Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with Congress having an honest debate on a 7-year budget. That is democracy. There is something terribly wrong when the Speaker of this House today prohibited democracy from working in preventing us from being able to vote cleanly, and clearly, and quickly to reopen the Government. Let me tell you some of the victims of that decision by the Speaker and House Republicans. This letter from my district, a former welfare recipient, now a Federal employee, basically had to cancel his child's 9-year-old birthday because he could not get paid. This letter from my district is a Government employee who cannot buy insulin for his diabetes problem. This letter is from a woman in my district, a Federal employee whose husband lost his private-sector job recently and she cannot get paid as a VA employee. They are not sure if they will keep the mortgage on their home. This is a letter from a woman in my district, a hardworking Federal employee who had to borrow money from her mother in order to pay rent. Finally, this, along with many other letters, is a letter from someone who needed a bone marrow transplant operation, cannot get it done because of Speaker Gingrich and the House Republicans' decision today. That is wrong.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, hostage-taking should have no place in a democracy. There is nothing wrong with this Congress or any Congress having an open, honest debate about a budget plan. If this year's budget debate takes 2 more days, 2 more weeks, or even 2 more months, there is nothing wrong with that. Open democracy and debate is what this institution is all about. But it is terribly wrong, and it is totally wrong, for Speaker Gingrich and Gingrich Republicans of this House to use Federal employees and their families as hostages during this budget debate. To harm innocent families is morally wrong. Even Ebenezer Scrooge showed some compassion at Christmastime, but Christmas has come and gone. Yet speaker Gingrich and his band of extremists in this House have continued to furlough hundreds of thousands of Federal employees. No telling how many Tiny Tims across America have been harmed as innocent victims in this ploy. Tonight let the American people be very clear about facts. Fact No. 1: Yesterday Senator Dole in the other body voted unanimously to pass a resolution to put Federal workers back to work immediately. As Mr. Dole said, and I quote, ``Enough is enough.'' Fact No. 2: If this House would simply take the Dole resolution, passed unanimously in the Senate, and pass it in the House, it would take 15 minutes to do so. After that 15-minute vote, the President would sign it, and within hours hundreds of thousands of Federal employees would be back to work and be earning a paycheck and servicing our Nation's senior citizens and veterans and students who need loans in order to better themselves. Fact No. 3, and this is a sad fact but a true one: Today in this House Speaker Gingrich and a band of his supporters chose not to even let this House have a vote on the Dole resolution to put the Federal Government back into operation and to put Federal workers back to work. Speaker Gingrich basically denied the democratic process today. In doing so, he harmed hundreds of thousands of Federal employees and the many millions of people that they serve, including our Nation's veterans who put their lives on the line for this Nation. There has been a lot of talk about statistics during this budget debate. In the next few moments, I just simply want to put a human face on the victims of the Gingrich plan to shut down the Federal Government. One letter from my district said this. I had a phone call today from a woman veteran who is being set up for a bone marrow transplant for breast cancer. She wondered if she would soon hear about her VA claim. I tried to explain to her about the furloughs at the regional office. Another letter from my district: Dear Congressman Edwards: I am a medical administration specialist at the Waco VA medical center. I'm also a single parent with a teenager at home and a child in college. I just received a $78 paycheck. I've had to borrow money from my mother to pay my rent. I don't know how I'm going to pay my daughter's college tuition payment that is due now. She goes on to say, It is obvious to me that the honorable Speaker and his staff have lost sight of the human face of their actions. We're not faceless. We are someone's wife, husband, brother, sister, son, daughter. When we are held hostage by the whims of Washington legislators, our hardship radiates out into the community. Another letter from a Government employee in my district: Dear Congressman Chet Edwards: I am a government employee with the Veterans Administration. This government shutdown has caused me great hardship. I am unable to purchase my insulin medication for diabetes. Let me repeat that, my colleagues: I am unable to purchase my insulin medication for diabetes. I have had to borrow money for food and medicine. My rent has to be paid by the first of the month. My landlord, who ironically is owned by the government, is the housing authority, and they are gong to charge me $25 for the first day and $5 every extra day that I do not have money to pay my rent. Mr. Speaker, that is the face of the victims of this needless, absolutely unproductive Federal shutdown, and there are many more faces throughout the country. In the days ahead I have every intention of letting this House know of the victims from these games that are being played.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, we have all heard an awful lot about Mr. Haley Barbour, the head of the Republican National Committee, and his offer of $1 million regarding Medicare cuts. Now I would like to make an offer today to Mr. Barbour and Members of this House. As a Democrat I am not as wealthy as some of my Republican friends, and certainly not as wealthy as the Republican National Committee, so I cannot offer $1 million. But I will take $1,000 out of my own savings account and offer it to any Republican Member of this House who can prove that their Medicare and Medicaid budget plan will not cut real services to senior citizens, real services to senior citizens. My friends, that is what counts, cutting care in nursing homes, cutting care in rural health care hospitals for senior citizens. That is what the Republican plan does, that is what is important, not silly little gimmicks in ads such as this. But I will maintain my offer of $1,000 to any Republican in this House who can suggest and prove that their plan will not cut services for our Nation's seniors.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, as one of many Democrats who support a strong national defense, I will vote in favor of this measure. While I do not agree with all of the priorities in this bill, I believe it does maintain America's preeminence as the world's one remaining superpower. On a personal note, I want to commend the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence] for the personal courtesy and graciousness which he always extends to every member of the committee. Mr. Speaker, I would also be remiss, though, if I did not express my serious concern about the process by which this conference report was constructed. To me, far more important than any single measure or issue or program in this bill is the tradition of this House that national defense bills have been developed on a bipartisan basis. I do not believe that was the case in this conference report. In general, Democratic conferees were excluded from decisions on a number of key national issues. In general, Democratic conferees were not kept adequately informed on the process of this report. Whether intentional or not, this conference report was not put together on a bipartisan basis, and if not corrected, I believe that would be a terribly dangerous precedent for the future of our Nation's defense. Mr. Speaker, I do not make these comments with any malice toward the majority party leaders of our Committee on National Security. They are good people, they are caring people, and decent people. In fairness, the majority party and its committee leaders have the right to set the tone and the priorities for this defense bill. I have no qualm with that. However, if next year's conference committee process is not more bipartisan than this one was, then I fear greatly that we will have started down a slippery slope toward partisan national defense conference reports. Mr. Speaker, I believe that would be bad for our country, harmful to our national security, and unfair to the men and women serving in the armed forces. Finally, I want to pay special tribute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman]. The gentleman exercised both personal courage and severe tenacity in fighting for the children of military families. Because of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] and his efforts, we have an impact aid program in this bill that will ensure that the children of military families will receive a quality education.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday Members of this House, Republicans and Democrats alike, cast votes of conscience on our mission to Bosnia. Some Members endorsed the mission, some expressed serious concerns, and some opposed it altogether. That is the way democracy should work. But there can be no excuse, there can be no justification, there can be no rationalization for prohibiting this House last night, which the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker], did, from having a unanimous vote in support of our troops that are already in Bosnia. Let me read the resolution the gentleman from California [Mr. Baker], and his colleagues who supported him killed last night on this floor: Resolved: That the House of Representatives unequivocally supports the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery. For anyone to stop this simple resolution is at best a lapse in judgment and, at worst, mindless partisanship. Our country and our troops deserve better than that.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, on Saturday night near midnight, I said goodbye to several dozen soldiers from my district leaving their families to go to Bosnia. It was not easy. It was not easy for me to say to them face to face that I had serious reservations about this mission. To their credit, they were not bothered by that admission from me. Because I said one thing they could count on is just as Congress after a vote on Desert Storm came together and in support of our soldiers, you could be assured that Congress, after our votes on conscience, would come together to support our troops. Yet I am ashamed that because of the action of one Republican Member of this House tonight we will be denied the opportunity to show unanimous support for our troops. Let me read to the American people what that one Member kept us from being able to vote on tonight. Resolved that the House of Representatives unequivocally supports the men and women of the United States armed forces who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery. It is shameful we will not have the opportunity to vote on that tonight.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today my Republican colleagues have a choice, a very clear choice. I believe they must choose between their commitment to veterans health care versus towing the party line. Last week, 25 House Republicans showed independence and courage in saying no to their party and no to $213 million in conference cuts to veterans health care. These 25 Republicans should be saluted for putting veterans above partisanship. Sadly, rather than saluting them, the House Republican leadership scolded them for supporting veterans. Let me quote for my colleagues one House leader from today's Wall Street Journal. Referring to the 25 Republicans, the leader said this, and I quote, ``I was madder than hell. They had forgotten the big picture and they were doing things on their own individual initiatives.'' Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day for this House when Republicans are criticized by their own leadership for showing their own individual initiatives to support veterans. The Journal article went on to say this: ``The loss infuriated the leadership, which wants to show its political muscle and reverse the outcome without making high profile concessions on spending.'' Mr. Speaker, when did showing political muscle become more important than helping veterans? I would suggest that showing political courage is far more important than showing political muscle. I urge my 25 Republican colleagues, who cast a tough vote, a courageous vote in favor of veterans last week, to do so again today. How can anyone explain to veterans why in 1 week they switched their vote on $213 million in veterans health care? More important, by putting veterans above partisanship, we can ensure that our Nation's veterans receive the quality health care they so deeply deserve. I urge my 25 Republican colleagues to vote today for the same motion to recommit that they voted for just a week ago. Our veterans have stood up for us. Now, on Pearl Harbor Day, it is time for us to stand up for them.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, for months my Republican colleagues have come to the well of this House and said their top priority is to balance the budget. That is good rhetoric but most Americans would be surprised to find out if you look at it, the Republican budget increases the deficit in each of the next 2 years. Let me repeat that for you. The Republican budget increases the deficit in each of the next 2 years. What they do is they give tax breaks for wealthy Americans this year and say, ``Trust us, 3, 4, 5 years from now, we will make those tough spending cuts.'' That is politics as usual, and it is irresponsible. I call the Republican budget plan the dessert budget. It is like a person saying, ``I care so much about going on a diet that I am going to start out with a dessert on the first day of my diet and have a hot fudge sundae.'' That does not work in diets and it is not going to work in deficits. My friends, Republicans must decide if they care more about pushing their rhetoric of balancing the budget or whether they care more about giving tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I believe this has been an unnecessary crisis that, frankly, should have been resolved with the passage of a clean continuing resolution on October 1, 6 weeks ago. But for the sake of hundreds of thousands of Federal workers, and the veterans and the seniors and the millions of citizens they serve, I am grateful this resolution will pass today.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I commend the President and the Democratic Members of Congress, and the Republican leadership and Members in this House for developing a plan that does put people and our Government back to work today. Mr. Speaker, I do not support everything in this new resolution, but I would like to point out, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, one important reason why this resolution is preferable to the continuing resolution we have lived under for the last 6 weeks. Mr. Speaker, under that resolution, sponsored and pushed by the Republican leadership in this House, VA health care has been cut by $3.2 million a day each day for the last 6 weeks, compared to the President's budget request. That is $3.2 million a day. VA health care system cuts in a system that is desperately struggling to provide adequate care for those men and women who have served our Nation in uniform. It is my opinion that if the majority party had not been supporting huge tax breaks for those making over $200,000 a year, these veterans health care cuts would not have been necessary; $140 million over 6 weeks. Mr. Speaker, although I believe this continuing resolution falls short in some areas, it is far better than the first continuing resolution that I believe was unfair to our Nation's veterans and to our veterans health care system. For these reasons, I support and urge the passage of this continuing resolution today.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Is a Member allowed to complete his or her unanimous- consent request before being cutoff by any other Member of the House?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in order to ensure that all military paychecks go out on time on December 1, I ask unanimous consent that the motion be amended to include an amendment in the joint resolution on page 2, after line 19, by adding the following new paragraph.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, 11 words, 5 seconds. Eleven words, 5 seconds. Today with 11 words and 5 seconds this House could have sent a message to every military man and woman serving his or her country, whether they are in the United States or in the cold land of Korea that you will get your paycheck on December 1--five seconds it would have taken. The words I was not allowed to say were simply to add with unanimous consent, that I had hoped would happen, all Department of Defense activities directly related to providing military pay. That would have taken care of our military families on their December 1 paycheck. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations said, quote, we should not waste time on this unanimous-consent request today on the floor of the House. I would suggest that 5 seconds is not too much to ask to send a clear message to our military families that they are going to get their paychecks on time on December 1. The gentleman can make a point and point the finger at the President, that [[Page H 13329]] he should sign the appropriations bill. That is his right. I think the President should sign the bill. But there are some important issues there. The B-2 bomber, the antiballistic missile defense system, issues that Republicans in this House fought over that the President has the right to consider. All I am pleading with to the gentleman is that let us take 5 seconds today, let us not fingerpoint. I can point finger at the Republicans, you can point your finger at the President. But I am not interested in pointing fingers. I am interested in paying the military families of this country on time on December 1.

Mr. EDWARDS. So they can be objected to before we finish asking the unanimous-consent request?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in the process of asking the unanimous- consent request, is it proper that a Member is cutoff before finishing the sentence, which is part of the unanimous consent request? When one is not making any editorial comment about the request, one is simply making the request, is it within the House rules to cut off Members from making that request?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, with today's continuing resolution, I am glad the Republican leadership has finally recognized what Democrats have felt. By this resolution, I am glad the Republican leadership has recognized what we felt all along, and that is that it is wrong to use veterans and Medicare recipients and social security recipients as hostages, as innocent victims in this budget debate. It is not what is in this continuing resolution today that bothers me. It is what is not in this continuing resolution that bothers me. The resolution we will vote on today does not allow us to ensure that the paychecks of the American military personnel will go out on time on December 1. Let me repeat that: The continuing resolution today will not ensure that American military paychecks will go out on time on December 1. As we sit in this comfortable, heated room, there are thousands of American soldiers serving in the freezing cold of Korea, and under our continuing resolution today, those soldiers' families may not get their paychecks on December 1 and they may not be able to pay their rent and their utility bills. My friends, that is unconscionable, and we should not allow it to happen. I am honored and privileged to represent 45,000 soldiers at Fort Hood in Texas. They are patriotic young men and women doing their duty, doing what we have asked them to do to serve their country, and it is unfair and it wrong. Under this resolution, even if it passes, we cannot tell them eye to eye that they are going to get their paychecks on time. There is nothing wrong with having an honest budget debate about whether we balance the budget in 7 years, 8 years, 9 years. There is nothing wrong about having that debate. It is wrong not to pay our military personnel on time.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, for a land where Olympic bleachers have been dismantled to create caskets for children, I vote to give peace a chance.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the American people have been asking good questions. Why has the Federal Government been shut down? Why are veterans at risk of not receiving their checks and their disability payments? Why are senior citizens, social security recipients not able to have their cases processed? Why has their national Government for the first time in two centuries been put at risk, at the brink of national bankruptcy? Well, my colleagues, tonight we find the answer. The answer is because the Speaker of the House was snubbed on an airplane ride. The Speaker of the House was snubbed on an airplane ride. Unless anybody thinks this is a David Letterman top ten joke, let me refer to an Associated Press article today, the headline of which is, ``Air Force 1 Snub Led to Government Shutdown.'' Quoting the article, ``The lack of contact and their having to exit through the rear of the plane were,'' quoting the Speaker, ``part of why you ended up with us sending down a tougher continuing resolution.'' The Speaker goes on to say, ``This is petty. I am going to say up front it is petty, and Tony will probably say I shouldn't say it, but I think it is human.'' Well, it may be human, but it is petty, and certainly it must be the first time in the history of this country that our Nation's economy has been put at risk, hundreds of thousands of people have been put out of work because of the seat assignment and service on an airplane ride. The Speaker, in the same article, went on to say that, ``Every other President, every President we have ever flown with has had us up front. Every President we have had has talked to us at length.'' My friends, it is time for us to put the pettiness aside and get on with the serious business of governing our Nation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, if this resolution were just about balancing the budget over the next 7 years, I would vote for it. But it is not, and I will not. Several speakers from both sides have talked about the fact this is a clean resolution. Without editorial comment, let me simply state the facts. This resolution does more than that. On an annualized basis, it cuts veterans health care benefits by a half a billion dollars. Let me repeat that. On an annualized basis, it cuts veterans health care benefits by $500 million. This is not the first continuing resolution. I would imagine, Mr. Speaker, there are veterans in hospitals around this country who have served their nation who would probably take greater umbrage at the facts in this resolution than some of the Members who helped write it who object to the fact that I have stated the facts about this resolution. Let me also say that this is not a clean resolution on other matters, on many issues that most Democrats had no input on. Let me list some of the cuts, programs that will be cut by 40 percent. And let each Member decide whether he or she wants to support a 40-percent cut in these programs. Summer youth employment, AmeriCorps, veterans homeless programs, State offices of rural health, rural health research, substance abuse training, national vaccine program, new rural health grants, Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program at a time when we have freezing weather across many parts of this Nation, rural housing, Goals 2000, State and local grants, Goals 2000 national programs, school-to-work national programs, early childhood education also along with the others cut by 40 percent, Federal Perkins loan capital contributions, State student incentive grants. This is not a clean resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote no on it.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief but I think important question to the gentleman. In a moment it is my understanding we will have an opportunity to vote for or against a motion to adjourn. If that motion passes, is it my understanding that this House will be in recess the rest of Friday afternoon, all day Saturday, all day Sunday, and that this House will not go back into session until less than 12 hours before the Federal Government goes in default; is that correct?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we celebrate Veterans Day. Tomorrow we honor the service of our Nation's veterans to this country, but sadly, today, we are doing a grave disservice to those very same veterans. Instead of honoring our veterans with a 21-gun salute, as we should, the Republican leadership today is launching a three-pronged attack against our veterans. First, this continuing resolution, which we will vote on in just a few moments, locks in a $500 million decrease in VA health care below the President's request, a level for veterans health care even lower than that passed through cuts in the House budget. That is wrong and it is unfair. If anyone thinks that today's veterans are getting better health care than they deserve, then I encourage them to vote for this continuing resolution. The second attack today on our Nation's veterans is that we are increasing Medicare part B premiums for World War II veterans. What an odd way to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the end of that war. The third attack of the Republican leadership on our veterans is that they want us to have a weekend recess while the U.S. Government is on the verge of being shut down Monday at midnight. Let me make that clear. We are on the verge of shutting down many services provided in terms of health care to our Nation's veterans. We are on the verge of shutting down VA regional offices that provide pensions and care for our veterans, many of whom are service-connected disabled. And while we are on the verge of shutting down that important service and services to our veterans, the Republican leadership wants us to take a recess this weekend. They want us to go home and make speeches. I have a message: the veterans are more interested in health care service than lip service. That is wrong.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I have heard several of our Republican colleagues saying that we should keep our speeches short today so we can get home and give our speeches tomorrow to our veterans. As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Hospitals and Health Care, I have a better idea. Let us cancel our speeches and stay here in Washington as we should to keep Government from being shut down. We are on the brink of shutting down VA regional offices all over America that provide critical services to the men and women who served our country in uniform. We do them no honor by speaking to them tomorrow, by going on vacation in our districts this weekend while Government is on the brink of shutting down veterans health care services, many crucial services in our VA hospitals, and shutting down our VA regional offices. That is irresponsible. What the Republican leadership is doing by letting us go on vacation this weekend is basically saying that to the veterans who are out there at sea at risk of drowning, the homeless, the sick, the ill, we are saying, we are going to take a vacation this weekend. We are going to go back home to our districts and speak to veterans. And by the way, do not drown over the weekend. We are going to come back on Monday and we might throw you a liferaft. We might think about your interests at that time. That is irresponsible. I would like some Member of the Republican leadership to say why we are honoring veterans by risking the shutdown of their services by leaving this weekend. We know this bill is going to be vetoed. If we truly care about veterans, let us stay here and keep working on a bipartisan basis to keep that health care service that our veterans have fought for and the service that they deserve open. It is wrong. It is irresponsible. It is hypocritical to our American veterans to say that we are going to go home and give our speeches this weekend when we are risking the life preserver they desperately need.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, in 6 weeks my wife will have our first child. I cannot put into words the joy that she and I share together. For months this baby has been at the center of our hearts and our hopes and our dreams and our prayers. One of those prayers is that this little baby comes into the world with perfect health. But if for any reason our child has physical or mental disabilities, we will love that child and nurture it even more. But God forbid, if our physician in the next several weeks tells my wife that our baby for whatever reason has no chance of life, and that terminating this pregnancy was the best way to save my wife, my love one's life, and her ability to have children, to have the joy that some of you have already had, then that difficult choice should be my wife's and mine to make with her doctor, not this Congress' choice to make. No politician, no pollster, no interest group, so election should determine that choice for my wife and for me and our family. If my wife's life or her ability to have more children were to be at risk, I would want her doctor to be able to consider whatever procedure best protects her and that ability to have children. What so offends me about this bill is that a physician could be sent to prison for saving my wife's life. Let me repeat that, because it is incredulous, but it is true. Under this bill, a physician could be sent to prison for saving my wife's life. That is wrong, that is immoral, that is unconscionable. No Member of this House has the right to put the life of my wife or her ability to let us share in the joy that you have shared in in having children. No one in this House, no one in any Congress has the right to put that risk of my wife's life to task. Yesterday morning I talked to our physician, the person that we hope will deliver a health baby in just a few weeks. He told me that this bill as written could force him to choose in an emergency between risking his patient's life, my wife's life, or his going to prison. This Congress has no right to put that choice before any physician, to make a doctor choose between keeping his oath as a doctor or going to prison. This bill is not about saving the lives of babies. It is about risking the lives of mothers and their chance to have babies. This bill is not about protecting babies from late-term abortions. Look at it. Read it. The fact is this bill does not prohibit late-term abortions, not a single one. It deals with procedure. What this bill does do, though, is allow Members of Congress, in our great medical wisdom, to dictate to physicians what medical procedures cannot be used even if those procedures maximize the chance of living for one's wife or one's daughter. To my colleagues who share my personal belief that late-term abortion should only be used in rare and extreme cases, I plead with you to read this bill. Read it. It does not accomplish that goal. To my colleagues, even those that are pro-life, I plead with you to ask this question of yourself. If the life of your wife or your daughter or your granddaughter were at risk, if their ability, your wife, your daughter, your granddaughter, their ability to have future children were to be at risk, who do you want to make the decision about what best medical procedure to use? This Congress or your loved one. If you agree with me that that difficult choice should be left to our families and to our loved ones, not the politicians and pollsters, then I plead with you to vote ``no'' on this rule and ``no'' on this bill.