Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield further, I know it was not intentional, but I appreciate the gentleman saying that we should not make veterans think they are going to get something that they are not going to get. Last year the appropriation was in the approximate range of $37 billion. If they receive $90 billion this year, I want to commend the chairman of the VA appropriations subcommittee and the chairman of the authorizing committee for their tremendous work on behalf of the veterans.

Mr. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, sometimes silence says a lot and, frankly, I am disappointed that out of over 200 Republican House Members, not 1 Republican has come to the floor of this House to stand up for veterans versus tobacco companies this morning. Most Americans will never know a young man named Arden Cooper. He was 22 years old, fighting against the Iraqi Forces in Kuwait. He saw a comrade of his lying in the sand wounded by Iraqi fire, and despite murderous fire, he went to his friend's aid and put his body over that of his comrade's in order to try to save his life. In doing so, Arden Cooper gave his life to his friend and to his country. When he was given a Silver Star for his bravery, his parents had to accept it posthumously. To me Arden Cooper represents the very best of American veterans. Ordinary citizens, Americans, willing to fight and, if necessary, yes, die for their country. And while not all Americans died on the sands of Kuwait like that 22-year-old young American, many of Arden Cooper's comrades breathe every breath today in pain because of the injuries and the illnesses sustained in standing up to Saddam Hussein. The choice today is very clear. It is a choice of whose side we are on, the side of those who made profits selling cigarettes to Saddam Hussein and his citizens, or do we want to side with those who put their lives on the line to fight for America's freedom and stand up to Saddam Hussein and his forces? I am outraged that a Republican leader from the other body would be so bold as to put the interests of tobacco companies or any company ahead of the interests of the men and women who fought, were injured, yes, even those who died in Desert Storm. To put the interests of tobacco companies in front of the interests of veterans is absolutely, in my book, morally wrong. I think it is a slap in the face not only to Desert Storm veterans but to all veterans in America who have ever served this Nation. The gentleman from Kentucky, and I respect his privilege to stand and speak for the other side on this issue, but I must take objection to his comment that we are only talking about $1.2 billion here. Well, maybe $1.2 billion is not a whole lot to the richest tobacco companies in the world, but to one of my constituents living in my hometown of Waco, who lives in a tent, confined in his own bedroom because of illnesses sustained in Desert Storm, to someone like that, a few thousand dollars, not $1.2 billion, could be the difference between living life in dignity and respect and just surviving. Madam Speaker, in just a few days, on Veterans Day, Members from both sides of the aisle will go back home and ride in Veterans Day parades. They will give patriotic speeches thanking our veterans for their service to our country. Well, I do not think that is good enough. It is not good enough to just support veterans on Veterans Day or to pay tribute to those who died on Memorial Day. We ought to stand up for our veterans every day, and certainly we ought to stand up for them today. I will join with any Member of this House to see that American veterans are put at the front of the line, not the back of the line, when it comes to claiming frozen Iraqi assets in America.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Would the distinguished majority leader be willing to let me address a question to him? Does he feel it is fair to require Members of this body to choose between their religious faith and their responsibility? I believe I have a right to ask this. I think this is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a country that said Hispanic Americans could die for their country but not be buried in a public cemetery. I grew up in a community where Hispanic schoolchildren were punished for speaking their mother's native language on school grounds. I grew up in a neighborhood where a distinguished American veteran, a physician, was turned against and fought simply because he was Hispanic. Thank God, Mr. Speaker, those wrongs were righted years ago. That is exactly why tonight I will be not a part of harassing an Hispanic American who was duly elected to this Congress and the thousands of Hispanic Americans who duly voted for her. I must wonder, where are the philosophical conservatives tonight? Where are the Republicans who say we should limit the powers of government? Where are the Republicans who want to restrict the law enforcement powers of the ATF and the FBI? Where are the Republicans who say they believe in private property rights? Where are the Republicans who say they cherish our constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure by the Government? How can those who believe in limited government want to give Robert Dornan, a private citizen, the right to subpoena American citizens' private property? If anyone should be offended by Mr. Dornan's subpoena power, it should be true philosophical conservatives. Enough is enough. It is time to end the persecution of Hispanics now, right here in this House tonight.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, every morning we come to this House floor, turn to the American flag, and with hand over heart finish our Nation's Pledge of Allegiance to our flag with these words, ``with liberty and justice for all.'' Now, Mr. Chairman, is the time for us to decide whether we mean those words. I revere our Nation's great documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and to that I would add the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag. But what has made our Nation great is not pieces of parchment and hollow words, but the principles thus enunciated. Today we should ask ourselves in this House, do we mean our Pledge of Allegiance, or do we simply recite it? Is the principle justice for all simply a concept to be taught in our schools, or is it a goal worth fighting for? Just a few weeks ago in this House we passed a budget bill that will give tax breaks to some of America's wealthiest families. What would it say today about our values if while doing that we turned and cut funding for Legal Services for our poorest families? Mr. Chairman, tomorrow morning when we turn to this flag once again with hand over heart and finish with those eloquent words, ``with liberty and justice for all,'' I hope we can do so with pride, knowing that we stand up for the meaning of those words. Vote ``yes'' on the Mollohan-Fox amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if there is any principle that Republican- Democratic Members of Congress should be able to agree upon, it is that no outside person should be allowed to walk onto this floor and verbally attack in crude vulgar language any Member of this House. For that reason, I want to urge all Members, from both parties, to support today the privileged resolution to bar former Member Robert Dornan from floor privileges. Mr. Speaker, if I used in this statement the crude language used by Mr. Dornan against our colleague yesterday, my words would be struck from the House Record and I would be denied the right to speak, even though I am a sitting Member. Why should an outside member, someone not an elected Member of this body, be treated any differently? Mr. Speaker, this historic House should be a sanctuary of democracy, where all elected Members from both parties should be able to exercise their constitutional obligations to be the voice of their constituents. No Member should exercise that authority and that right with fear of being attacked by an outside member of this body. Vote for this privileged resolution today.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, there are few issues more important to the future of our Nation than public education. That is why I was amazed and deeply disappointed that yesterday a Republican House Member actually on the floor of this House compared America's public schools to the Communist legacy. To mention our public schools in the same breath with the idea of communism is extremism at its worst. It is the kind of extreme statement I am sure that would make Joseph McCarthy proud. In my opinion, this Republican statement ranks right up there with the John Birch Society calling former President Eisenhower a Communist. I would suggest this is the type of extremist belief that has caused great problems for the modern day Republican Party. I am proud that the Democratic Party, based on the values of Thomas Jefferson, not Carl Marx, believes public education is a vital American institution, not something related to the Communist legacy.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman and I are cochairs of the Impact Aid Coalition. We worked hard to build a bipartisan effort. Yet when this amendment was put together, our coalition never met. Most Members I have talked to did not hear from the gentleman. I even have a letter signed now by a lot of members of the steering committee and cochairs of the Impact Aid Coalition, opposing this amendment. And while the gentleman does have some fine Democrats, such as the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] supporting this, and I respect that, the fact is, this was not put together with the broad support of the Impact Aid Coalition. So I think the gentleman is tending to tear down the true bipartisan, nonpartisan nature of the Impact Aid Coalition. For those three reasons, I think unintentionally, this amendment is actually hurting our efforts. I will say that to NAFIS or to any other organization that cares about impact aid. I believe in helping military children get a first-class education and, Mr. Chairman, that is exactly why I am going to strongly and actively oppose this amendment. While well intended, so is the path to hell and this is an example of well intentions going wrong.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I think more eloquent than anything I can say, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that this amendment, that is proposed to supposedly help impact aid, has drawn opposition from some of the strongest supporters of impact aid in this Congress. I know of no one, since the death of Mr. Natcher, who has done more personally, individually, singularly to increase funding and to defend funding for impact aid than our chairman from Illinois, who has worked tirelessly where the real decisions were being made, behind the scenes, in subcommittee, in committee, to fully fund this program as much as we can within the limited budget. For the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] to stand up in opposition to this is something that I think speaks more eloquently than anything I could say. But as cochairman of the House Impact Aid Coalition, as someone who helped found the House Impact Aid Coalition several years ago, because I felt the military children and the native American children of America needed a voice on this important issue, I want to stand in opposition to this amendment because I believe, while well intended by the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Hayworth], I think this proposal, this effort, is going to harm the Impact Aid Program. Let me mention two points: First is impact aid has already been treated very well, exceptionally well within the context of a budget where we have been cutting funding for senior citizen programs, cutting back on services to veterans, and cutting back on defense programs. The fact is that this program is being increased in this fiscal year because of the work of the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Wisconsin and others in committee from $730 million to $796 million, a $66 million increase, when most other programs are being cut. The fact is, the NAFIS organization which supports impact aid actually put out, in its own newsletter before they were asked about this amendment, that this funding is within $2 million of even their request. And I do not know of many groups who make requests before Congress that get them 99 percent funded, certainly not in this balanced budget context. NAFIS also said in their July 29, 1997, newsletter, NAFIS does not expect any changes to these figures during consideration of the appropriations bills before the full House and Senate. Through separate letters, NAFIS has urged all members of the House and Senate Impact Aid Coalitions to support the respective Labor-HHS, Education appropriations bills. The interest group out there with whom I work to support impact aid has said this was a very fair bill, it was a generous bill. Now, let me tell the gentleman, my friend, whom I usually work together with, three reasons I think he is actually harming, not intentionally, but actually harming impact aid. First, we are sending a message to the gentleman from Illinois and the gentleman from Wisconsin and to all the others who work on the Committee on Appropriations that enough is never enough, so that next year, if we got another $66 million increase in spending for impact aid coming out of the committee, that is not enough. There will be floor amendments making other cuts in their budget proposals. So what that says to the gentleman from Illinois, the gentleman from Wisconsin, or others who might be serving in their position, go on and reduce the committee proposal, the recommendation for impact aid, and then let the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Texas come to the floor and ask for an extra $5 or $10 or $15 million. The bottom line will be, because of efforts like this on the floor that turn their backs, in effect, on the great increase in funding for impact aid coming out of committee, we are actually encouraging the Committee on Appropriations next year to appropriate less. Second, as someone who helped found the Impact Aid Coalition, I think one of our real successes has been we have had no predators, no natural enemies to this program. Now we have, because of this amendment on the floor today, we have labor unions making calls to Members on both sides of the aisle asking them to vote against this funding for impact aid. Some of those folks may have thought impact aid in the past was a highway program; I do not know. But now we have natural predators. We are also sending a message to others that are funded through this bill that next year they had better watch it because NAFIS and the impact aid folks, even if they get an increase, unlike most people in their committee recommendation for funding, they are going to be out there on the floor finding some other area to cut. So the practical impact of this is that the committee is going to make recommendations for less funding next year, and other groups will look to impact aid and perhaps want to have floor amendments taking money from impact aid to put in their pockets. Now, the third reason, unintentionally, I say to my friend, why I think this amendment does harm to impact aid is that we are tearing down----

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I only wish life were so simple. We pass the Istook amendment and magically parents and teenagers communicate on all personal issues. Teenagers stop having sex and dysfunctional families become close. Would it not be nice? I do not mind if some people choose to live in a dream world. But I mind greatly when some political dreams become a nightmare for thousands of young Americans. Maybe this amendment will make some feel good in the comfort of their happy home this evening, but the reality is it will result in misery for thousands of young Americans. For me, Mr. Chairman, that is simply too high of a price for others to pay for me to feel good tonight. In the real world, the consequence of this amendment is more abortions and more unplanned pregnancies. If our moral message to teenagers is that they should face the consequences of their actions, maybe we in Congress should stop preaching and start practicing tonight on this amendment. Vote ``no'' on the Istook amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I represent the largest populated Army installation in America, cochair the House Army Caucus, and in my opinion the Army does not need this job. The Army does not want this job, the Army cannot afford this job, and the Army should not have this job. To give the military, the military, a major role in American domestic affairs, is a major change in long-standing national policy. To pass it under any circumstances, I think is wrong. To pass it without a hearing by the National Security Committee is absolutely irresponsible. Mr. Speaker, there are two more serious problems caused by this amendment. First, it undermines our national security. The job of the U.S. Army is to train soldiers to fight battles and win wars. In the last several years, we have downsized the active duty Army from 18 divisions to 10 divisions. We could not even fight Desert Storm the same way today as we did just a few years ago. Yet to take 10,000 Army soldiers out of training, out of combat training, and put them on the borders, along brush country in Texas and Arizona and California, is absolutely the same as downsizing the Army by 10,000 soldiers. Some may want to do that in this Chamber; I certainly do not. The second problem is this: The average Army soldier spends 138 days away from his or her family. I met a young soldier in my district recently who missed the birth of his first two children because of deployments. I do not want that soldier to miss the birth of his third child because he is along the Texas-Mexican border, patrolling our own borders of America. I want that soldier either with his family or training to defend our national security interests across this world. This may be good politics for some, but it is bad policy for the Army, and it is bad policy for America. I urge its defeat.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, we in Congress have a responsibility to look at not just the intent of our actions but the consequences. In my opinion, the reality is that to restrict funding for family planning is to increase abortions, thousands of abortions. In addition, I think the impact of the Smith language, intended or not, will be to stop tens of thousands of women from getting the kind of prenatal care that I am grateful that my wife was just able to have in having a healthy, happy baby. Let us be clear. The law does not allow any U.S. dollars to be used to fund abortions abroad. If we used the stretch logic of some of the supporters of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], we would also cut off all military aid to our allies, because the defense money we send to those allies which helps them and us could then be channeled to funding abortions in those countries. Let us support the right of families in other countries to do what we cherish for our families here in America, to plan for our families' futures. Support Gilman-Pelosi. Oppose the Smith amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I will support the bipartisan budget agreement because it will do four primary things: balance the budget, reduce taxes for working families, extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund and make a college education more affordable for all Americans. The tax and spending reduction legislation translates into the first balanced budget in a generation and much needed tax relief for working families, students, and small businesses. In addition, the package will help provide health insurance for millions of uninsured children whose parents are working but cannot afford the premiums. I am pleased to see the estate tax, also known as the death tax, reformed and the exemption for family owned farms and businesses increased to $1.3 million. Protecting family owned farms and small businesses is an issue that I have fought for and supported. The estate tax has ended the lives of many family owned farms and businesses. Increasing the exemption will help keep the farm or business in the family. I am also proud of the effort by Democrats to improve this bill. If it wasn't for Democrats demanding fairness, many families making under $30,000 a year would not have been eligible for the child tax credit. We also would not see child health care, higher education scholarships, and tuition tax credits included in this legislation if Democrats had not fought for them. This tax relief bill will not explode the deficit in future years as the original House Republican bill would have. This is not a perfect legislative package and it does not solve all of our long-term fiscal issues. It will reduce the deficit by $700 billion over 10 years and bring the Federal budget into balance by 2002. It is the product of genuine bipartisan efforts. The Congress and President did what the American people have been demadning--put aside politics and balance the budget in a fair and responsible manner. My hope is that Congress will followup this successful effort by passing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to ensure that we will have a balanced budget not just for 1 year but for all future generations.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I believe we could be more efficient in the way that we collect on those loans if we allowed qualified private sector firms to contract out for these collections. This is a process being used effectively and efficiently by other Federal agencies.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Skeen] about the important issue of outstanding USDA loans. As the chairman is aware, there are billions of dollars in outstanding USDA loans. There are hundreds of individuals with unpaid debts of more than $1 million each, and many of these loans are more than several years overdue. Right now the USDA is receiving less than 10 cents on the dollar on the loans that the Department tries to collect. If we were able to improve our collection on these loans, we could help reduce our budget deficit at a time when we are working hard to balance the Federal budget.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his attention to this very important matter.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and legislation. As a new member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Committee on Appropriations, I especially want to thank Chairman McDade for his fairness and bipartisanship in crafting this legislation. Mr. Speaker, while most Americans only hear of the partisan battles in Congress, the work of Chairman McDade and the ranking member, the gentleman from California [Mr. Vic Fazio], is an example of the Congress at its best: two leaders, along with an excellent staff, working hard and doing simply what they believe is best for the interests of this Nation. This bill may not be tomorrow's national headlines because the work was done without rancor, but this bill makes an important commitment to our Nation's future. Because of this legislation, there will be communities that will never face the tragedy of devastating floods. By strengthening our Nation's infrastructure, ports, and waterways, this bill will make America more competitive in the world marketplace. That means more jobs and better jobs for American families. By investing in the clean-up of nuclear waste and in renewable energy resources, this bill will make our environment cleaner and make America less dependent upon foreign energy sources. Because of this legislation's commitment to stop the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, my two small children will grow up in a safer world. For that, I am deeply grateful. The efforts of Chairman McDade and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] may not make prime time news tonight, but millions of American families will be better off tomorrow because of their effective leadership and teamwork in crafting this legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I believe there should be two goals that drive any budget plan in this Congress. One is balancing the budget in the short-term and in the long-term, and second is fairness. I believe that anyone that looks at the Republican proposal as of today would conclude that their plan fails on both parts. It unbalances the budget, and it is unfair. In fact, the Republican tax plan should be called the Unbalanced Budget Act, because like the mistakes of 1981, when Congress exploded the deficit with specified tax cuts and unspecified spending cuts, this plan would provide huge tax cuts not balanced by any spending cuts. This would be the Unbalanced budget Act. On the issue of fairness, I would simply say that trickle-down economics was unfair in the 1980's, and trickle-down economics is unfair in the 1990's. The fact is that the gap between working low- income and middle-class American families and the wealthiest Americans has increased. The Republican tax plan would make that situation even more unfair.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 2003.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in my role as an administrative cochair of the bipartisan National Security Caucus, I had the honor of participating in a very special awards luncheon last week. I was joined by the House Democratic Leader, Congressman Richard Gephardt, and my fellow Caucus cochair, Congressman Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, in presenting the 1997 International Security Leadership Award to U.S. Secretary of the Navy John H. Dalton. The luncheon was attended by over 200 representatives of the national security community, and the establishment of a John H. Dalton Congressional Fellowship in Maritime Strategy Studies was also announced. The International Security Leadership Award has been presented to only one individual each year since 1979, and all of the past recipients have made significant contributions to the national security interests of the United States. Past honorees include President George Bush, Secretary of Defense William Perry, Ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Senator John C. Stennis. John Dalton is a worthy addition to the distinguished list. The award was presented to Secretary Dalton ``* * * in recognition of his leadership, courage and vision in promoting American sea power and a national maritime strategy. The outstanding performance of the U.S. Navy from the Caribbean to the Persian Gulf, in missions as diverse as evacuating non-combatants to enforcing no-fly zones, is a tribute to Secretary Dalton's tremendous dedication and distinguished service to the Navy and Marine Corps and to the nation they serve.'' The award was conferred on Secretary Dalton on behalf of the 290 lawmakers in the bipartisan National Security Caucus. As someone who has the privilege of knowing John Dalton for more than 20 years, I want to once again emphasize how deserving I feel he is of this honor for his fine work as Secretary of the Navy. The Secretary's remarks at the presentation ceremony described in considerable detail some of the tremendous work he has done to make our Navy more effective and efficient. Also, Mr. Gephardt's introductory comments lucidly describe why Secretary Dalton is so deserving of his award. I ask unanimous consent to have both Mr. Gephardt's and Secretary Dalton's remarks entered in the Congressional Record. Statement of House Democratic Leader Richard A. Gephardt--Presentation of the International Security Leadership Award to Navy Secretary John Dalton I am pleased to join you today to give tribute to Secretary of the Navy John Dalton. I have known Secretary Dalton for many years, and consider him to be both a close friend and among the finest Navy Secretaries our nation has ever had. It doesn't suprise me, therefore, that the National Security Caucus has selected him to be its 1997 recipient of the International Security Leadership Award. He truly deserves to join the ranks of the finest military thinkers our nation has been fortunate to have in public service over the last two decades. John has served with energy, conviction and dedication at a challenging time for our government, the Defense Department, and the Navy. With the end of the Cold War, many have naturally turned more attention to the domestic challenges we face as a nation. We have also focused on efforts to reduce the federal budget deficit, asking all to sacrifice-- including our men and women in uniform. In the midst of these new challenges, John Dalton has ensured that the Navy remains a national priority. Among his most significant contributions has been to develop a comprehensive and bipartisan national maritime strategy. With the encouragement and support of the National Security Caucus and the entire maritime industry, Secretary Dalton has taken on the difficult task of integrating our naval requirements with our broader maritime capabilities and needs. He has understood that the key to our nation's military strength is a vital and sustainable maritime infrastructure. Just as he has seen that our most important naval asset is the people who wear the Navy uniform, he has understood that the most important elements of our maritime infrastructure are people--shipyard workers, commercial seafarers, merchant fleet operators, and many others who make America the maritime nation that it is today. Secretary Dalton, as well as many of us in Congress and many of you here, used this vision of America's maritime strength to secure enactment of the Maritime Security Act last year. Secretary Dalton has also led the Navy in its efforts to capitalize on new technologies. These technologies not only improve our warfighting capabilities, but also enhance our competitiveness in the global maritime industry. I have witnessed his dedication to this goal first-hand, as he brought the latest generation of F-18 Hornet aircraft into production, using new technologies that have both military and commercial applications. With this leadership, John Dalton has truly demonstrated a compelling vision of what it will take for our nation to remain the greatest sea power in history. It is therefore fitting that he will give the Paul Hall Memorial Lecture today. Paul Hall was a seafarer's seafarer, and knew that to be a sea power, America must have a strong merchant marine. Through his actions and accomplishments, John Dalton has shown the same commitment to this goal, and has moved our nation closer to achieving it. It therefore gives me great pleasure to present to John Dalton the 1997 International Security Leadership Award.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman and I want to say while there may be personal differences of opinion on how to deal with this conflict, I want to support this amendment with the understanding of this colloquy. It is my understanding that this amendment is designed to encourage the United States to become more actively involved in settling the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict and that nothing in the amendment is intended to change U.S. policy in this matter. I would ask the gentleman if that is correct.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, with that understanding, I look forward to supporting the gentleman's amendment.