Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give special tribute to my constituent and dear friend, Dr. Charles Patterson, superintendent of the Killeen Independent School District, Killeen, TX. Dr. Patterson has been named Superintendent of the Year for the State of Texas by the Texas Association of School Boards. Dr. Patterson has a distinguished list of accomplishments. A past- president of both the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented and the Texas Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, he currently serves as president of the American Society for Curriculum Development and as a board member of both the Military Impacted Schools Association and the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools. In these capacities, he is widely known and respected as a champion for impact aid and as someone who cares about studying and expanding curriculum development. Dr. Patterson has also distinguished himself in civic service to his community. He is a deacon and Sunday school teacher at the First Baptist Church of Killeen, a past-president of the Greater Killeen Chamber of Commerce and a member of the Killeen Exchange Club. He is a fine example of someone who is devoted to serving his community and Nation. I extend my sincere appreciation and congratulations for his dedication to excellence and his commitment to guide the future of our youth toward a brighter future. Mr. Speaker, my admiration for Dr. Patterson and my appreciation for his leadership and commitment runs deep. That is why I urge my colleagues to join me today in recognizing and honoring a true gentleman for his contribution to the school children of central Texas and of our Nation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I come to the well today because, like many Americans, I am concerned about fate of the Medicare Program. I cannot support Newt Gingrich's plan to cut $270 billion from Medicare while offering a hefty tax break to people making over $200,000. The Gingrich plan cuts Medicare too deeply and hurts senior citizens without really strengthening the program. I am not willing to sacrifice the quality of health care for senior citizens to pay for Newt Gingrich's $20,000 tax break for individuals making over $200,000 a year. Seniors will pay more and get less. The cost of health care will climb and Medicare benefits won't keep up. Seven years from now seniors citizens and health care providers will find themselves in a hole because of a tax cut for the wealthy. For senior citizens the plan means up to $1,200 in extra out-of- pocket expenses, limits on their choice of doctors and decreases in future benefits. Central Texas rural hospital administrators have told me their hospitals could close as Medicare payments drop dramatically. Rural hospitals in central Texas have a high percentage of Medicare patients because of our large population of senior citizens. Some hospitals can't keep their doors open with the low level of reimbursement that the Gingrich plan offers. I oppose the Gingrich Medicare plan because no one really knows what is in it. The 968 page Medicare bill landed on my desk Wednesday night and was being revised today, the same day I am forced to vote on it. Central Texas senior citizens, medical professionals, and taxpayers have no idea what is in the bill. To railroad legislation through the House that directly affects 37 million senior citizens and their families is absolutely unfair. To pass such legislation before my constituents and American citizens have a chance to review it and express their views is irresponsible. There is no question that we must reform Medicare to preserve it for future senior citizens. I'm willing to make the tough choices to cut spending, preserving the program, and balance the budget. However, Newt's Medicare plan simply does not pass the fairness test.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this unfair, hastily put together legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] and I rise in support of H.R. 2353, as amended. This bill, H.R. 2353, as amended, would extend VA's authority to provide needed services to veterans. Of particular importance, the bill would extend the period during which VA may furnish priority care to Persian Gulf veterans, without regard to whether health problems from which they suffer have been adjudicated as service incurred. The bill would also permit VA to continue several high-visibility programs which help in rehabilitating homeless and chronically mentally ill veterans. These and other extensions in the bill are needed because in each instance the underlying legal authority to furnish care will expire on or before January 1, 1996. H.R. 2353, as amended, would also underscore our commitment to achieving a full accounting of the status of American prisoners of war and missing in action by providing for display of the POW/MIA flag at VA medical centers. Mr. Speaker, I especially want to pay tribute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for his leadership effort and fighting so that all Americans can be reminded of the fact that we do still have American MIA's and that we should never forget either our MIA's or our American POW's who have served this country. Had it not been for that gentleman's particular [[Page H 10116]] leadership on this effort, I do not think this provision would be in the bill and he deserves our credit and our support for that leadership. This bill also provides a framework for VA to achieve cost savings at the Audie Murphy VA Medical Center in San Antonio, TX, through contracts with a non-Federal institution for construction and shared use of an energy production facility. I would like to commend my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Tejeda], for his hard work on this provision. While Mr. Tejeda is not here on the floor today because of a recent operation, our debt of thanks goes out to him. And if he happens to be watching this today, I know I speak on behalf of all of my colleagues in this House in saying we wish him well and appreciate his leadership and input on this bill. Mr. Speaker, once again, it must be either a Monday or a Tuesday and it must once again be veterans legislation, because the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], and the ranking member, the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], have done their business one more time. They have crafted, with the help of the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], a bipartisan piece of legislation that is important to our Nation's veterans and they have brought it to the floor without discord, without fighting. Mr. Speaker, there will not be anyone in the press gallery reporting on this, but, hopefully, once again, as happened last week and so many times before, the cooperative efforts of Mr. Stump and Mr. Montgomery have resulted in positive, good, constructive legislation coming through this House that will benefit millions of our Nation's veterans who have served our country.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I am sure they just saved the best for last. Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate the gentleman from Mississippi, [Mr. Montgomery] and the gentleman from Arizona, [Mr. Stump] and I urge support of this bill.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today I extend a well-deserved thanks to the police, fire, and emergency service workers in Bell County and part of Coryell County. These public servants are being recognized during Local Heroes Week which was first celebrated in 1992 by local government and business. Contributions from local businesses provide money to purchase gifts, such as special shirts and caps, and to fund an endowment for scholarships at Central Texas College for the immediate family of these heroes. This year, Local Heroes Week will run from November 5 through 11. Nearly 1,000 police, fire, and emergency service workers in the two- county area will be honored. My thanks go out to the organizers of this event. I especially thank the men and women being honored, those public servants who day in and day out put their lives on the line to protect us from crime, disaster, fire, and sickness. I ask Members to join me in honoring the police, fire, and emergency workers in my Texas congressional district and across the country who provide us with much needed--but often not recognized or appreciated-- public service.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, again, as with the previous legislation that we just passed, this legislation will basically help the VA medical centers bring the best quality of health care to our Nation's veterans by allowing flexibility in pay scale for VA nurse anesthetists. This will allow us to keep many of our finest nurse anesthetists in the VA hospitals. Without this legislation, there is a very real chance that many of these important people in our VA health care system might be pulled out of the public health care system and somewhere into private practice. If that were to happen, that would be a loss not only to our VA health care centers, but to the veterans that they serve. Mr. Speaker, once again, as in the previous legislation, I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] for their leadership on this important legislation, along with the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] for his leadership as the ranking member of the full committee. I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, there are not going to be any press people in the gallery this afternoon watching the discussion on this bill. There will not be any headlines in tomorrow's newspapers around the country. This bill will not be on the evening news broadcast nationally this evening because there is no conflict on it, because the Congress has done its business the way it should do its business, on a bipartisan basis, putting the interest of medical care for veterans first, as it should be the priority of this House when we deal with veterans' legislation. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the chairman of the committee, and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], for their leadership on this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery], along with the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson], for continuing not only their commitment to veterans, but their efforts to see that the House on veterans' issues does its business as it should on a nonpartisan basis. [[Page H 9761]] The end result of this legislation is going to be to improve the quality of health care for hundreds of thousands of veterans all across America. It will help our VA hospitals and medical centers retain the finest quality in nurses and physician assistants and dental hygienists. This is significant legislation, because it will significantly help those Americans who have been willing to put their lives on the line for our country. So while there is no great conflict, there will be no headlines in the newspapers, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentleman from Mississippi for carrying on the business of Congress in such an efficient and professional manner. Mr. Speaker, I must add a personal editorial note, that it is a shame that the American people do not see the Congress operating as it has operated on this legislation, in a very positive way, a very amicable way, a very nonpartisan way. If the American people were to see Congress working on this as the leaders have worked on both sides of the aisle on this legislation, I think perhaps people would have a better and fairer sense of the way Congress operates on much of our business. So this legislation is good legislation. It is going to help our Nation's veterans, and I want to urge passage of it today. Mr. Speaker, let me finalize my comments by saying I would be remiss if I were not to pay tribute to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery]. I came here as a young man straight out of Texas A&M University in 1974 to work for the then chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, Olin E. ``Tiger'' Teague, a gentleman that was known at the time as Mr. Veteran of the Congress. Mr. Teague told me about another gentleman who at the time was taking a real leadership position for our veterans, and particularly fighting for the interests of our POW's and MIA's. He told me that Mr. Montgomery would be known as the next Mr. Veteran of the U.S. Congress, and that is in fact what has happened for so many years of great and unselfish service. Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any Member of Congress who has served with greater distinction, with greater class, with greater humility, with greater kindness, or greater commitment, genuine commitment, to helping those men and women who are willing to fight for our country. This is the first piece of legislation that Mr. Montgomery has helped bring to the floor since his announcement that he is going to retire. Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say on behalf of all of my colleagues in Congress and all of the veterans of America that we will miss dearly, we will miss greatly, the gentleman from Mississippi who has set a standard of gentlemanness, a standard of professionalism that we younger Members of Congress for many years to come would be well advised to follow. If we were to do so, and this Congress were to act in its business always as Mr. Montgomery has always acted on his congressional business, the institution of Congress would be held in high esteem by all Americans. So to the general from Mississippi, to the gentleman from Mississippi, I say it is an honor to serve with the gentleman. This is not a goodbye today because we are fortunate to have the services of the gentleman for many months to come until the next election, but thank you for your leadership. I thank the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] for their fine work on this piece of legislation.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I believe that the lockbox bill is a security key for our children. It is a security key for our grandchildren. With the passage of the lockbox bill, and its signing into law I hope sometime this year, we are going to be saying to our children and grandchildren this Congress is going to be more fiscally responsible. Mr. Chairman, I think the consequence of this bill is that it will result in the reduction of the deficit. If we do not deal with that serious problem, we will put a load on our children and grandchildren out from under which they cannot climb. This bill will have the advantage of cutting pork-barrel spending. What has happened on so many occasions is that Democrats and Republicans come to the floor of this House in the light of day and cast a tough vote to cut spending programs, and then late at night, behind some closed door in a Committee on Appropriations hearing somewhere with very few people watching, the appropriators in the House or the Senate might add the same amount of spending back into the legislation. Mr. Chairman, that is a poor way to do the public's business. This lockbox bill will not only result in more fiscally sound decisions; it will result in those decisions being made in the light of day. I want to commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and others on the majority side. This is a true example of this Congress working in bipartisan fashion to come up with a bill that makes common sense and a bill that is fiscally responsible. Mr. Chairman, I want to pay special tribute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Harman] who worked on this bill over the last several years, at a time when very few people were paying attention to it, when others wanted to put it on the shelf. She never gave up and the gentlewoman from California deserves credit from both sides of the aisle for her effort on this. I hope we can apply the concept of this legislation to spending in outyears as well. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I hope the American people will find out about this commonsense measure being passed today. The fact that we are not having a bipartisan fight on the floor will probably cause many people, our friends in the press, not to pay attention to this bill. This is a very significant piece of legislation. I hope the American people will find out about it and I commend the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] and the bipartisan effort.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minority ranking member for yielding. I would like, if I could, to have a discussion with the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], who has worked very hard, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], and others of us, trying to find money for impact aid. I do want to be clear. This amendment does not add a single dollar to the impact aid program that has not [[Page H 8358]] already been appropriated in the defense appropriations bill or elsewhere. If that is correct, I must say I am personally disappointed, because at one point I thought there was an understanding that some of this money was going to be directed to impact aid. And if it has not, we keep going on promises made and yet no action seems to occur to find any new dollars for impact aid. If I am wrong, I stand corrected, but to be clear, this amendment does not add any new appropriations to impact aid; is that correct?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for his comments and commitments to impact aid. I know he has a genuine interest in that effort and has worked tirelessly on behalf of the program. Mr. Chairman, I do want to make the record clear to people throughout this country and to Members of Congress that, after speeches on the floor by the majority leader several months ago and several other Members of the majority party, this bill, as of today, cuts $47 million out of education funds for the children of military families, children whose parents may be serving overseas, children who may not see their parents months on end. Mr. Chairman, I hope to have the chance to continue to work with the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham], but I do not mind saying I am disappointed that, as of today, this bill cuts $47 million out of that terribly important education program. Mr. Chairman, children whose parents have been willing to put on the uniform and fight for our country deserve the commitment of this Congress.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the good intentions and I hope something will come about, but as of now, this bill cuts impact aid to military children's education by over $40 million.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, while I would have preferred that the $83 million in cuts in this bill to impact aid, which supports the education of military children, while I would wish those cuts had been zeroed out by tonight, I respect the commitment of the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and the distinguished majority leader for saying that these cuts will be zeroed out or at least brought back to the point where impact aid funding this year will approach 96 to 98 percent of the previous fiscal year's funding level. I would like to ask the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], and the distinguished majority leader a question, if I could; specifically, if for any reason in the defense appropriations conference committee bill, for any reason in the defense appropriations conference committee bill that $35 million we added back in the House is reduced or zeroed out, is it still the good faith commitment of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] to see that impact aid children will receive 96 to 98 percent of the Federal 1995 funding level?

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield once more, I would also like to particularly express my thanks to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Kennedy] for lending his full support to this endeavor from the very beginning and for working so skillfully behind the scenes, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Coleman], the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] for his keen interest and diligence in seeing this through, and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis] who also was a key player behind the scenes as well as publicly. In addition to the gentlemen who have already spoken, I think we all owe a special, special expression of gratitude to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], who, despite a recent illness, has made an absolutely Herculean effort on behalf of the children of military families. The constituents of the gentleman from Virginia owe him a debt of thanks, and all military families throughout America owe him a debt of thanks. I would like to take this time to express my personal appreciation for his leadership on this effort.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment. This country must make a commitment to equal opportunity in the job place, and that is what this amendment does.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this motion is very simple and straightforward. By voting yes, you and I tonight can restore $50 million in cuts to veterans' health care programs. It is that simple. And if you vote no, you are simply saying that you want to cut badly needed veterans hospital equipment by $50 million. Now, if you believe that veterans presently receive better health care than they deserve, then go ahead, vote no on this motion. But if you believe that veterans' health care has already been cut enough over the last several years, as I do, and if you believe it is unfair for veterans to make further cuts in their health care services, then you should vote yes on this motion. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, this House passed a constitutional amendment to prevent the burning or desecration of the American flag. I voted for that amendment. Many of our Democratic and Republican colleagues said we should vote for this flag amendment because we owed it to our veterans who were willing to fight and die for their country. I agree. But Members, it is not good enough to wrap yourself in the flag yesterday for veterans and then turn your back on veterans tonight. It is time right now, right now to match our votes with our rhetoric. It is time right now to say to our Nation's veterans, you have already sacrificed enough for America. In honoring our Nation's veterans over 130 years ago, President Lincoln said at Gettysburg that the world would little note or long remember what he said there, but the world would never forget what they did there. [[Page H 6643]] Perhaps those eloquent ideas are appropriate this evening in this Congress. Our Nation's veterans should little note what Members of Congress say about supporting veterans, but they should long remember what Members of Congress do about supporting veterans. I would suggest that cutting veterans' health care in this bill to help pay for a tax break for Donald Trump is simply not fair. We can do better. Our veterans deserve better from this Congress. Veterans do not need our lip service. What they deserve is quality health service. Less than 5 minutes, that is what it would take to make this amendment to this bill on this floor tonight. Last night we spent hours debating esoteric issues on foreign aid and Burma and other nations. Having stayed up all night last night on those issues on foreign aid, do not America's veterans deserve five minutes of your and my time tonight to make a renewed commitment to see they receive the quality VA health care they deserve? I think yes. I want to urge Republicans and Democrats in this House to say ``yes'' to veterans, say ``yes'' to their health care and say ``yes'' to this motion to recommit.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today it is with great pride and pleasure that I honor Dr. Robert T. Miller, distinguished professor of political science, on his 49 years of outstanding service at Baylor University in Waco, TX. Baylor University, without a doubt, has most certainly benefitted from Dr. Miller's wisdom, experience and understanding of political science. Students at Baylor are fortunate to have been able to study under his expert instruction. Many of his students today are successful attorneys, college professors, and government professionals. Dr. Miller has touched the lives of many people over the course of his career, and it is only right that we honor him today. I ask Members to join me in congratulating Dr. Miller for his contribution to higher learning and for his dedication and commitment to the students at Baylor University.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in support of H.R. 1565, as amended. I want to pay my respects to the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] for his fine work on this. I want to express a personal thanks to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump] and to the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] for the way in which they have not only helped craft this legislation in a fair bipartisan manner but the way in which the gentleman from Arizona has run the committee on a bipartisan basis that I think is a role model that the people of this country would have high respect for. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership on this and other legislation and the way he runs the committee. My colleagues, H.R. 1565 would maintain our commitment to provide medical care to veterans who suffer disease as a result of exposure in service to [[Page H 6322]] certain toxic substances. The authority under which the VA provides such care, first established in 1981, will expire at the end of this month. H.R. 1565, as amended, would extend the VA's treatment authority. Current law, however, reflects the limited knowledge we had in 1981 regarding the relationship between exposure to agent orange and an occurrence of specific diseases. This bill would incorporate the findings of the National Academy of Sciences to identify the diseases for which treatment is available. At the same time, the bill extends veterans every benefit of the doubt, as we should, and expands the scope of treatment which the VA may provide. Mr. Speaker, Members on both sides of the aisle have worked hard to produce an excellent bill. I think this legislation is a statement that even in tough budget times, we do ask the American people to tighten our belts, this Congress and our Nation owe a deep debt of gratitude to those who have fought and been willing to put their lives on the line for our country and its freedoms. I enthusiastically support this bill and thank those who have played such an important role in its development.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I first would like to speak out in strong support of this legislation. As someone who represents 45,000 Army soldiers, I want to say thank you to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. Vucanovich], the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Hefner], the ranking member, for having made a commitment to provide the quality of life for our military families that they so greatly deserve. I would also like to speak out against the Browder amendment, which would strike the funding for any Army Museum. I sometimes vote with Citizens Against Government Waste; I oftentimes vote with that organization. But I take offense that they would call the proposed National Army Museum a theater of the absurd. For any organization to call a museum that would be a tribute to the hundreds of thousands of men and women who served our Nation and been willing to put their lives on the line for our freedoms, for them to call such a tribute to those men and women that is absolutely unfair and unconscionable. What is a museum? I think a museum is an education tool. In the case of the Army Museum, it could be a retention tool. It could be a source of pride for every young man or woman serving in the U.S. Army today or any person who has ever served in the U.S. Army. Now, people can poke fun at museums and make them sound like pork- barrel projects. I want to tell the Members, of all the experiences I have had in Washington, DC, perhaps none has been more meaningful to me personally than the 3\1/2\ hours I spent one day with my wife in the Holocaust Museum, for it was through that experience that a citizen of this country, born after the end of World War II, learned firsthand of the horror of World War II and the horror of tyranny at its worst at the hands of Adolf Hitler. The Holocaust Museum did not glorify war and it did not glorify the Holocaust. Rather, it showed me and the thousands of schoolchildren who have visited since that our Nation must do everything possible to see that something like that tragedy never occurs again in the history of this world. I believe an Army Museum can serve the same purpose. Such a museum would not glorify war, it would glorify those who sacrificed their full measure of devotion to see their country can have the opportunities and the freedoms that you and I enjoy today. Such an Army Museum would also educate millions of young schoolchildren, 4 million of whom come to this Nation's Capital each and every year, and education those children that our Nation must do everything possible to see that we prevent war, that war, in fact, is not a glorius thing as sometimes it is shown to be on television, but war is a devastating experience to all those involved with it and all those affected by it. So, Mr. Chairman and Members, I urge support not only for this legislation, but I would request your vote against the Browder amendment. Our Nation and our Army soldiers deserve a National Army Museum.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, just for a moment I would like the Members to [[Page H6019]] imagine what it is like to be a child of a military family. For just a moment, Members, imagine being 8 years old and wondering why your mother cannot attend school functions because she has been deployed to a place called Somalia. Imagine being a 10-year-old and not seeing your father for 6 to 12 months because he is serving our Nation in Korea. Imagine being a 12- year-old boy, and wondering why dad can seldom come to your little league games. Imagine being a 14-year-old daughter and wondering whether your father or mother in uniform will even be alive to come to your high school graduation. Sadly, many never do. Members, it does not take imagination to realize the sacrifices of our military children. Those sacrifices are real. Military children are the unheralded partners, the unsung heroes, the young patriots in our fight for a strong national defense. How can we adequately say thank you for the sacrifices of our military children? How can we adequately express our sorrow to the child whose father or mother died in service to our Nation? The answer is we cannot. We cannot replace the time spent away from one's parent. We cannot replace the father or mother that will never know his small child, but there is one thing today that you and I can do, one thing we must do for our military children. We must say to them that if their parents are willing to fight and die for our country, our country, you and I, accept the responsibility to see that they, the children, receive a quality education. That is the least this Congress can do. To do any less would be wrong. For this Congress to gut education funding for military children would not only be wrong, it would be terribly unfair and immoral. To gut education funding for our military children would send an uncaring message to the young parents serving in our Nation's Armed Forces. To say to a soldier that ``While you are serving in Korea or in Europe or some other faraway land, that we in Congress will be gutting your children's education back home'' would be a slap in the face to every father, to every mother proudly wearing our Nation's uniform. Such a callous act would hurt our military morale, retention, and readiness. Mr. Speaker, our service men and women love our Nation but they love their children, too. To force them to choose between serving their country and caring for their children's education would be unconscionable. Yet that is exactly what this Congress is doing. The Committee on the Budget and every Republican on it voted to zero out $120 million in impact aid funding that the Department of Education for years has provided for military children whose parents are living next to a military base. That money goes to the military children's schools to help make up for lost school revenues due to commissary sales that are not taxed or lost income taxes from military families. Many of those districts are already taxing their school districts at the maximum allowable rate. With the sincere and dedicated leadership of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] and a bipartisan effort, the Committee on National Security did vote to spend $58 million in DOD money for impact aid. Our military families owe Chairman Bateman a debt of gratitude. I regret, though, that 12 Members of our Committee on National Security on the Republican side voted against even that funding for education for our military children and their families. Fifty-eight million dollars is a positive step forward for our children's education, but cutting education funding for those special children by 50 percent is simply not right. Those children deserve more than a half a loaf. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit would take $100 million out of the $450 million added on for national missile defense and have that money used to support our children. If in conference committee we can find another source to help provide present-day funding for impact aid, that is fine with me. But we need to set the standard and make the commitment right here and right now, today. Surely, in a $267 billion defense budget that was added up by $9.7 billion, we can find $100 million to say to our children in the military and their families, ``We are committing to see that you get a good education.'' Members, this should not be a partisan vote. Let Republicans and Democrats alike show our military families we care about them and we care about their children. Vote for this motion to recommit.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am a hawk on defense. I support increased funding to ensure a strong national defense, and yesterday I voted for increased funding for the B-2 bomber. However, there is a huge difference between being a hawk on defense and possibly jeopardizing the elimination of 5,000 Russian nuclear warheads. No national defense system can stop that many warheads. By insuring compliance with the ABM Treaty, the Spratt amendment will contribute to the elimination of 5,000 nuclear warheads that someday could be aimed at America's citizens, at America's children. To do anything, to do anything at this time, this crucial time, that might jeopardize reduction of those 5,000 Russian nuclear warheads would not be being strong on defense. It would be sheer insanity. If the authors of this bill say the bill does not violate the ABM Treaty, they should have nothing to fear from this amendment. On the other hand, despite the authors' intentions, if anyone someday might interpret this bill as being in violation of the ABM Treaty, then our grandchildren's future depends on the passage of this amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, this rule is unfair to the children of military families. Let me repeat that: This rule is unfair to the children of military families. For some reason, the Republican leadership decided to prohibit an amendment that I had authored that would fully fund the impact aid program. The impact aid program is that program that provides education funds for the children of our military families living off bases all throughout the United States. The action of the Republican leadership in this case is to ensure at least a 50 percent cut in impact aid programs for military families all over this country. I think that is cruel. I think it is unfair. And it will hurt our military morale and readiness. Lest anyone think impact aid is not important, let me quote from the gentleman from Georgia, Speaker Newt Gingrich, in a letter of May 18 where he said, ``We must preserve, protect, and improve the impact aid program so that it adequately serves those it was intended to serve.'' The impact aid program should have been preserved. It has been cut by this rule.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day for America's veterans. Before there was a Contract With America, America had a solemn contract with its veterans. Today House Republicans have broken that contract with our veterans. One week before Memorial Day, on the eve of our celebration of the end of World War II, Republicans have cut $24 billion in veterans' health care. According to the VA, that means by 2002 the closure perhaps of 41 VA hospitals. It means a cut of 60,000 VA employees. It means 4 million veterans may not get health care, veterans who fulfilled their contract with America in World War II, in Korea, and Vietnam. Now Republicans are saying $24 billion in veterans' cuts is not enough in one day. They are asking for another $50 million in cuts in critical veterans' health care and hospital equipment, equipment that our veterans desperately need and deserve. That is not fair, Mr. Speaker. It is not right. It is a breach of contract with America's veterans.