Education

An interview in the Dallas Morning News ^[1] (Similar questionairre answered by Rob Curnock):

QUESTION: If Congress doesn’t renew the No Child Left Behind Act, how would you guarantee schools have demanding standards? How would you make sure children are doing math and reading at grade level?

ANSWER: The No Child Left Behind Act was well-intentioned, but is has been under funded and poorly managed. Schools should be accountable to taxpayers for providing a quality education for all children, but tests should not be the only criteria for success. Common sense would also suggest changes such as not punishing schools that have more than 1 to 2% of children with serious learning disabilities. I have repeatedly voted to more fully fund schools for math, science, reading and tutoring programs, so that "no child left behind" can be a reality, not a slogan.

Educational Training

With a vote of 416-0 the House of Representative approved the Green Energy Education Act of 2007 (H.R. 1716) in June of 2007. The bill will allow the Secretary of Energy to contribute research and development funds to the National Science Foundation for the purpose of supporting graduate education that is related to energy technology. It also authorizes the Secretary to provide funds for the improvement of undergraduate and graduate engineering and architecture curriculum on the design and construction of "high performance buildings." Representative Edwards voted for this bill. H.R. 1716 was ultimately integrated into the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272) which is now law, but was not fully funded in the budget.

Educational Funding

Representative Edwards voted for the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act (H.R. 362). The legislation will require the National Science Foundation to increase its funding of the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program with the goal of increasing the number of math and science teachers by up to 10,000 per year. The Noyce program provides scholarships to math, science, technology, and engineering students who commit to becoming teachers upon graduation. The legislation passed with a vote of 389-22.

Teaching Evolution/Intelligent Design

Nothing posted to date

Energy

Fuel Economy Standards

See discussion of CLEAN Energy Act under Renewable Energy section.

Nuclear Power

Nothing posted to date

Renewable Energy

In January of 2007, the House of Representatives passed the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007 (H.R. 6). This legislation is intended to address a royalties oversight that occurred when the Department of the Interior issued leases for off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico from 1998 to 1999. The bill would also deny income tax deductions for oil and gas companies. Revenues generated from these provisions would be used for the development of alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. Opponents of the bill claimed that the legislation would raise costs for the domestic production of oil and could increase foreign oil imports. Representative Edwards voted for this legislation, which passed with a vote of 264-163.

During consideration of H.R. 6 in June of 2007, the Senate changed the focus of the legislation into developing a more comprehensive energy bill that focused on the development of renewable fuels, energy conservation, and increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. In the face of a veto threat from President Bush, the House passed the Senate version of H.R. 6 with amendments by a vote of 235-181 on December 6, 2007. Representative Edwards voted for this bill. The final Senate rendering of the bill, which passed with a vote of 86-8, still included language raising CAFE standards to 35 mpg by 2020. The final version of the bill passed in the House with a vote of 314-100 and was signed into law by President Bush on December 19, 2007.

In August 2007, Representative Edwards voted against the final passage of the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007 (H.R. 3221). The legislation would provide tax incentives to promote the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency, including guaranteeing up to $1 billion in loans for the development of biorefineries and biofuel production facilities. The measure also would repeal tax deductions to income attributed to the domestic production of oil and natural gas. It passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 241-172 and was sent to the Senate.

A controversial amendment to the bill was H. Amdt. 748 sponsored by Representative Udall. This amendment would require retail electric suppliers to provide 15% of their electricity through a renewable energy portfolio standard (RPS) by 2020. Representative Edwards voted against the amendment, which was adopted with a vote of 220 to 190.

Environment

Thomas Edwards is a proponent of monitoring air quality in Texas to establish whether it meets the requirements of the clean air act. This is beyond the current 37-mile radius that is monitored. He has revised legislation to more thoroughly assess impact of coal burning power plants on air quality in Texas. ^[2]

An interview in the Dallas Morning News ^[3] (Similar questionairre answered by Rob Curnock):

QUESTION: How should Congress deal with climate change? For example, should it pursue a cap-and-trade system to control emissions?

ANSWER: I believe climate change is a serious challenge that we must address and the sooner the better. Our nation must take responsible steps to address climate change to preserve our environment for future generations, and we should pressure other nations such as China to do the same. In 2007, I voted for the first increase in automobile fuel efficiency standards in over 20 years. I also support increased public and private research for renewable sources of energy and am working to improve environmental protections in the permitting process for new coal fired plants. Nuclear power and increased domestic natural gas production should be encouraged as a means of reducing greenhouse emissions. I would be open to consider a system of cap-and-trades to control pollution emissions, but I would want to review the details of such a plan before voting on it.

Climate Change

Nothing posted to date

Health

Healthcare

In April of 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007 (H.R. 493) with a vote of 420-3. Representative Edwards voted for this bill. If enacted, GINA will prevent health insurance companies from adjusting premiums on the basis of genetic information and forbid requiring individuals to undergo genetic tests. The bill will also prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of genetic information. This legislation was passed by the Senate in a vote of 95-0. The House passed the Senate amended version of the bill on May 1, 2008, by a vote of 415-1. Rep Ron Paul was the only representative to vote against the bill. President Bush signed GINA into law on May 21, 2008.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In December 2005, Congress passed the Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act of 2005 (H.R. 2520), which President Bush signed on December 20, 2005. The law "creates a new Federal program to collect and store cord blood, and expands the current bone marrow registry program to also include cord blood." Representative Edwards voted for this bill. The legislation passed the House of Representatives with a vote of 431-1 and passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

Non-Embryonic Stem Cell Research

In April of 2007, Congress passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 (S. 5), which would have overturned President Bush's ban on the use of federal funding for research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9, 2001. Representative Edwards voted for the legislation. The bill passed the House of Representatives with a vote of 247-176 and the Senate with a vote of 63-34. President Bush vetoed both this legislation and an identical bill that was passed by Congress in 2006.

On September 25, 2007, the House passed the final version of the “Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act” (H.R. 976) with a vote of 265-169. This bill would have increased funding for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $50 billion dollars over five years. Opponents saw the bill as too costly and were critical of the funding methods for the program, including a cigarette tax increase (read the floor debate). Representative Edwards voted for this legislation.

On October 3, 2007, President Bush vetoed H.R. 976, citing that the bill moved too many children towards federally funded healthcare. The House attempted to override the President’s veto, but the measure failed to pass with a vote count of 273-156. Representative Edwards voted for the veto override. On December 29, 2007, President Bush signed the Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (S. 2499) which extends funding for SCHIP through March of 2009, but does not significantly increase the program.

On January 23, 2008, the House once again failed with a vote of 260-152 to pass H.R. 3963 to override President Bush’s veto of SCHIP. Representative Edwards voted for this legislation.

An interview in the Dallas Morning News ^[4] (Similar questionairre answered by Rob Curnock):

QUESTION: "Who should take the lead in expanding access to health care: Washington or the states? If Washington, should the federal government require employers to provide insurance for workers? Or should Washington require individuals to buy it for themselves? In return for everyone buying insurance, must insurers offer coverage to all people regardless of preexisting conditions?

ANSWER: Making health care affordable and accessible to all Americans is a laudable goal that will require a public-private partnership between health care providers and local, state and federal governments. Until we find a way to make health care more affordable, I don't believe a federal mandate on employers or employees would work, because it would put an enormous financial strain on many companies and families. A health insurance tax credit or deduction for employers and/or employees could be a key component of expanding health care to the uninsured.

It is a growing national tragedy that 47 million Americans lack basic health insurance coverage, and part of the solution must be to make health insurance portable and affordable for those with pre-existing conditions. Until we develop a national, bipartisan consensus on how to make affordable health care available to all, I am a strong supporter of expanding the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and allowing small businesses to join health care alliances to reduce insurance premiums. I also support allowing the importation of lower priced drugs from Canada, Mexico and other nations and believe that electronic medical records could reduce health care costs significantly. For the 5.8 million veterans who depend on the VA health care system, in 2007 I successfully authored and passed the largest increase in VA health care funding in our nation's history. Our veterans deserve the quality health care our nation promised them in return for their service to country.

QUESTION: Do you think Medicare and Social Security need reforming? If so, please be specific about which reforms you favor. For example, do you favor changing any benefit levels? Which program deserves attention first?

ANSWER: I know that Social Security and Medicare have done more for seniors' independence, health and financial security than any other federal initiatives. I oppose privatization of these vital programs, which will erode guaranteed benefits to seniors and undermine the financial viability of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Reducing federal deficits, which I helped accomplish in the 1990's, would be one of the most important steps in protecting the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare in the face of millions of baby boomers' retirements.

In January 2007, I voted for the Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act, which will cut the cost of health care and improve access to medicines by requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate with drug companies to lower prices for Medicare Part D beneficiaries. I believe the passage of this bill is an important step toward ensuring seniors' access to quality health care and prescription drugs, and I will continue to support reforms to the Medicare prescription drug program that work to achieve relief for beneficiaries.

Addressing the long-term financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare will require good-faith, bipartisan cooperation, and I would propose that the next president put together a balanced, bipartisan commission, including Members of Congress and the Administration, to seek sensible means to maintain the viability of these crucial programs.

Innovation

On August 9, 2007, President Bush signed the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science (COMPETES) Act (H.R. 2272) into law. The law authorizes the doubling of funding for the National Science Foundation over the next seven years, increased funding for the National Institute of Standards and Technology and competitive grants for teachers and schools with the goal of strengthening the quality of education in science, math, and critical foreign languages. The bill was passed with unanimous consent in the Senate and was agreed to by a vote of 367-57 by the House after being reconciled in a conference committee. Representative Edwards voted for this legislation. The America COMPETES Act was not fully funded in 2008.

Research and Research Management

Funding

In May of 2007, Representative Edwards voted for the final passage of the National Science Foundation Funding Authorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 1867), which authorizes appropriations for the National Science Foundation for the fiscal years 2008, 2009 and 2010. The final vote count was 399 to 17.

During debate on this legislation, H. Amdt. 128 was offered by Rep. Honda that will allow the NSF to support the creation of K-12 curriculum focused on global warming, climate change, and actions people can take to lower greenhouse gas emissions. Rep. Sullivan of Oklahoma offered a secondary amendment, H. Amdt. 129, that would have required the education materials referenced in Rep. Honda’s amendment to "reflect the diversity of scientific opinion, including the diversity of opinion regarding the impact of human activities on climate change." Congressional Democrats criticized the Sullivan amendment as seeming "to suggest that there is an equal weight of evidence against that perspective [that humans are causing climate change] as there is in favor of it" (read the full debate). The Sullivan amendment failed by a vote of 166 to 250. The Honda Amendment passed by a vote of 252 to 165.

Representative Edwards voted against the Sullivan amendment and voted for the Honda Amendment.

Endnotes

1. ↑ http://www.thevoterguide.org/a-dallas/race-detail.do;jsessionid=3E16A3965E6604D2D9EB3AF7E1836164?id=10003196
2. ↑ http://www.wikio.com/politics/government/house_of_representatives/chet_edwards?wfid=38646433
3. ↑ http://www.thevoterguide.org/a-dallas/race-detail.do;jsessionid=3E16A3965E6604D2D9EB3AF7E1836164?id=10003196
4. ↑ http://www.thevoterguide.org/a-dallas/race-detail.do;jsessionid=3E16A3965E6604D2D9EB3AF7E1836164?id=10003196