Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, despite the good intentions of the author of this amendment, I believe this amendment should be called the Pork Barrel Protection Act. It is a wonderfully designed proposal that will protect any wasteful government program that has been put in past appropriation bills. Forget what the Congress has found out about that program, forget about GAO studies that may have shown that program is a terrible waste of our hard-earned taxpayers' money. The fact is this amendment, if put into law, would protect those pork barrel projects. I think all Members on both sides of the aisle who fought to come to this House in order to fight pork barrel ought to do so today by voting against this amendment. Secondly, this measure, if put into law, would enshrine the National Endowment of the Arts. For me, that is fine, but too many of our colleagues who do not like the NEA and have said on the campaign trail they will do everything they can to kill it, they are doing the opposite in passing this amendment. As someone who has fought hard for veterans, this measure would literally lock in funding that would cause tens of thousands of veterans to lose health care that they fought for in fighting for this country. This amendment substitutes the wisdom of our Founding Fathers for the expediency of the moment. Our Founding Fathers put the responsibility for shaping appropriation bills in our hands. We should accept that responsibility, not hide from it. Our government was not intended to be put on cruise control. Finally, if we care about flood victims, if we care about the Department of Defense that needs desperately the $2 billion that has been spent in Bosnia, we know absolutely for a fact that the President will veto this measure with the Gekas amendment in it. Whether we agree or disagree with that, the fact is if we vote for this amendment we are slowing down desperately needed dollars to help people rebuild their lives that have been victims of floods. If we vote for this amendment, we are slowing down the funding of the Department of Defense, which today is having to put off programs for this summer for training. For those reasons, oppose the Gekas amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, earlier today I missed rollcall votes 105 and 106. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on both votes. Amendment No. 30 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to thank and congratulate the National Exchange Club and their local chapters. The Exchange Club of Copperas Cove, TX, is celebrating its 25th anniversary. The National Exchange Club is the largest and oldest exclusively American civic organization, as well as the first civic organization to allow women membership. It is dedicated to serving and protecting the Nation's communities through such programs as the National Exchange Foundation for the Prevention of Child Abuse. The Copperas Cove Exchange Club distinguished itself by winning several awards at the State and national level for their superior community service. Over the past 25 years, Cove Exchangites promoted a ``city built for family living'' by promoting patriotism through their ``giveakidaflagtowave'' and ``Proudly We Hail'' programs and by sponsoring the Exchange Sunshine Home for senior citizens. They also recognize excellence in education by honoring teachers and providing academic scholarships to outstanding students. I ask Members to join me in honoring the Exchange Club members in my Texas congressional district and across the country for their dedication and excellence in serving the Nation's communities.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose late-term abortions, but I believe that when the mother's life or health are at risk, that choice should be made by a woman and her physician and not by the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, what the American people do not know about this bill is this: If we want to save babies, why does this bill just outlaw one abortion procedure? The fact is, this bill still makes it legal to have abortions at the end of the eighth or ninth month of pregnancy. What the American people do not know is that late last night the Committee on Rules refused to even let this House vote on the bipartisan Greenwood-Hoyer bill that would have outlawed all late-term abortion procedures, not just one procedure. I can respect those who support this bill, Mr. Speaker, but they should be honest. There is no proof that this bill will save even one baby. By outlawing one procedure and allowing others, you are not saving babies, you are risking the health of mothers.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, when I first voted on this bill in November of 1995, I agonized about it, because my wife was pregnant, 8 months pregnant with our first child, a child that I had prayed and hoped for. Fortunately, that baby was born and is today the joy of our life. But I voted against this bill at that time because I felt no one, no one in this House had the right to tell my wife or me what we should do if her health or her fertility had been at risk. Today I am voting against this bill with another person in mind, the child by the name of Nicholas Stella, born 1 week before our first blessed child came into this world. Had this bill been law 3 years ago, Nicholas Stella would not be alive today. What right does any Member of this House to tell Vicky Stella that she should have been denied the joy of having her son, just as we have had the joy, so many of us, of having children ourselves? I am voting pro-life. I am voting for the lives of Nicholas Stella and all the other children who would not be alive today had this bill been the law of the land.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida stated his point of order very rapidly and I want to be clear on this. Is the parliamentary point of order on the point that the bill before the House only prohibits one type of abortion procedure, but the motion of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer] would actually prohibit more types, in fact all types of late-term abortion procedures? Is that the point of order that the gentleman from Florida is trying to make and objecting to letting the measure of the gentleman from Maryland up on the floor?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I guess going back to my original question to the Speaker, the point of order is being made on the basis that the bill before the House simply outlaws one type of abortion procedure, the motion made by the gentleman from Maryland would actually ban many other types of late-term-abortion procedures, and the gentleman from Florida objects to that being voted upon in the House; is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Texas is watching now, I would welcome him to come to the floor of this House. I will be glad to stay here. I think this is an issue that should receive a public debate. I think the public has a right to know why he fears the Government is going to bomb him and why he thinks David Koresh and his Branch Davidians committed no crimes. He may be offended by what I said in response to his comments. I am more offended by what he said. I think rape, arson, and murder are very serious crimes. I did see the program before I made the comments.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's suggestion. I think the distinguished whip, for whom I have great respect, knows that in my history in the House, I have not been the type of Member that has gone out and taken gratuitous partisan shots. I am one who will attend the bipartisan retreat and am encouraging other Members to do that. I want to bring civility to this House. But I must in all honesty say to my friend from Texas that, as the Representative that covered or represented the people of the Waco area to whom the Branch Davidian tragedy is a very deep and personal issue, I simply could not sit back and quietly accept the statement that was made yesterday. And I found out about and saw the tape last night, the statement of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], lives in fear that the Federal Government is going to bomb them similar to Waco and that these people committed no crime. I would welcome the opportunity to talk to Mr. Paul and encourage a public debate on that.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in my 5 years at this House I have very rarely come to the well of this great body to criticize the comments of one of my colleagues. I have great respect for the bipartisan and diverse views of all Members of this House, and their right to express the views and concerns and ideas of the people they represent in their respective districts. But once in a while, a Member of this House makes a comment that is so irresponsible and so outrageous that I simply cannot remain silent. Yesterday one of my colleagues from Texas, the gentleman from Texas, [Mr. Paul] made a statement that I feel is so irresponsible that in good conscience I simply cannot remain silent. In his statement on C-SPAN's Washington Journal yesterday Mr. Paul said this: I fear and there are a lot of people in this country who fear they may be bombed by the Federal Government at another Waco. I mean, these people committed no crimes. Mr. Speaker, it is astounding to me that a member of this Federal Government, a Member of this Congress, would say publicly that he fears being bombed by the Federal Government. My fear is that kind of statement made by a public official of this Congress simply expands the hysterical paranoia of those around this country who might be hiding in their closets thinking that the Federal Government is somehow going to bomb them in the sanctity of their private homes. I think that is sheer lunacy, at best. At worst, it could create and engender the kind of hatred toward our Federal Government that leads to tragedies such as that we all sadly witnessed in Oklahoma City. Second, as the Member of Congress who represents Waco and the Waco area, and as someone who watched and followed very carefully the proceedings and the tragedy of the Branch Davidian compound, I must say that I am astounded that the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], a Member of this House, would say, despite all of the facts on the table, would suggest that the Branch Davidians and David Koresh committed no crimes. At best, that is flat wrong and denies the fact and reality. At worst, it is a misrepresentation intentionally of what was done there. Let me say what the facts were. The facts were that David Koresh raped a 10-year-old girl. We heard that dramatic testimony of that girl, now 14, just a few months ago in the Halls of this House. Fact: The Federal officials who went into that compound found 48 illegal machine guns and illegal hand grenades. I would suggest to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] that the possession of 48 illegal machine guns and illegal hand grenades, I would suggest rape, arson, and murder are a crime in the book of every American family, if it is not a crime in the book of the gentleman from Texas. I think these statements, Mr. Speaker, deserve a response to the people of Waco, to the people of Mr. Paul's district, and to the people of this country. I would like to hear him explain his comments that he lives in fear of the Federal Government bombing him, and I would like to hear him explain how, despite all of the clear facts, the facts that the Branch Davidians lit the fires that killed, tragically, those children near Waco, I would like to hear him explain away those facts. Instead of saying, perhaps I made a misstatement, or I apologize for what I said, or I did not intend to say that, when Mr. Paul responded to my response yesterday in the Houston Chronicle he accused me of McCarthyism. Mr. Speaker, I hardly believe that saying that arson, rape, and murder is a crime in this country is anything close to McCarthyism. He went on to defend his contention that the Davidians had committed no crimes. I would challenge the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul], to meet with me in the well of this House during special orders and let us debate this. I believe good people of good will, both Republicans and Democrats alike, who look at the statements of the gentleman from Texas will see that they were irresponsible and dangerous to have been made by a public Member of this House.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose public funding of abortion, but I strongly support House Joint Resolution 36 because this is not about funding abortions. That is prohibited, clearly, in the law. This issue is about saving children. Sadly, there are millions of children across the world that wake up hungry every morning. There are millions more that live at the very edge of survival. For one moment, just one moment, I wish every parent in this House would imagine how you would feel if you awoke this morning not knowing whether you could feed your child or children. Imagine you lived in a country that had no welfare and there were more people than jobs. For one moment imagine the emotional agony of watching your children crying from hunger or malnutrition. Imagine yourself with just enough money or resources to barely feed the children you love and that you have already brought into this world. For millions of parents around the world, Mr. Chairman, they do not have to imagine this scenario. It is an everyday reality. Regardless of the intentions, I think it would be unfair and inhumane to deny family planning services now to those parents who desperately want to feed and nurture the children that they love, just as you and I love our children. For millions of parents, family planning is the difference between providing adequate care and food for the children they have and facing the desperation of watching all their children go hungry. Today we can make a difference for millions of children. This issue is about protecting children, children that are struggling to survive and parents that are struggling to support and nurture those special children. I urge support of the President's resolution.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, term limits is an idea whose time has come and gone. It is a feel-good constitutional amendment that does not belong in that cherished document. Term limits is a simplistic solution to the complex challenge of making our Federal Government work more effectively. It is a bad idea, an idea that limits the rights of citizens to vote for or against whomever they choose. We all know this issue is going to be defeated today, so would it not be better if we moved on to the issues that truly affect the daily lives of average working families in America, issues such as balancing the budget and welfare reform and crime and education for their children, health care? How absurd and how dangerous it would be to have the Committee on National Security, which oversees a $250 billion annual budget and literally makes life and death decisions over the lives of young men and women in uniform serving this country, to have that committee arbitrarily chaired by someone who might have been in this House only 4 years. It just simply does not make sense, and it would not be right for our military personnel or for the future of this country. Mr. Chairman, the passage of an arbitrary term-limits amendment would create a Washington Mardi Gras for District of Columbia lobbyists, staff, and bureaucrats, people over whom average Americans have little or no control. The fact is, Americans are exercising the concept of term limits envisioned by our Founding Fathers. It is called voting. It is called an election. The fact is that over 60 percent of House Members in this body have been elected since 1990. Mr. Chairman, I respect those who genuinely believe in term limits, but I hope the national media or someone might create a ``hall of hypocrisy'' for those who believe it should be a crime to serve in this Congress for more than 6 or 12 years but they continue to serve here 7 or 13 or 20 or 30 years. If someone truly believes it is morally wrong to serve here more than 6 or 12 years, then they should exercise the courage of their convictions and not serve one day longer than the term limit they vote for today. The fundamental question before us, Mr. Chairman, is whether in our democracy we should put trust in the citizen's right to vote. I choose to trust the people of this great country, and not some arbitrary feel-good, press-release, sound-bite constitutional amendment that will do damage to the rights of the American citizens.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, in this House our Members are often judged by what they have accomplished in life, and on that basis Frank Tejeda would be judged very well because he made a difference for his State, for his country and for his beloved constituents in south Texas. But the thing for which I will always remember and respect Frank Tejeda is not his list of accomplishments, though many and impressive, but the character of the individual. He is what I would have to believe every father and every mother would hope their child would grow up to be, and as a father of a small 1-year-old son, I could think of no greater satisfaction in my life, far beyond anything I could do in this body that would bring me pleasure, than to think that my son would some day have the character and integrity, the decency and the honesty and the compassion of Frank Tejeda. Several years ago I met a young 9-year-old Hispanic girl who was also fighting a fight against cancer. She was trying to get help, to get care in a hospital and was not sure that she would win that fight for her life. She sent me a card that I think is appropriate for Frank Tejeda at this moment, a card that I will never forget, and what it said was this: ``When we leave this world we leave behind all that we have, that we carry with us all that we have given.'' I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that on his journey to heaven Frank Tejeda carried much with him for he gave so much here on Earth to his country, to his family and his beloved friends of south Texas.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, there are times when words seem so inadequate, and for me this is one of those moments. I will always consider one of the great privileges of my life to have been able to serve in the Texas Senate and the U.S. Congress with Frank Tejeda. For the last 4 years we worked together on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and were seat mates at the Committee on National Security. My friend Frank Tejeda, the quiet marine, with a great heart. I wish all Americans could have known him. You did not see Frank on the Sunday talk shows and not too often here in the well of this House making speeches. He was more interested in helping others than in talking about it. You see, Frank Tejeda was someone whose life of accomplishment, integrity and caring spoke for itself. And what an eloquent speech his life became for our Nation and for young people for generations to come. Frank Tejeda fought for his country in time of war and served his country in time of peace. While not one who wasted words, he spoke out and fought effectively for those beliefs he held so dear, a strong defense, veterans care, education for our children and justice for all. In a time when many have grown cynical of all who serve in public office, Frank Tejeda's spirit is a living reminder that serving one's community and country can be and should be a noble calling. Each week when Congress recessed, Frank was on the airplane first to get back home. His heart and soul were always with his district in south Texas where he worshipped his God, loved his family, and was devoted to his constituents. That is why I believe that, more than the words spoken here in this House today, Frank would be most proud of those signs that lined the streets in his beloved south San Antonio yesterday that said, we love you, Frank. To my friend, we love you as well, and we will never forget the eloquence of your life's work. Mi amigo, yo te amo.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I will be brief. I think I would be remiss if I did not say that this was landmark legislation in the waning hours of this session of Congress, and I want to congratulate the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], because in a Congress that has sometimes been very difficult, they have shown us that even in difficult times, civility can prevail. Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that in the 104th Congress where we have freely exercised our freedom of speech on both sides of the aisle, that we finish this Congress by passing major legislation to honor those who have fought and been willing to give their life to protect that freedom of speech, both on the floor of this House and for all Americans across this country. This legislation is a first step, not a last step. Mr. Speaker, I will finish by saying that this is landmark legislation. It is not the final step in the effort toward increasing care for our veterans, but it is a major step, a significant step that would not have happened had it not been for the leadership of the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery]. I want to express my thanks to both the gentlemen for their efforts on our veterans' behalf. Finally, this is a win-win, not only for our veterans who will have simpler eligibility rules; they will know whether they can get VA care or not, but they will also be able to get outpatient care more easily. But it is a win also for our taxpayers because by providing outpatient care rather than more expensive inpatient care, our taxpayers will win from this major legislation. To the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] also, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, I want to express my thanks to him for helping this bill become the law of the land at the end of this session. To all, this is a great piece of legislation. It is a great day for our veterans. Certainly they have earned this right to receive the care that they were willing to give their lives for our Nation for.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Mississippi, Chairman Montgomery, and once again express my gratitude for his leadership on the national security over the years. We are a stronger Nation because of his service. I simply wanted to say in my 6 years in the Congress, probably one of the greater privileges I have had has been to work with the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] to fight for the impact aid program. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that along with our Nation's veterans, there could be few groups more deserving in America than the children of military families, children who often have to go to school not knowing whether their mother or father will even be alive at their graduation, children who Christmas after Christmas or season after season have to be with only one part of their family, because the father or mother is serving their country thousands of miles away. While I am sorry there were some in Washington from both parties last year who wanted to cut impact aid for these deserving military children, people such as Mr. Bateman saw the importance and the value of this program. It not only provides the support for a quality education for military children they deeply deserve; it also is a matter of maintaining quality people in our military, because with an all-volunteer force how can we expect the best and brightest to come into our Armed Forces if we cannot assure them that their children will receive a quality education? So my thanks once again goes out to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], who at one point last year very briefly after a momentary health problem, even at some risk to his own health, came to this floor to see that the impact aid program would stay alive, and for that not only I but, far more importantly, millions of American children this year and generations ahead will be in his debt.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to share with Members the loss of a community leader in my 11th Texas Congressional District. Robert L. Stubblefield died July 28 from lung cancer. This strong and able public servant went far beyond his official duties to improve his beloved community. The beginning of the school year in Texas reminds us of his contributions to education and central Texas youth. Robert Stubblefield, known as Stubby to his friends, moved to Killeen in 1951. He worked as a postal employee for more than 35 years and rose to the supervisory ranks. Robert Stubblefield served as a justice of the peace for 10 years. In addition he was a volunteer firefighter and served as president of the State Fireman's and Fire Marshalls' Association of Texas. A strong advocate of education, Robert Stubblefield was a trustee for 18 years and served as president of the Killeen Independent School District. Robert Stubblefield believed that children were a valuable asset. He crafted a juvenile program in his justice of the peace court that moved young offenders from the streets back to study and a high school diploma. He devoted countless hours to many local youth programs. I ask Members to join with me in honoring the memory of Robert Stubblefield, a man who will be sorely missed. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of this community leader.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. It does not happen. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if that happens anywhere at any time, if these Members of the House, including the one that just spoke, would work with us to pass a bill, we could put into law in the next few weeks, we could stop it from happening. But for anyone to suggest, as they have in fliers and ads, that we want to allow the abortion of a healthy baby just moments before childbirth is, as I said before and say again, totally dishonest and disgusting. I helped pass a bill that outlawed not one late-term-abortion procedure in Texas; we outlawed all late-term-abortion procedures in Texas. But in that bill that is now law in Texas we did what this bill should do. We said if the life or the health or the fertility of a woman is at risk, that moral and medical decisions should be made by a woman, her family and her doctor, and not by politicians and not by the government. Mr. Speaker, I urge the Members of this House to support the veto of this ill-fated, ill-designed legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, when this bill first came to the House floor, my wife was 8 months pregnant with our very first child. We were soon blessed to have a healthy baby who turned 9 months old yesterday. Our son is love of my wife's life and my life. He is the fulfillment of our hopes and dreams and prayers. Yesterday, I met another little child named Nicholas Stella. Because Nicholas was born within 8 days of our own child, I could understand the joy of his mother as he playfully strode across my office floor. Had this bill been law 2 years ago, Nicholas might not be alive today. As a new father, that is all the reason I need to vote to sustain this bill's veto. This bill is not about saving baby's lives; it is about politics in an election year. This bill risks the fertility and health of women in order to make a political statement in a 30-second TV ad or 8-second sound bite. What most citizens are not being told in America is that this bill will not outlaw late-term abortions; rather, it prohibits only one procedure that many physicians believe is needed to protect the health and fertility of a pregnant woman in tragic cases where her fetus has no chance of survival. All other late-term abortion procedures under this bill would be perfectly legal, even if those procedures pose a greater threat to a woman's health or fertility. For anyone, for anyone here or elsewhere to suggest that I as a new father or anyone else in this House would want to allow the abortion of a healthy baby just moments before normal childbirth is ludicrous, it is deceptive, and it is totally dishonest.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate the Midway, TX, 10- year-old All-Stars Boys Baseball Team for an unbelievable comeback on the road to clinching the Texas State Championship. The 12 young men on this team showed a winning attitude in late July when they were one game away from elimination in the Texas State tournament. The All-Stars lost the first game of the championship and were faced with a difficult situation: win every single game or be eliminated from the tournament. The Midway All-Stars rose to the challenge. The team battled back to win four straight games, one of which went into extra innings. In the final championship game, the Midway All-Stars won 3-1 to bring home the State championship. Everyone of these young men showed a can-do, never quit attitude. Even when they were faced with a nearly impossible situation, they showed pride, diligence, and dedication. They played as a team and won as a team. Members of this championship squad include Tyler Andersen, Scott Boyd, Brady Conine, Craig Cunningham, Stephen Davis, Charlie Hicks, Jake Lee, Alberto Lopez, Ryan Lormand, Brandon Maddux, Jake Reichenstein, and Matt Reinke. Thanks also go the Manager Brad Davis and Coach Butch Maddux for their work leading these young men. I ask members to join me in congratulating this championship team and their coaches for this outstanding athletic accomplishment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that some of the very people that will speak out in behalf of this English-only bill today are the very people who just a few weeks ago voted to cut education programs that helped young American schoolchildren learn English, voted against Head Start programs, voted against adult education funding programs that helped adults even speak English, voted to cut funding for title I that help our low-income Spanish speaking children in Texas learn how to speak English. To me, in any language, that rhetoric versus that action does not make sense. It seems to me that the question today is not whether American citizens should be encouraged to learn English, because we all agree that is the language of our country. The question today is what is the best way to encourage and help our citizens become English proficient. I would suggest English plus is a much better approach than English only. I would suggest that debating education funding would be a better way to spend our time today than debating English only. The English-only bill before this House today is unnecessary, it is insulting, it is divisive, and it is discriminatory. It is unnecessary because I hardly believe the future of the American republic is at jeopardy because 3 percent of our population speak another language. It is insulting to millions of Americans, whether intended or not, Americans whose cultures are a part of the fabric of our Nation. To Hispanic-Americans in my home State, this kind of bill brings back the terrible, painful memories when years ago little Hispanic schoolchildren were segregated on the playgrounds and ostracized because they spoke the language, Spanish, of their parents, their families, and their grandparents. This bill is divisive because in a country of many cultures where we come together, it pits one group against another. Hispanic-Americans and others see this bill as an attack on their culture, upon their values, and, yes, even upon their families. At a time when we need to bring Americans together by building bridges rather than building barriers between different peoples, this bill separates us and tears us apart. This bill is discriminatory because it says to many of the elderly in America who have worked hard, supported their families, never been on welfare, and have paid taxes for 20 or 30 or 40 years that we want to make it more difficult for them to vote and to exercise their right as a citizen to participate in this democracy. Mr. Speaker, for all of those reasons, this bill should not be passed into the law of this land.

Mr. EDWARDS. I yield to the gentleman from Puerto Rico.