Some have suggested that the Istook amendment is necessary because they allege God has been taken out of public places. I would suggest those people must not share my belief that no human has the power to remove an all-powerful, ever-present God from any place on this earth. The fact is there is no law in America that prohibits prayers in school. Teachers have said as long as there are math tests, there will be prayers in school. I agree. Under present law, school children may pray silently in school or even out loud, so long as they do not disturb the class work of others and try to impose their religious views upon their fellow students. Today in our schools children can say grace over school lunches and, if they wish, pray around the flagpole before and after school. Under the Bill of Rights, government resources, though, cannot be used to force religion upon our school children against the wishes of their parents or the children themselves. What the Bill of Rights does prohibit is government-sponsored prayer, as it should. Our Founding Fathers were wise to separate church and State in the very First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Religious freedom flourishes in America today. Why? Precisely because of our Constitution's wall of separation between church and State. Islamic fundamentalism seen in the Middle East today is a clear example of how religious rights are trampled upon when government gets involved in religion. In the months ahead, I urge Americans to look beyond the sound bite rhetoric of the Istook amendment and ask themselves this question: Should prayer be an individual right or a government program?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Colonel Courtney H. Mank on his July retirement from the United States Air Force. I hope Members will join with me today to thank Colonel Mank for his contributions to the U.S. Air Force, his community and the country. A graduate of Killeen High School in Killeen, Texas in 1964, Colonel Mank earned a bachelor's degree in education from Southwest Texas State University in 1968. In 1977, he completed his master's degree in personnel management from Webster College. He received a commission as a second lieutenant through the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps in 1968, and was assigned as chief of security police at Laughlin AFB, Texas. In June 1970, Colonel Mank was transferred to Cam Ranh Bay, Republic of Vietnam, where he served as base defense officer. He returned to the United States in June 1971, and was assigned as commander of the 58th Security Police Squadron, Luke AFB, Arizona. Colonel Mank's selection as an Air Staff Training Officer in June 1972 resulted in an assignment to Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Office of the Inspector General for Security Police, Washington, D.C. The following year, he was assigned to Langley AFB, Virginia, inspection team. In March 1975, Colonel Mank was assigned to the Air Force Military Personnel Center, Randolph AFB, Texas, as a career management staff officer and executive officer. In February 1979, Colonel Mank was assigned to the Alaskan Air Command Security Police Staff, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, as chief of the operations branch. While at Elmendorf, the colonel assumed command of the 21st SPS in March 1980. Colonel Mank was then assigned as chief of security police, Headquarters, Air Defense, Tactical, Langley AFB, Virginia, in February 1982. In July 1984, he was transferred to Holloman AFB, New Mexico, assuming command of the 833rd SPS. After transferring to Ramstein Air Base, Germany, in August 1986, Colonel Mank became chief of the physical security division, deputy chief of staff, security police, Headquarters U.S. Air Forces in Europe. He later transferred to Headquarters Electronic Security Command, Kelly AFB, Texas, as the chief of security police. In July 1991, the colonel became commander of the 857th Security Police Group, Minot AFB, North Dakota. Colonel Mank assumed his current position on June 1, 1993. The colonel's military decorations and awards include the Legion of Merit; Bronze Star Medal; Meritorious Service Medal with seven oak leaf clusters; Air Force Commendation Medal with one oak leaf cluster; Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with ``V'' device and one oak leaf cluster; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with two service stars; Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with palm device; and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. The singularly distinctive accomplishments of Colonel Mank culminate a long and distinguished career in the service of his country and reflect great credit upon himself and the United States Air Force. I ask members to join me in wishing Colonel Mank the very best as he returns to Killeen, Texas upon his retirement.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, when Members retire from this institution, many of us stand up out of politeness to pay our respects. Today is different. Today, all of the Members of the House speaking truly speak from their heart. The world has changed much since a young Ron Dellums came to this body. He came here when we were mired in the depths of the Vietnam war. Today the world is at peace. He came when school children were fearful of being bombed by nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union because of the Cold War. Today they no longer have that fear, and the world is at nuclear peace. He came when Nelson Mandela was a prisoner and now he is a President. And in all of those steps of progress of history is the footprint of Ron Dellums. He has made a difference for our country, and he has made a difference for our world. And as we sit here and listen to the great accomplishments of Ron Dellums, I must say as his friend that we respect him because of what he has accomplished. We respect him for what he has done. But truly, we love him because of his deep personal character. Winston Churchill once said that we make a living by what we get; we make a life by what we give. Based on what he has given both in making a difference and in his personal character, Ron Dellums has led a great and productive life. Mr. Speaker, when I think of Ron Dellums, I think of four words. Dignity is the first, perhaps his lasting legacy to this institution. Always speaking from the heart when he came to this floor, always dealing with the indignities he once had to face as a new Member having to share a seat on the Committee on Armed Services, facing that with great dignity to the point that he rose to become the chairman of that very same committee. I think of fairness when I think of Ron Dellums, someone who respected the will of this House, was willing to listen to all Members from different points of view and from both parties, and in letting every Member of this House have his or her say. I think of the word ``caring.'' As one who represents over 43,000 Army soldiers, I want to express my thanks to Ron Dellums for helping protect the impact aid program which sees that if our military families are off fighting in a war thousands of miles away from their homes, at least they can do so knowing that their children will get a first class education back home. Despite the fact of his fairness, for which we all respect, let no one mistake the fact that Ron Dellums has been effective. Listen to the stories that have already been told. Talk to two of the greatest leaders, great defenders of the B-2 program. I think it says a lot that the most effective fighters in favor of the B-2, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), are here on this floor to pay their respects to the man who literally led the fight against that major defense program. Fortunately our Founding Fathers were wise enough to design an institution that is bigger than any one of us. This institution will go on when Ron Dellums retires. But, Mr. Speaker, I know I speak for all of us when I say that this institution will be less because of his retirement but more because of his service and his lasting legacy of dignity to this great body and to this country. We salute you and wish you well, our friend, Ron Dellums.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the second retirement of Lt. Gen. Richard G. Graves, a distinguished soldier who as a businessman continued to promote the interests of the Army and of the United States. Lt. Gen. Graves is departing from General Dynamics Corp. where he has served as vice president of the General Dynamics Land Systems Division, first in Saudi Arabia and recently in Washington, DC. He will now return to his adopted home, the State of Texas. While in Saudi Arabia, he was responsible for the fielding of over 300 United States made M1A2 tanks to the Royal Saudi Land Forces. Complex and difficult in itself, this accomplishment has had two major benefits to the United States of America. First, these tanks and their Saudi crews now are part of the foundation of military strength that allows the Government of Saudi Arabia to stand against the possibility of renewed aggression in the Middle East. Second, the efficient and positive way in which this critical task was done strengthened the relationship of trust and confidence the United States has with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Lt. Gen. Graves was born and raised in Indiana. Following graduation from West Point in 1958, he established a reputation as a highly proficient and able armor officer, culminating in command of the U.S. Army's Contingency Corps, III U.S. Corp. at Fort. Hood, TX, from 1988 to 1991. During his military career, he sought out difficult assignments here and abroad and executed them in an outstanding manner. He was the commander of an Armored Calvary Squadron during the Vietnam war and earned the Silver Star and several other decorations for valor. During the latter days of the cold war, he served in armored units here and in Germany as a Brigade Commander, Corps Operations Officer, Division Chief of Staff, Corps Chief of Staff, Assistant Division Commander, and Division Commanding General. He also served on the Staffs of Forces Command and the Department of the Army. In these roles, he was one of the architects of the rebuilding of the American Army from the depths of the post-Vietnam weakness to the heights of the competence displayed in the Desert Storm victory. Members, please join me in congratulating Lt. Gen. Richard G. Graves (retired). He has earned the praise and thanks of the American people for his many contributions as a soldier and patriot.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to congratulate Mr. Jamie Clements on his December retirement as legal counsel for Scott & White Hospital in Temple, TX. I Hope Members will join with me today to thank Mr. Clements for his contributions to Scott & White, his community, and the country. During his adult life, Mr. Clements dedicated himself to the legal and medical professions. He also found time to devote countless hours to local causes and charities. Mr. Clements was born in 1930 in Crockett, TX. He attended the University of Texas at Austin where he received both a B.A. in 1953 with the first of his three terms as a Texas House Representative. His Texas House service was interrupted when he went to serve his country in the U.S. Marines Corps. From 1956-58 he was an infantry platoon leader before moving to the 3d Marine Air Wing where he was a legal officer. In 1959, he returned to the Texas House where he served his third and final term. For the next 35 years, Jamie Clements established himself as a prominent member of the State and national bar associations and a strong leader in the field of medical law. He served as chairman for the committee on Liaison with the Medical Profession for the Texas Bar Association. He is the founder and past president of the National Health Lawyers Association. Jamie Clements is a professor of medical jurisprudence at the Texas A&M University College of Medicine, a member of the Government's Committee on Organ Transplantation and is a former president of the Board of Trustee of the Presbyterian Children's Home and Service Agency of Texas. He capped his legal/medical career with his present position as legal counsel of Scott & White Hospital. In addition to his contributions to the legal and medical professions, Mr. Clements was an active member of the Temple community. From 1964 through 1965 he was the president of the Temple Rotary Club. In 1969 he was the chairman of the Temple Planning Commission and from 1970 to 1974 served as mayor of Temple. He went on to serve Temple as the chairman of the Law Enforcement Advisory Board, president of the Cultural Activities Center, a member of the Board of Directors of the Temple Industrial Foundation, and the president of the Temple Leadership Council. On a personal note, I am grateful to call Jamie Clements a close, personal friend. He is a role model for all of us: a man of integrity, decency and compassion. Let me also say that every accolade to Jamie Clements must also be considered a tribute to his wife of 35 years, Ann Trigg Clements. As a wife and a mother she has been a true partner in all of Jamie Clement's accomplishments. Jamie and Ann Clements have made their community and our country a better place. They have personally touched the lives of all of us who know them and thousands of others who are the beneficiaries of their unselfish service. I ask members to join me in wishing Jamie, Ann and their three children every success and happiness in the future.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I wish to recognize a brave and bright young lady from my Texas congressional district. Allison Dickson, a Temple High senior, is at the top 3 percent of her class academically and has served as a class officer. Recently, Allison was selected as the 1997 Temple High School Football Sweetheart. Allison has accomplished this and so much more despite the debilitating effects of muscular dystrophy. The disease has taken her mobility, but she has kept her heart and soul. I want to enter into the Record some special thoughts written by this exceptional young lady: (By Allison Dickson) He asked me a simple question. I'm sure he has no recollection of this day or of how much it meant to me. I often think back and remind myself of the five words that made me realize something very important about who I am. Two rows over in my freshmen U.S. history class sat a boy with a quick smile and calm manner. I had only known him for a few weeks, but we often discussed sports and school like friends normally do. One day, with the innocence of a young child, he asked, ``Allison, do you play soccer?'' Just for a moment I didn't know what to say. I quickly glanced down, smiled at him, and shook my head no. He had given me the greatest compliment I could ever receive. I realized he didn't see me as a person in a wheelchair. To him, I was his friend Allison who could do anything. I have muscular dystrophy. This disease has taken away my ability to walk but nothing more. Everyone has a weakness, but determination, hard work and a strong faith makes nothing impossible. My achievements, both academically and in leadership roles, have helped me truly believe this. Of course, I have heard the random rude comments people say. I have felt the effects of prejudice first hand. All of this has made me a stronger and more compassionate person. I am different from others, but different is not always bad. This boy's trivial question helped me understand that I am not so unlike most people. He had looked past my disability and saw the real me. Jim Valvano, a former basketball coach and sports announcer, had been diagnosed with cancer. In a speech, he told people cancer could not touch his mind, it could not touch his heart, and it could not touch his soul. He then said that those three things would carry on forever. Look into my eyes and you will see a mind yearning for knowledge and truth. Look into my heart and you will see a burning passion for life and love for others. Look into my soul and you will see an enduring spirit that touches the lives of others and will carry on forever.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago I met a young Army soldier in my district who had missed the birth of his first child because he was serving our Nation in Desert Storm. He then missed the birth of his second child because he was doing his duty, as his Nation called him to do, in Bosnia. There is nothing this Congress can do to make up for the sacrifice of that young Army soldier. But what I am deeply grateful for is that through the leadership of Chairman Porter and Ranking Member Obey, this Nation has made a commitment through the Impact Aid Program to see that that young soldier when he is serving thousands of miles away from his family, serving his country, he or she can be sure that his or her sons and daughters will receive a firstclass education. It seems to me that that is a moral duty of this Congress. It is also the right thing to do to ensure a strong national defense, because all of the technology in the world, without the best and brightest soldiers and Marines and Navy pilots and sailors, will not ensure our Nation's defense. So I want to thank, not only for the whole effort of this tremendous piece of legislation, but in particular, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for their outstanding leadership and not forgetting those young children and military families who may not ever see their parents at graduation because their parents may end up giving the ultimate sacrifice in time of war. This is a great bill, and particularly on impact aid. I say thank you.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, enough is enough. The gentleman from Georgia Mr. Bob Barr now says we should spend taxpayers' dollars for an expensive fishing expedition. Why? To see if there might possibly, conceivably, maybe be a reason to consider impeaching President Clinton. Ridiculous. First Republicans spent millions of taxpayers' hard-earned money to try to bring down President Clinton with Whitewater hearings. Strike 1. Then Republicans wasted taxpayers' money attacking Senator Landrieu's election in Louisiana. Strike 2. Now Republicans are trying to overturn the election of the gentlewoman from California Ms. Loretta Sanchez, and after an entire year, there is no proof her election should be overturned. Strike 3. Having struck out with taxpayers' money, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] is now flailing away at the Constitution. Some Republicans, including the gentleman from Georgia, seem to love democracy. They just hate elections that do not go their way. The gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] should accept that Mr. Clinton was elected by the American people. He may not like it, but it is time to get over it.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to congratulate 17 women from my Texas congressional district for being selected as recipients of the 1997 Pathfinder Award. These specially selected women from Waco and McLennan County have distinguished themselves through their unique service and contribution to the community. Pathfinders is a special recognition program that honors outstanding women in McLennan County who have distinguished themselves in their chosen fields. Since 1984, the YMCA of Central Texas has honored 214 women with this distinguished tribute. The women are selected for the honor based on three factors: First, they have served as an exemplary role model, second, they are a strong mentor for others, and third, have impacted lives for the good. Receiving the 1997 Pathfinder Award are: Joyce Briehof will be recognized in the area of science/inventions, having been extensively involved with the Green Classroom Project at Kendrick Elementary School in Waco. Lynn Bulmahn will be recognized in the area of communications. Her coverage of health-related subjects including teenage pregnancy and Alzheimer's disease have earned her numerous awards. Margie Cintron is the recipient of the Pathfinder Award for public service. She has helped create 24 neighborhood associations in Waco, and provides technical support in accessing city, county, and other governmental services. Mary Duty will be recognized in the area of business/finance. She recently lobbied the Texas Legislature for passage of a bill to keep tobacco products away from underage children. Toni Herbert, a member of the Waco City Council, will be recognized in the area of politics. She began the Neighborhood Training Institute, as well as initiating the Neighborhood Development Program for the city of Waco. Ella Janes McKinney will be recognized in the area of volunteerism. A lifelong member of the Austin Avenue United Methodist Church, she helped organize the Meals on Wheels Program her church operates. Eugenie Mygdal will receive the Pathfinder Award for the arts. An active volunteer of the Waco Art Center and the Hillcrest Professional Development School, she is also a sculptress and artist. June Osborne will be recognized in the area of conservation. She is an avid ornithologist has sought to heighten the awareness of children and adults about the importance of nature conservation. Linda Reasoner, administrator of the Waco Covenant Academy, will be recognized in the area of non-traditional roles. She has also been active in the development of home schooling in Waco. Pam Smallwood, education director of Planned Parenthood, is the recipient of the Pathfinder Award in health. She is the creator of the nationally recognized program, ``Nobody's Fool: Dating, Love, Sex and AIDS.'' Maretha Smith will be recognized in the area of humanitarian. She is the founder of the youth program, ``Save of our Sons,'' an organization which seeks to provide a positive focus on the African-American male. Dr. Rosanne Stripling, superintendent of the Waco Independent School District will be recognized in the area of education. Earlier this year, she was named the first female superintendent of the Waco ISD after having served in a number of other capacities as a professional educator. Helen Thueson, director of victim services for the Waco Police Department will be recognized in the legal area for her efforts to help victims rebuild their lives after a traumatic crime has occurred. Dr. Nancy Upton, director of the Entrepreneurship Center at Baylor University, will be recognized in the area of entrepreneurial enterprises. She is the only chairwoman of an endowed entrepreneur center in the United States. Greta Warren Watson will be recognized in the area of civic leadership. A volunteer since in the late 1950's, her numerous activities include the Senate Ladies' Club, the League of Women Voters, and the Big Twelve Task Force. Ina Mae Wilson will be recognized in the area of volunteerism. She has contributed over 1,900 hours to the Community Hospice Service in Waco, specializing in the area of bereavement. Patricia Wood is the recipient of the Pathfinder Award in the area of religion. She has opened her home to numerous foreign exchange students in her church. I am proud to say she is my mother-in-law and devoted grandmother to my two sons, John Thomas and Garrison. In addition, Bobbie Barnes is receiving the Rountree Athena Award for her leadership in the areas of historic research, education, and preservation. Her work will allow the rich history and culture of Waco to be passed on to future generations. I ask Members to join me in honoring the recipients of these distinguished awards. These women have demonstrated the dedication and exhibited the excellence that make our communities strong and our country great.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today it is with great pride yet with heartfelt sorrow that I ask members to join me in honoring our colleague, Henry B. Gonzalez, on 36 years of service in the U.S. House of Representatives. At the end of this year, Henry B. Gonzalez will take his leave of this body. A great void will be left in our ranks when he is gone. His towering presence, financial expertise, and willingness to take a stand for causes large and small will be sorely missed. Although the country and this Congress have changed dramatically since Henry B. Gonzalez assumed his congressional seat in November 1961, he has always remained true to this country, to his beloved 20th Congressional District in San Antonio and to this Congress. Like so many of us, Henry B. Gonzalez dedicated his life to serving his community and his country. I was extremely blessed to follow in his footsteps first to the Texas State Senate and then to the U.S. House of Representatives. My relationship with Henry B. Gonzalez began long before we served together here in the U.S. House. In a way, we served together in the Texas Senate although he had left that body two decades before I set foot there in 1983. In the chamber of the Texas Senate hangs a painted portrait of Henry B. Gonzalez who served from 1956 to 1961. As a young senator, I remember looking at his portrait and the paintings of other famous Texans that hang there including Stephen F. Austin, the father of Texas; and Lyndon B. Johnson and Barbara Jordan who both served the State and the Nation with distinction. I always considered myself fortunate to be serving in the State legislative body where Henry B. Gonzalez broke new ground for improved race relations in Texas. In 1957, Henry B. Gonzalez proudly and bravely stood on the senate floor to fight and filibuster nine bills that would have expanded the then common practice of segregation. After 36 hours Henry B. Gonzalez and his allies had successfully stopped seven of the segregation bills. He was subjected to fierce personal and professional attacks, but refused to retreat or surrender. His determination to do what was right for all Texans began the process of tearing down the wall of racial separation that existed in the State. I never had the privilege of serving with him in the Texas Senate. But when I saw the portrait, I always tried to adhere to the principles he brought to office--honesty, integrity, and loyalty. His reputation, then as now, is that of a legislator who would fight for all people no matter their race, color, creed, or religion. It was Texas' loss and the country's gain when Henry B. Gonzalez resigned his senate seat to make a successful run for the U.S. House of Representatives. On November 4, 1961, Henry Gonzalez took his congressional seat and immediately found his calling on the House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs. Although the name of the committee has changed through the years, his commitment to consumers, small business owners, and taxpayers has never wavered. He served as Banking Committee chairman from 1989 to 1994. Under his leadership the panel conducted more than 500 hearings and moved 71 bills through the legislative process. During his tenure laws were passed that protected bank depositors, made credit available to small business owners, cracked down on financial fraud and other crimes, and made housing more accessible to Americans. Despite the long hours and hectic schedule of a Congressman and committee chairman, Henry and his wife of 57 years, Bertha, raised eight children. Henry and Bertha now have 21 grandchildren and 3 great- granddaughters who will continue to bring joy in the years to come. It has been a great privilege to serve with Henry B. Gonzalez and to work with him on so many issues of importance to Texas and the United States. Although Henry B. Gonzalez is heading home, he will always be remembered for his selfless service and willingness to fight for principle. I ask Members to join with me in honoring Henry B. Gonzalez for his many contributions in the past and for his success in the future. Henry B. Gonzalez may be leaving this House, but he will never be forgotten either here or at home. His portrait will hang in the Texas State Senate and his memory will remain in the hearts of his many friends and colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives. Goodbye, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I have great respect for Members of Congress who are genuinely pro-life. Some even believe if a woman is the victim of incest or rape, the Federal Government should prevent her from terminating the pregnancy. While I strongly disagree with that opinion, I can respect those who honestly believe it. But what I cannot respect is a bill that is designed for sound bites, not saving babies. We all know this bill will pass today. Why? Because it is designed for maximum impact in 8-second sound bites and 30-second attack ads. If we want to save babies, we do not outlaw one type of abortion procedure and allow all other types of late-term abortion procedures to be perfectly legal. That is why this bill might be good politics, but it will not save one baby. If someone wants a late-term abortion under this bill, their doctor can just use a procedure not outlawed by the bill. As someone who helped pass, as a Texas Senator, a ban on late-term abortions in Texas in 1987, I think it is tragic that the supporters of this bill would not even allow us to offer an amendment similar to the Texas law, an amendment that would have outlawed all late-term abortion procedures, not just one procedure, and providing an exemption in rare cases where the mother's life or health are endangered. Denying us that amendment might have been good politics, but it is terrible policy. The consequences of that political decision are real. First, now, today, we have a bill that will not prohibit all late-term abortion procedures, so no babies will be saved. Second, the bill will be vetoed by the President, and is unconstitutional, because it has no health exception and limits women's choices in the second trimester, even before viability. Federal judges have already stopped such similar bills in 10 States across this Nation. Third, women in tragic, tragic cases where their fetus has zero chance of survival, zero chance, will be forced by the Federal Government and politicians to go through a procedure that can endanger her health and stop her from ever having babies again. I may be in the minority vote today, Mr. Speaker, but I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice one woman's fertility, one woman's chance to have the joy of having a baby in order to pass a sound bite bill that is unconstitutional. That is simply a price that no woman in America should have to pay for my political convenience or anyone else's. Mr. Speaker, while I can respect genuine pro-life, I will not sit by silently and let some proponents of this bill suggest that those of us who oppose this bill support taking a healthy baby, just moments before a normal childbirth, and crushing the baby's skull. That is deceitful, it is dishonest, and it is wrong. It is not true, and they know it. I strongly oppose late-term abortions. If there is one done for frivolous reasons, it should be illegal, but when a woman's health is in danger, I, like many Americans, believe that difficult choice should not be made by politicians in Washington, DC, but by a woman, her family, and her doctor. Mr. Speaker, the reality is this: We could have passed 2 years ago, 2 years ago, the bill that pro-lifers supported in Texas as far back as 1987. That law would be saving babies today. Instead, because of the proponents' approach, their political approach, we have no Federal law. We could pass that Texas bill on this House floor today. The President would sign it tomorrow, and it could save babies the day after that. But sadly, this Committee on Rules has chosen not to even give us Members of the House the right to cast that vote of conscience and belief. That is wrong. Mr. Speaker, the real tragedy is that to some, the politics of this bill has become more important than saving babies. I believe it is time to save babies' lives, not sound bites. That is why I hope the President will once again have the courage to veto this bill, so that we can finally work together to pass a bill that will save babies rather than political careers. Finally, Mr. Speaker, regardless of my colleagues' position on this difficult emotional issue, if Members of Congress believe that we should all have the right to express a vote of deep conscience and conviction, then my colleagues should oppose this unfair closed rule.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in the next hour this House will have a clear choice. It is a choice between America's veterans versus tobacco companies. It is a choice between veterans versus partisanship. As someone who represents over 40,000 Army soldiers and 60,000 veterans in my district, I am disappointed and outraged that a Republican leader in the other body would add language to the foreign aid bill that actually gives tobacco companies precedence over Desert Storm veterans regarding claims against frozen Iraqi assets. What a slap in the face to every Desert Storm veteran and all veterans everywhere. Desert Storm veterans were first in combat. They should not be last in line regarding legitimate claims against the Iraqis. Mr. Speaker, I did not see tobacco companies fighting in Desert Storm. But I did see American service men and women fighting there, and I did have constituents who died on the sands of Kuwait in service to their Nation. Those people, not tobacco companies, should be put first in line. They stood up for us; today we should stand up for them, and I hope my Republican colleagues will join the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Doggett] and the Democrats, and will work together to defeat the Helms amendment to the foreign aid bill.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman saying this issue should be based on the facts. Did I understand the gentleman correctly to say that the veterans' programs were appropriated $90 billion this year?

Mr. EDWARDS. $90 billion this year?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman were off by a factor of about $40 billion to $50 billion, would he agree that his facts were not correct? Because I know he would not want to mislead the veterans and make them think they are going to get something they are not going to get.