Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, is it fair? Mr. Chairman, that is the one question that Congress and America's citizens must ask about the Republican budget. Is it fair? That is a simple question but a crucial one. It is a question I asked when I received a letter from Alpha Dunlap of Temple, TX, a constituent of mine. She wrote: ``I do not have good health, and I do not have money. Most of my money goes for prescription medicine and bare necessities. I am widowed and live alone. Please do not let Congress make deep cuts to Medicare.'' To those watching, I ask you this question: Is it fair to cut $1,000 from Alpha Dunlap's Medicare benefits to pay for tax breaks for millionaires such as Donald Trump? Is it fair? Worse yet, is it fair for Republicans to cut seniors' Medicare benefits to protect tax loopholes for billionaires who would renounce their citizenship to get out of paying their rightful taxes? billion in tax loopholes for billionaires who would renounce their citizenship to get out of paying their taxes. Members, that is welfare for the rich, paid for by the pain of senior citizens. Under the Republican plan, 100,000 senior citizens, such as mine, Ms. Dunlap, will have to lose Medicare benefits to pay for tax breaks for just one billionaire under the Republican plan. That is not fair. That is dead wrong, and it is unconscionable. Why should Alpha Dunlap and 100,000 senior citizens like her have to lose Medicare benefits to help those billionaires who would leave this country and not pay their fair share? The issue is not the future of our children. I point out, Members, the pictures that our Republican friends have not shown today are the millionaires and billionaires who are going to benefit from their budget plan and their tax plans. That is the issue the American people must look at.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, the point I would make is that earlier this year we had a vote in this House to change and do away with that tax break and that loophole for billionaires, and only five Republicans voted for that change. I know this is report language, this is not a change in the law itself. If Republicans who previously voted to protect the billionaires' tax break if they leave this country will change their vote, I look forward to working with them to make that change.

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

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, the Congress has a long record of support for America's veterans and for the VA health care system on which so many veterans depend. That system, like health care delivery generally, is facing an era of challenge and change. A critical factor for both the private and public health sectors, of course, is the high cost of health care delivery. Managing within a fixed budget, the VA has long been a cost-conscious provider of care. In recent months, however, VA's leadership has initiated additional reforms aimed at achieving more efficient service delivery. We continue to press the VA to streamline and improve its delivery of care. We also recognize, however, that the Department operates within a statutory framework which from time to time needs revision. It has become clear to me that at least one key element of VA benefits law no longer serves the veteran or VA effectively. Specifically, the laws governing eligibility for VA care have become archaic and need to be modified. Those laws--some reflecting medical practices of years ago-- make it easier to get costly hospital in-patient care than routine outpatient treatment. As a result, VA facilities often face the choice of denying a veteran routine outpatient treatment, providing that treatment illegally, or hospitalizing the individual to circumvent statutory limitations. There is relatively broad consensus that enactment of health care eligibility reform is a top priority. Veterans have been urging Congress to enact a law which would guarantee comprehensive health care coverage, including long-term care, to service-connected, low-income, and others with a high priority to VA services. We attempted to achieve that goal last session as part of the broader pursuit of national health care reform, but were ultimately unsuccessful. I do not believe the prospects for that kind of comprehensive legislation have improved. In my judgment, we can best achieve our common goals for VA eligibility reform incrementally. The reforms proposed in the Veterans Health Care Reform Act of 1995, which I'm introducing today, are incremental, but they are also important. My bill would for the first time eliminate barriers to routine outpatient treatment, and make medical need rather than a questionable legal test the basis for determining whether a patient requires hospitalization or a clinic visit. The changes would not only make VA eligibility rules more rational, they would expand the benefits available to most veterans. Under current law, only a limited group of veterans--those 50 percent or more service-connected disabled--are assured of receiving comprehensive outpatient treatment. The bill calls on VA to manage resources so as to provide comprehensive outpatient treatment, as well as hospitalization, to a much broader spectrum of veterans, including those receiving compensation for a service-connected disability, former prisoners-of-war, World War I veterans, and lower income veterans. Although I believe VA medical care merits a greater percentage of discretionary funding than it receives, the bill's proposed expansion of eligibility does not depend on additional appropriations. The bill instead envisions that the VA will shift care from its hospital wards to its outpatient clinics, and with the shift free up resources. Studies have found that some 40 percent of episodes of VA hospital care could more appropriately have been provided on an outpatient basis. In part, the problem is that VA facilities have more hospital bed capacity than they need, but not enough space and staff devoted to providing outpatient treatment. The bill would reverse that. It would provide VA a means to expand its outpatient treatment capacity by permitting the Department to retain for these purposes third-party collections above the Congressional Budget Office baseline level. Let me stress that this bill is an important step forward, and a step on which we can build in the future. While its provisions would only have effect for a 3-year period, its implementation will provide the kind of data and experience VA and the Congress need for the still more comprehensive reforms that veterans seek and deserve.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, when Republicans promised welfare reform, who would have guessed that would mean a $63 million special tax break for billionaire Rupert Murdoch? When Republicans promised immigration reform, who would have guessed that they would mean billionaires should be able to avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes they owe by simply renouncing their U.S. citizenship? When Republicans promised to reorder American priorities, who would have guessed that would mean Republicans would vote to protect Star Wars but not to protect Social Security? When Republicans promised middle-class tax cuts, who would have guessed that meant people making over $200,000 a year would enjoy an $11,000 a year tax bonus? Mr. Speaker, I am for changing government. I am for less government and lower deficits and common sense in our laws. But I think the American people are beginning to ask just whose side are the Republicans on?

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today it is with great pride and pleasure that I honor the 1995 presentation of ``Salado Legends.'' This stage drama brings to life the story of central Texas pioneers who braved danger and hardship to carve out a new life. For the past three summers more than 100 cast and crew have donated their time and talent to bring this production to appreciative audiences. This unique stage production reenacts the experiences of Scottish settlers who arrived in Salado in Bell County in the late 1850's. The audience is treated to a slice of central Texas history through song, dance, and story. I ask Members to join me in honoring the cast and crew of this stage production for their work preserving a piece of history in my Texas congressional district.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Condit- bipartisan amendment to H.R. 450 and in doing so recognize the importance of reforming the Endangered Species Act. This amendment is virtually the same as a bill introduced last year by Congressman Henry Bonilla and me. The act, expiring in 1992, should have been reauthorized by Congress more than 2 years ago. Since that time, endangered and threatened species continue to be listed and critical habitats continue to be designated--without the act being reviewed by Congress. This amendment is simple. It would suspend the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to designate funds for the further listing of any endangered or threatened species or for the designation of critical habitat until the Endangered Species Act is reauthorized. If we do not adopt the Condit-bipartisan amendment, the Endangered Species Act could continue in full force without congressional review. Presently, 775 animals, plants, and insects are listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act--almost a 400-percent increase from the original endangered species list. Another 3,900 species are candidates for listing. I see the result of this in my own backyard where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department proposed to designate portions of 33 counties for the protection of the golden-cheeked warbler. This proposal would have encompassed some 20 million acres. The current enforcement of the Endangered Species Act is a direct attack on private property rights. It seems that there are more protections for bugs and birds than for people and their constitutional private property rights. We cannot continue an act that is not working. Help stop Endangered Species Act abuse; return common sense to environmental law. Vote yes on the Condit-bipartisan amendment to H.R. 450.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, so the gentleman is saying he wants to keep open the option of star wars, that is what I am trying to----

Mr. EDWARDS. I would just like to know, genuinely, whether the gentleman is either interested in keeping open and wanting to build and deploy Star Wars or not interested? If he does not want to build star wars, then accept the amendment. If he does want to build it, then admit that and let us continue the debate.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, in a year or two we will be debating the next year's authorization bill. In a year or two, I will be happy, in the authorization bill, to debate changes in it.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I think we have had an honest debate today and it is time to vote. Both sides have been heard on the floor of this House. I simply want to conclude by saying this is not a debate about who cares about protecting the American people. Every Member of this House cares deeply about protecting our national security and every American family. This debate on this amendment is simply an issue of do you want to deploy Star Wars after we have already spent $30 billion researching it over 12 years and do not even have the capability of saying the technology will work? Or do you want to save that money, perhaps use it for theater missile defense, use it for a ground-based national missile defense system, use it for pay raises for members of the military, use it for quality of life issues for the military, use it for deficit reduction. You are either for Star Wars deployment or against. It is that simple. It is not a question of integrity or who cares or who does not. I would urge that the Members of this House vote.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I want to be sure the gentleman's comments are not misunderstood to misrepresent my amendment. My amendment does not stop research and development of any program. And, furthermore, I hope those same Members that have some concern for ballistic missile attack on the United States understand that those same minds can take a thousand-pound missile, rent a U-haul truck and deliver that missile to any city in the United States.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, when this debate began some time ago, some of my Republican colleagues said on this Floor they are not interested in Star Wars. My friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], volunteered to donate to charity for every instance when the word ``Star Wars'' were used. Now, a few minutes later, other Members are arguing for a Star Wars deployment. Well, this amendment is simple and it is straightforward: If you want to say no to Star Wars, vote yes on this amendment. If you think $30 billion and 12 years is enough on one program, then simply vote yes on this amendment. want to spend more money on its deployment and good faith, then simply vote no on this amendment. It is that simple. But this amendment is not about whether today or some day there might be a threat to the continental United States. Nothing in this amendment stops a ground-based national missile defense system or even continued research for some space-based system. It simply says no to the deployment of Star Wars, a $30 billion boondoggle, after 12 years, for which there is no evidence that the technology would even work. Finally, I am not asking that you agree with Chet Edwards' opinions, because mine are not important. I am asking that this House agree with the opinions of our top military leaders and past leaders such as Colin Powell and Admiral Crowe, who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan, to say enough is enough, and tonight it is time to say no to star wars.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. In no way is this amendment intended to affect either a national missile, continental ground-based national missile defense system or--in fact, if anything it is intended to help save more money to put into theater missile defense instead of putting it into star wars.

Mr. EDWARDS. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, did the gentleman say of a ballistic missile system?

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified by the form at the desk to conform to the adoption of the Spratt amendment.

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

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. He and I have worked together on many issues. I respect the gentleman's leadership on our committee. I would just say in this particular case, Mr. Chairman, I happen to believe that after having spent already $30 billion and some 12 years on star wars, enough is enough. Finally here is a time to say no. I understand the gentleman's comments, but I would say to the Members, I just think that after 12 years and $30 billion, and not one brilliant pebble in space, it is time to end the program.

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