Chet Edwards

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I just wanted to have the gentleman clarify, as he just did, that the chart does not refer to star wars. It is a ground-based missile defense system and that some estimates for a star wars space- based system go from $11 billion to $50 billion and even Gen. Colin Powell has said that the national missile defense system would take away funds from other important defense programs.

Mr. EDWARDS. No. In this perfecting amendment, as I mentioned a few minutes ago based on the gentleman's request, this amendment does not change the intent or the content in any way of my original amendment. The only purpose of this change is to adapt my language to the Spratt amendment that had been recently adopted.

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.

Mr. EDWARDS. Rather than deal with hypotheticals, let me let the words speak for themselves. They basically would prohibit space-based interceptors for a ballistic missile defense system.

Mr. EDWARDS. If the theater missile defense system would require space-based interceptors, on that issue I am not aware of a particular program that is recommending that.

Mr. EDWARDS. In the 30 or 40 seconds I had, I simply went to the Parliamentarian to see if technically, because of the passage of the previous amendment, any changes needed to be made. I was told, I believe in good faith, at one point it might not be necessary.

Mr. EDWARDS. To answer the question of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] about the passage of the previous amendment, in good faith, Mr. Chairman, I approached the Parliamentarians and asked them if it would be necessary to have a perfecting amendment, so my amendment would be in order. At one point, I can say in good faith, the interpretation I received was that would not be necessary. It is presently my intent to ask for consent to have simply a technical, conforming amendment to see that the exact same language we had had in my previous amendment would apply correctly to this language.

Mr. EDWARDS. I would like to say this to my friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. EDWARDS. If the gentleman will yield, I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman is agreeing with me in his earlier comments when he says he is not really interested in deploying in the near term a star wars space-based interceptor system. If that is correct and if that is the view of the majority side, the Republicans in this body, then let us simply accept this amendment and move on. My amendment simply stops star wars. It does not affect space- based sensors. It does not stop the deployment.

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am a defense hawk, and I believe national defense should be a nonpartisan issue. Even though defense should be a nonpartisan issue, I am disappointed that the Republican rule has resulted in 204 Democrats only having 15 minutes to present our side on the issue of star wars, a multibillion- dollar defense program. I think that is unfair, and I think it is wrong. But the good news is, Mr. Chairman, that some programs and some ideas are so bad, they should not take that long to defeat, and star wars is right at the top of that list. My friend who spoke awhile ago, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], suggested that Republicans are not interested in building star wars. If that is correct, then every Republican should vote for my amendment. My amendment does not stop a ground-based missile defense system to protect the United States. It does not even stop space based sensors. All my amendment does is say no to the deployment of a space- based missile system known as star wars. Mr. Chairman, the fact is that our military leaders in this Nation do not even want star wars, and our taxpayers cannot afford it. American taxpayers have already spent $30 billion on this pie-in-the-sky boondoggle, and we do not even have one brilliant pebble to show for it. Thirty billion dollars, and 12 years later we do not even know if star wars will work. paying $10,000 in taxes a year would have to work for 3 million years to pay for what we have already wasted in star wars. The original cost estimates for Brilliant Pebbles have been increased 200 fold. That is not twofold, that is not 20 percent, but 200 fold. So nobody knows the ultimate cost of the star wars deployment. A star wars cost of $25 billion, a generally accepted estimate by many experts, would basically fund the direct operating costs of the United States Armored Army Division for some 200 years. To put that $25 billion figure in perspective, Mr. Chairman, all the talk about welfare reform, the AFDC program at the Federal level, if reformers were to save 20 percent of that welfare program's cost, it would take 10 to 15 years to pay for that star wars cost program. Mr. Chairman, to promise a balanced budget, to reduce taxes, and to say you are going to build star wars in space, is nothing but voodoo economics, Part II. It does not add up, it does not make sense, and it certainly will not work. Star wars is not just fiscally irresponsible though. It presents a false sense of security. It is like putting a $5,000 burglar alarm on the front door of your house, and yet keeping the front windows of your house open and the back door of your house locked. Now, surely some thug or some terrorist smart enough to put a nuclear warhead on the top of an ICBM missile, would have the intelligence to take that warhead, rent a U-Haul truck, and deliver it to any city within the United States. Mr. Chairman, star wars will suck billions of dollars away from theater missile defense, desperately needed dollars, from military pay raises and weapons modernization, the reasons why so many military leaders oppose star wars. Republicans on the one hand are saying cut child nutrition, yes, even cut education funding for the children of military families, but yet let us write a blank check for star wars. Mr. Chairman, that is wrong, and it is wrong-headed. Even Adm. William Crowe, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Reagan from 1985 to 1989, said star wars does not make sense. Mr. Chairman, star wars is a budget buster, star wars is bad for defense, star wars is an idea whose time has come and gone. It is time to say no to star wars, and that is what this amendment does. point of order

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. I am not asking this House to accept my judgment. I can pull out all the experts you would like: Gen. Colin Powell who said a national missile defense system is a waste and would take money away from important defense priorities. I could quote Admiral Crowe who was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for 4 years under President Reagan who said that this would be a dangerous program. This is not Chet Edwards' idea on February 15, 1995. This was debated for 12 years, $30 billion was spent. This program was stopped. And now in a short debate it is trying to be revived.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time to me. I know the hour is late, but I happen to represent over 40,000 Army soldiers at Fort Hood, TX. I do not come to this floor often. If Members will look at my record over 4 years, I seldom come this floor in a partisan manner. However, Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor at this late hour in saying to my colleagues that this is an important issue. We ought to look beyond partisanship in deciding how much time is it worth for us to debate our national security issues. I am a hawk on defense, Mr. Speaker. I believe we ought to spend more on defense. If I could get to the right of the gentleman from Texas, Charlie Wilson, on defense, I would do it. I believe national defense, along with many of my colleagues, is the single most important responsibility of the Federal Government, and it deserves more than 10 hours of debate. If it does not deserve it, Mr. Speaker, then certainly the lives of our men and women in the Services deserve it. How much is the life an one Army soldier worth? 10 Hours? How much is the life of one Marine worth? 10 hours? How much is the life of thousands and thousands of American servicemen and women worth? Certainly it should be worth more than 10 hours. Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that the Contract that we sign as Members of Congress to try to protect the lives of the men and women brave enough to put their lives on the line for us, that that contract is more important than the time schedule of a Contract for America.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the gentleman. Texas, $215 million, Utah, $15 million, Vermont $9 million, Virginia $41 million, Washington State $45 million, West Virginia $12 million, Wisconsin $27 million, Wyoming would lose $10 million. Mr. Chairman, it defies common sense to say that these millions of dollars out of prison money in 47 States would somehow be tough on criminals. Vote ``yes'' on the commonsense Schumer prison amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, if there is anything the American people are crying out for these days, it is for common sense. I think this amendment ought to be called the commonsense prison amendment of 1995. This is a truth-in- serving amendment, maybe more so than a truth-in-sentencing amendment. I am much more concerned about truth in serving time in jail than in some sort of notion of truth-in-sentencing. Let me put in very simple terms this complicated debate. Let us take Texas, for example. I served in the Texas Senate for 8 years. We have very tough sentencing requirements for crimes and felons in our State. Take an example: Texas gives a sentence for a serious felony of 100 years. That inmate, that felon serves 80 years. Another State, for the exact same crime, sentences someone to 20 years in prison, and they serve 17 years. So the inmate serves 80 years in prison in Texas, they only serve 17 years in the other State, but the other State gets the prison money and Texas does not. Now, where is the common sense in that? Would you not rather have somebody serve 80 years in prison if he raped a three-year-old child than to serve 17 years in another State and be rewarded for that? The way the bill reads without this amendment, you could actually be rewarding States who have a rapist serve 17 years rather than 80 years. That is pretty simple to understand, and it just does not make common sense. I would like to be very specific in my remaining time and ask the question of the gentleman from West Virginia as to what each State will lose. I would pose this to my Republican colleagues as well as my Democratic colleagues, that, in effect, if you vote ``no'' on this commonsense prison amendment, this is what you are voting to cut your own State out of in terms of new prison funding: Alabama will lose $56 million; Alaska, $12 million; Arizona might actually qualify for $44 million, one of the 3 States that might qualify. If you are from Arkansas and you vote against this amendment, you are taking $28 million out of your prisons in Arkansas. If you are from California and you vote again this amendment, you are taking $475 million our of your State prison system. In Colorado you are taking $35 million out. Connecticut would lose $32 million. Delaware is a lucky State, they may gain $14 million, even if this amendment does not pass. Florida, as has been mentioned, will lose $230 million. Georgia would lose $77 million, Hawaii would lose $12 million, Idaho would lose $12 million, Illinois would lose $175 million if our colleagues defeat this amendment. Indiana would lose $48 million, Iowa $20 million, Kansas $25 million, Kentucky $30 million, Louisiana would lose $64 million, Maine would lose $10 million. If our friends from Maryland vote against this amendment, their State will lose $73 million in prison construction money. Massachusetts would lose $69 million, Michigan $110 million, Minnesota $27 million, Missouri $63 million, Mississippi $22 million. We would lie $15 million from Nebraska. Nevada would lose $20 million; New Hampshire would lose $9 million if you vote against this amendment. New Jersey, if our Republican friends from New Jersey vote against this commonsense prison amendment, their State would lose $77 million. That is extra money that will have to come out of their State taxpayers' pockets to build the prisons that could be built with this amendment. New Mexico would lose $26 million, New York, New York would lose $300 million. I would be amazed, I could not understand any Republican or Democratic Member from the State of New York would vote against this amendment and say to the taxpayers of New York, ``We are going to take $300 million out of your pockets that you are going to have to find if you want to be tough on these criminals.'' North Carolina, one of those three lucky States, may get $70 million regardless. North Dakota would lose $8 million. Ohio, $90 million, Oklahoma $34 million, Oregon $29 million, Pennsylvania $83 million, Rhode Island $14 million, South Carolina $56 million, South Dakota $9 million, Tennessee $58 million. I hope someone else will finish this list.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I am amazed. Just 4 days ago, the House Republican leadership effectively killed the Skelton amendment which would have exempted major national defense programs from the line-item veto. By opposing the Skelton amendment just last Thursday and opposing the Orton amendment today, Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership of this House and everyone who follows it is saying this: ``It's OK for a President to be able to veto strategic missile defense, and the B-2 bomber, and the F-22, the C-17, the V-22 helicopter. It's OK to veto military pay increases. But it's not OK to be able to veto a bridge, or a road, or pork-barrel highway projects if you call them demonstration projects.'' The Republican leadership is saying, ``We won't fight to protect major defense programs, but we will go the wall to protect pork-barrel projects and highways if you just call them demonstration programs.'' Mr. Chairman, any Member who voted against the Skelton amendment on Thursday, an amendment that would have protected national defense, should think twice before opposing this amendment today. I say to my colleagues, ``If you believe in a strong national defense, if you have a military base in your district or defense jobs in your district, I wish you good luck in trying to explain to your constituents why you voted today to protect bridges and roads but voted just last Thursday, 4 days ago, not to protect national defense from the line-item veto.'' Mr. Chairman, I think most Americans will be shocked to find out that the Contract of America now says that highway pork is more important than national defense. Our motto ``Don't Tread on Me'' has taken on a new meaning. It means now a President can veto defense, but cannot veto highway pork. For years, for years, my Republican colleagues have attacked Democratic pork. Now, less than 30 days into this new session, are we seeing the beginning of new Republican pork? It might have a different label on it, but it has got the same fat level as the old pork, and it surely is just as well going to clog the arteries of our taxpayers' pockets. When new Republican Members of Congress were elected by saying there would be no sacred cows in the Federal budget, surely the American people did not think sacred cows would be replaced by sacred pork. As one retired Republican Member said not too long ago, to paraphrase, ``Members, you can't hate pork but keep protecting the bacon.'' Vote no on pork. Vote ``yes'' on the Orton amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, it is my personal pleasure and privilege to introduce our guest chaplain of today, Dr. Kenneth Massey of my hometown of Waco, TX, a personal friend and my wife's pastor. He is a native of Beaumont, TX, graduated from Baylor University in 1978. In 1984 and 1987 he received a masters and doctoral degrees from Southwestern Seminary in Forth Worth. He pastored in Garland, TX and Marks, MS, and has been at Calvary Baptist in Waco since 1990. He is married to Sara Miller Massey and has three wonderful children, Kristen, Aaron, and Adreana. He enjoys hunting, golf, and reading and, in addition to a great pastorhood for Calvary Baptist, he has reached out to the community of Waco, TX, with his religious beliefs and convictions to all of the people of our great city.

Mr. EDWARDS

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

Mr. EDWARDS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson]. I can think of no Member of this House who can speak more sincerely and more genuinely and who has given more to this country in its national defense than the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Peterson].

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am a prodefense Democrat. I believe that guaranteeing a strong national defense is the first responsibility of the Federal Government. It has been so for 200 years of our Nation's history. Whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, if you believe truly in a strong national defense, you should vote ``yes'' on Skelton amendment. Let me be very clear: A vote against this amendment is a vote against protecting our Nation's defense. To my Democratic colleagues and to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] for his leadership, to my Republican colleagues, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Stump], the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon], who have cosponsored this in a bipartisan fashion, I say thank you. To my Republican colleagues who might be thinking about voting against this amendment, let me have you ask yourself a question. Do you want a President, perhaps the President that you will least like to see in the Oval Office, and only one-third of this House, or only one-third of our Senate, to be able to veto ballistic missile defense, or the B-2, or the V-22, or the F-22, or perhaps a military operation in your district? Do you want that to happen? Do you want this President that you would like not to see sitting in the Oval Office and one-third of this House to be able to cut the size of the Army by two divisions, and you would be helpless to stop it? I say to my colleagues, if that's what you want, then oppose the Skelton amendment. To my colleagues, both Republican and Democratic who are very strong in favor of national defense, I say, if you vote no on this amendment, you are voting to make it easier to gut our national defense period. If that happens, make no mistake about it. You will have done more to hurt our defense programs than any liberal Democrat who believes our defense budget genuinely should be cut in half. The choice is clear. If you believe national defense is the most important responsibility of the Federal Government, then you should vote aye on this amendment. If you believe national defense is more important than the whims or the political agenda of any one President of either party, then you should support this amendment. If you vote no on this amendment, do not try to defend your vote by saying you wanted a pure bill with no exemptions. Mr. Chairman, defense deserves to be treated differently. If deserves to be exempted because the lives of our young service men and women and the national security of our Nation and our future are far more important than some blind commitment to vote against all amendments. I say, the choice is clear, my colleagues. If you want to protect a strong national defense, the only vote on this amendment is a yes vote.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne] for allowing me the chance to talk about the balanced budget amendment, and I want to express my gratitude for the strong leadership of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne] over the years in keeping this issue alive before this Congress and the American people. Mr. Speaker, this week the House will vote on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I believe this issue is the single most important issue that the 104th Congress will face. Why? Because the balanced budget amendment is not just about this year's deficit. It is about saving our children and grandchildren from drowning in a sea of national debt. I am proud of the fact that 66 Democrats have now committed to voting for the Schaefer-Stenholm balanced budget amendment. For the first time in the history of our country we now have a two-thirds vote in this House to pass a constitutional balanced budget amendment if all Republicans in this House will vote for it. The fate of the balanced budget amendment now lies in the hands of our House Republican colleagues with whom many of us have worked for many years. Mr. Speaker, I will most likely vote for the Barton amendment as well, the amendment which requires a three-fifths vote to increase taxes, because I see nothing greatly wrong with the idea of making it more difficult for this system to raise taxes on our voters and our constituents. But let no one in this body or in this country be misled. There clearly are not enough votes to pass the Barton budget amendment in this House. My Republican friends know it. My Democratic friends know it. House Members know it. Senators know it. And the American people deserve to know it. For anyone to suggest otherwise is simply pure partisan politics. Mr. Speaker, opponents of the balanced budget amendment constantly say, ``Why do we need to put this budget amendment in the Constitution?'' I would like to begin by offering two answers. The first is very simply: Nothing else has worked. It has been since 1969 that the Federal Government saw a balanced budget. It has been over 25 years since this body passed a balanced budget. Twenty-five years of debt is simply too long, and we cannot stand for it. Second, I think the balanced budget amendment is about an important issue, an issue no less important than the fundamental right of property rights, but by requiring a balanced budget amendment we are basically saying we want to protect the future property rights of our children and grandchildren from being spent by today's Congress. In the history of the writing of our Constitution few rights could have been considered more important then, or even now, than the protection of property rights. Clearly the protection of the property rights of our grandchildren deserves a sacred place in our Constitution. Finally, there are many other reasons, specific reasons, why we should pass this balanced budget amendment, but let me simply say on a practical note to those American families that I cannot relate to a trillion dollar debt, and now we are facing a $4.7 trillion debt. Let me put it terms that the average American family can understand. This year we will pay $238 billion in interest on the debt alone. That is more than the entire Federal budget in 1972. In personal terms, for working families, every man, woman, and child, regardless of age this year, on average will have to pay $887 in interest, in interest, and national debt. Not a dollar of that $887 goes to building a new schoolhouse, helping a child get a better education, building roads and infrastructure in our country, or providing for our national defense. An average family of four in America, a working family, will pay the equivalent of $3,500 in taxes this year simply to pay for interest on the national debt. The time to pass a balanced budget amendment is now, and with the support of Democrats and House Members working together, as we have worked for years, I am confident, Mr. Speaker, and with the leadership of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm] and the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Schaefer], and the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Payne], and others that will speak today, I am confident we will do the right thing for the future of America and pass a balanced budget constitutional amendment.

Mr. EDWARDS

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, today, I would like to recognize a group of individuals, a team, whose strive for sportsmanship and fairness in scholastic sports have made them champions, not only in their game, but in their daily lives as well. I extend my sincere congratulations to the Thorndale High School Bulldogs of Thorndale, TX, who captured the 1994 Class 1A State Championship on December 17, 1994 before an overflow crowd of more that 12,000 at Wildcat Stadium in Temple, TX. Defeating the Crawford High School Pirates, another school from my congressional district, the Bulldogs took their first State championship since 1989. This achievement could not have been possible if not for the support of the student body and parents of Thorndale. This victory also, if not more so, comes through the dedication of coach Don Cowan and his staff. They, too, must be congratulated for the role they took in shaping the lives of these winners, winners who by accepting this victory also accept a responsibility to be victorious throughout their lives and give back to their communities. I urge my colleagues to join me today in recognizing and honoring the players, coaches, students, and parents of Thornadale, TX.