Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) for his courage and commitment in moving this bill forward. I want to particularly commend him for including the language in section 401 that deals with the establishment of a new pilot program that will allow the coordination of payments of benefits. This was the thrust of legislation, H.R. 4575, introduced earlier by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and myself. She has the same challenge I have, a lot of veterans in her congressional district that are served only by a clinic and not a full-service hospital. Her assistance has been critical in moving this initiative forward. I also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) who have worked with me on this issue for 4 years, and, of course, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), ranking member, who has been very gracious. He had a very lengthy meeting with me and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) earlier in August to try to work with us on moving forward on this issue. I also want to mention the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez) who has offered his support for this provision and, of course, the Republican and Democratic staff on the committee who have worked very, very hard. My experience on this issue comes from my background, not only as a veteran, the son of a World War II combat-wounded Purple Heart veteran, but as well as a physician who did part of his training in a VA hospital; and, indeed, I continue to volunteer some of my time at the Veterans Health Care Clinic in my congressional district. So I think I can come to this debate with a little bit of perspective. The veterans want three things. They want access, access, access. They want access to quality care. They want access to specialty care. They want access to care that is close to home. They do not want to be told to pack their bags, to travel across the State, or, worse, to travel to another State to get their health care. Now, we have operated a pilot program in my congressional district for the last several years. More than 1,000 veterans have received care under this program. Did they like it? Ninety-eight percent said they liked it a lot and would recommend it to a friend. Did it cost more money? No. Actually, it saved the Veterans Administration 15 to 20 percent over cost being provided in a veterans hospital. When it was stopped by the Veterans Administration in September of last year, the veterans in my congressional district demanded that it be restarted, and it was in July of this year. However, the Veterans Administration excluded veterans over 65 because they are covered by Medicare. Now, I would like to read a letter that was sent to me by the wife of a veteran, Mrs. Gay Tatro. She wrote: ``My husband was probably one of the first'' veterans ``in the County admitted to the hospital on the Pilot Program in May 1998 and one of the last in September 1999. Both times, plus a couple of hospitalizations in between, he would have been sent to Tampa.'' Now, Tampa is clean across the State. It is a 3-hour drive from my congressional district. She goes on to say: ``This would have created a substantial hardship both financially and emotionally. In this last hospitalization, the doctors were talking about amputating part of his foot. To have to go to Tampa and deal with this type of trauma by himself would have been unthinkable. The alternative: I would have to stay out of work plus pay for accommodations in Tampa to be near him.'' Section 401 of this bill establishes a new pilot program that would allow the coordination of benefits. It would allow it to be established in three additional sites. There are many underserved areas in this country. Brownsville, Texas; Santa Barbara, California and many others where veterans have to travel hours. Now, there have been some people, including some we have heard today, who have raised some concerns about this provision of the bill. They seem to center on two things. The first one is that it moves the Veterans Administration away from the business of providing care to one of ensuring care. To the veterans in my congressional district and those in other underserved areas, I can tell my colleagues they do not care. They want to get quality health care close to home, and these kinds of debates are irrelevant to them. They are certainly irrelevant to the Tatros. They want quality health care close to home. The other issue that they bring up is that resources could be drained from existing facilities that are currently providing care. This reminds me of, in many ways, FDR's old speech: ``The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.'' I cannot imagine a situation where the chairman, the ranking member would allow services to be drained to provide for care for those veterans and underserved areas, drained from one area to another. The issue here is making sure our veterans get the quality health care they need. What is clear is the status quo is unacceptable. The status quo is a two-tiered system, Mr. Speaker, a system where we have two kinds of veterans, those who live close to a facility and those who live far away and have to travel. What we are trying to do in this provision is address the needs of those so they do not have to travel; and for those who live close to a facility, to turn to those veterans who live far away and say, no, no, no, we do not want to provide health care to you close to home, because it might affect my health care where I get my care close to the hospital is unacceptable. This is the richest country in the world. This is the most powerful country in the world. We can take care of both groups, and this bill provides for that. I encourage all my colleagues to not succumb to the arguments of the theoretical or to succumb to the arguments of fear, but support this provision, support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that this provision is endorsed by the VFW and the American Legion. I believe it is the right thing for us to do for our veterans. We can provide quality health care to all of our veterans, and that is what we are trying to do. General Leave

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. I, too, would like to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the full committee and as well the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), for the bipartisan willingness to work together to try to get a bill through. I would also like to acknowledge the staff that worked very hard on this, Eric Sterner on the majority side and Dick Obermann. I believe we have before us a good piece of legislation that the President should be pleased to sign into law. It has been said several times that this is the first NASA bill in 8 years. It may also be the first NASA bill to come to the floor of the House while astronauts are orbiting above us as we speak. The Shuttle Atlantis was launched a week ago Friday, and they are completing the initial preparations for making the Space Station ready for a permanent crew, or a crew that will stay on orbit for 4 months that will be launched in November. They are currently working on a lot of electrical work, on getting the station ready and putting a lot of supplies up there. I think it is a tremendous milestone that we have reached to be able to see the Space Station finally coming together, it has been very hotly debated on the floor of this body, and as well for us to be moving ahead with important legislative priorities for how we are going to manage the Space Station. One of the features in this bill that I am quite pleased with, and I would just like to echo the comments made by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) about some of the educational priorities in the bill, I think they are very good. I am particularly pleased about the feature in this bill establishing a new approach to how we handle commercial space. I believe if space is ever going to be utilized the way I think many of us would like to see it utilized, we have to really see a flourishing of commercial operations in space. What we are trying to do in this legislation is take a new approach as to how we do commercial space. I think it has a tremendous potential to be successful. The proof of the pudding is, of course, always in the eating, so time will tell, but I was very pleased to be able to work with the minority in crafting this bill, and I think it is a good future direction for NASA. NASA is about the future, and I think we have a lot of reasons to be very pleased with this bill. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express disappointment over Mr. Clinton's veto of the bipartisan bill to eliminate the death tax and vowed to work to override the veto once the bill is returned to the House for consideration. Death tax repeal legislation was passed in the House with a strong bipartisan vote (279-136) in June. This bill would help working Americans who have built up family owned small businesses or family farms. I am pleased with the broad support this repeal legislation received across the political spectrum and I hope this will help us override this ill-advised veto. The death tax unfairly forces many working families to sell the family businesses or a family farm just to pay the exorbitant taxes. This is a confiscatory tax that takes half of what someone has spent a lifetime building. When this bill becomes law, it will disinvite the Internal Revenue Service to the funeral. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Gore have injected class warfare into this debate. But they must come to realize that this tax is burdensome to all small business owners, including many first generation minority- owned and women-owned businesses. Small business owners have spent years building up family businesses in the hopes of passing them down to their children. The death tax kills these dreams. It forces these families to completely start over. Repealing this tax will also help preserve open spaces. As cities encroach on agricultural lands, the estate tax forces most of these families to sell the farm to developers in order to pay the death taxes. Passing the death tax repeal will help us preserve these open spaces. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), more than 70 percent of small businesses do not survive the second generation and 87 percent do not make it to the third generation. Sixty percent of small-business owners report that they would create new jobs over the coming year if estate taxes were eliminated. Repealing this unfair tax would help preserve small businesses, farms, and open spaces. It would keep family businesses together. It would keep family farms in families. It would create new jobs. Let's pass this repeal.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the ``Social Security Benefits Tax Relief Act of 2000'' (H.R. 4865) repeals the tax on Social Security benefits created in the 1993 Clinton-Gore budget plan. This tax costs more than 8 million seniors an average of $1,180 a year. In 1993, Vice-President Gore cast the Senate tie-breaking vote to join with the Democrat-led House that imposed this tax on Social Security. I believe seniors should be able to keep their hundred bucks a month instead of having to send it to Washington. It's time to repeal the tax on Social Security to let Florida's seniors keep more of the benefits they earned. In an era of budget surpluses, it's wrong to punish seniors with a tax that's outlived its purpose. Social Security checks shouldn't arrive in the mailbox with a bill from the IRS attached. I am committed to improving the lives of Florida's seniors. Earlier this year, I voted to eliminate the Social Security earnings limit and in favor of a prescription drug benefit. These were done in addition to ending the 40-year Democrat raid on the Social Security trust fund. I am deeply disturbed that the President refuses to help America's seniors and is indicating that he will veto this tax equity bill for our senior citizens.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me the time, and I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. The gentlewoman offered this amendment last year and it was defeated by a vote of 188 to 230. The provision that the gentlewoman is offering seeks to strike language that has been included in this legislation for years. The funding restriction in the bill addresses the same core issue as the Hyde amendment, should the Federal Government be in the business of funding abortions? Should taxpayers be forced to underwrite the cost of abortions for Federal employees? This debate is not one involving the legality of abortion. It is about using taxpayer dollars for abortions. The point is that the vast majority of Americans feel very strongly that taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions in the United States of America. Some people may try to claim that this is just another medical procedure. We all know that this is not just another medical procedure. It is a very unique procedure where one of the participants in the procedure ends up dead. I have been a practicing internist for 20 years, and I would argue that the unborn baby in the womb is not a potential life. It meets all of the medical criteria for a life. The criteria that I used as a practicing physician to determine whether somebody is alive or dead, a beating heart, active brain waves; indeed, using modern ultrasound technology today, we can show as early as just a few weeks of life activity on the part of the developing fetus, moving arms and moving legs. The Supreme Court, the Court that created legalized abortion in America, has actually ruled on this issue upholding the Hyde amendment language. The Court said, abortion is inherently different from other medical procedures because no other procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life. They used the word potential there, I say it is a life. Mr. Chairman, I reject this amendment and I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1102, the 401-K--IRA Pension Expansion Plan. Mr. Speaker, I am a co-sponsor of this measure that will help the over 70 million Americans who need the benefits of this plan. It is imperative that we pass this bill today to help millions of American families save for their retirement security, and to be able to carry those pension funds with them when they change jobs. In 1981, workers were permitted to put aside up to $2,000 in an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) tax-free. Oddly, that amount has never been raised, even in the face of inflation and increased per capita earnings. Also, with the 1986 Tax Reform Act the number of participants dropped dramatically because of the disincentives it introduced. This bill addresses those shortcomings. It phases in increases for the maximum individual contribution reaching $5,000 by 2003. That means, that over the course of ten or twenty years, a couple can save tens of thousands of dollars more towards their retirement; that doesn't even begin to touch on interest and any additional matching funds from an employer. The $5,000 annual limit is also increased annually to ensure that inflation does not again erode the contributions that can be set aside for retirement. Today, only half of all private sector workers have any kind of pension plan, and only 20 percent of small businesses offer retirement plans. However, we have seen over the past two decades that IRAs are an effective way for all Americans to save for their future, and with the proper incentives in this bill, it will significantly expand the rate of savings. This measure will help all workers. It can especially help among Generation X-ers, many of whom are already deciding to save for their retirement. In our expanding, technology driven economy, today's twenty- and thirty-somethings have taken it upon themselves to begin saving for the long-term. This bill helps them by enabling and encouraging them to set aside more of their own money over their working years for their own retirement. Another component of the bill is targeted to my generation. It allows workers age 50 and above to be permitted to contribute up to $5,000 immediately in order to ``catch-up'' with years of being limited to only $2,000/year. Estimates indicate that over the next two decades over 16 million Baby Boomers will retire. So many of these hard-working Americans have scrimped and saved to put aside some money for their senior years. Now as they begin to see their personal incomes rise they are not able to set aside as much money as they would like to in their IRAs. We should enable them to put aside more money as their incomes grow and as they seriously consider their financial planning for their retirement. In addition, this bill provides incentives to promote the portability of IRAs. With the expanding and ever-changing economy workers are changing jobs with increased frequency. The prospect of spending thirty or forty years with an American institution like a General Motors or a Ford are less likely today than they were in past generations. With the increased portability provision in this bill it will be easier for workers to take their retirement savings from one job to another. They can roll over their money into an IRA with their new employer and take it with them without penalties and continue to expand the growth of their retirement savings. In closing, statistics indicate that personal savings among Americans has been down every year since 1992, and now it is at its lowest point in decades. Also, many women put their careers on hold to raise their children. These families not only gave up a second income for these years, but these women were not able to contribute to an IRA. This bill allows them to make-up contributions for those years. We should encourage savings and the best way to do that is to promote tax-free savings for retirement. This bill is a good bill. It is good for hard- working Americans and their families, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Con. Res. 253, which expresses the support of the Vatican retaining its status as a permanent observer at the United Nations. It is a tragedy that in the last few months, anti-Catholic pro-abortion groups have been attempting to remove the Holy See from its longstanding position of an observer at the U.N. This is an attempt by extremists to silence the Vatican's defense of the family and the unborn. The Holy See has been a part of the U.N. since the beginning, over 50 years ago. In addition, the Holy See has formal diplomatic relations with 169 nations, including the United States and it maintains 179 permanent diplomatic missions abroad. I commend the Holy See for its commitment to the family, the unborn and serving the poor. The Holy See's contribution to the U.N. is very valuable. The Vatican's role is essential and vital for preserving family values and protecting life, particularly the most vulnerable.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment and any amendment that would strike the agreed-upon language in section 587 of the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. Last fall, for the first time during his term, the President signed legislation to restrict the use of United States taxpayer dollars to groups that perform or promote abortions overseas. This version of the so-called ``Mexico City policy'' allowed no more than $15 million of United States population assistance funds to go to foreign organizations that promote or perform abortions overseas. This amendment proposed today would strip that language that the President signed into law last year and allow almost unlimited United States taxpayer subsidies of the international abortion industry. Now, I know my colleagues on the other side are fond of saying that no United States dollar goes to that purpose, but as we all know, that is an accounting maneuver. This is just another attempt by the pro- abortion side, I believe, to promote their agenda and to create, furthermore, gridlock over this contentious issue of funding for international abortion-related organizations. The language that this amendment seeks to strike was agreed upon by both sides last year to resolve a stalemate. Unfortunately, the pro- abortiion side is unwilling to accept anything other than a total victory for the international abortion industry. What my colleagues will not acknowledge is that section 587 does not weaken international family planning programs. Rather, it strengthens them by ensuring that United States funds are directed to those groups that provide family planning but not to those who perform abortions or promote abortion as a form of birth control. Furthermore, it would restrict funding to those organizations that seek to overturn the pro-life laws of more than 100 countries overseas, clearly something that the vast majority of United States taxpayers do not want to see their taxpayer funds being used for. Abortion is not birth control, and the taxpayers should not be forced to pay for it. This is a bad amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against it and any other amendment that threatens the language now included in the Foreign Operations appropriations bill. It has been said that some of the people on this side of this argument are motivated primarily by religious arguments. As a physician who has personally witnessed an abortion, I do not know how anybody could support abortion after actually seeing one with their eyes. I do not think this is a religious debate. It is certainly a moral debate. It is certainly a debate about what is the appropriate use of United States taxpayer dollars when one considers that millions of Americans feel very strongly that abortion is murder, that this is a very, very reasonable policy for us to have in the bill, and that it is very inappropriate for it to be overturned.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I commend him for solid work on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support for the Republican bill and in opposition to the Democratic substitute. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is immoral to have a Tax Code that discourages people from getting married. It is immoral to have a Tax Code that encourages people to live out of wedlock. I saw it firsthand in my medical practice where I had couples coming in to see me as patients who were living outside the bonds of marriage, and when I would ask them why, the reason I heard most often was because their taxes would go up. It particularly disturbed me to see it in senior citizens, who knew that they were setting a bad example for their children and their grandchildren, and they would most often cite to me that their taxes would go up $1,000 to $1,400 if they were to get married. Our tax relief package provides that necessary relief so we would not have a Tax Code encouraging people to live outside of wedlock. The Democratic substitute will provide about $210 worth of marriage tax penalty relief to those same couples, and it does not get the job done, in my opinion. We will not relieve this immoral feature of our Tax Code with their substitute, so that is why I am encouraging people to vote against it. I would like to address head-on two of the big complaints that we are hearing today, one of which is that when we expand the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples filing jointly so that they do not suffer a marriage penalty, we provide tax relief to some married couples where the mother stays home and takes care of the kids. I say, what is wrong with that? Is that not a middle-class tax cut? Did President Clinton not campaign in 1992 on welfare reform, balancing the budget, and a middle-class tax cut? What is wrong with providing those same families with a stay-at-home mom or stay-at-home dad some relief from their taxes? Do not all the psychologists tell us that one of the best things to make sure kids do well in school and we have a lower incidence of juvenile delinquency is to have parents that are more involved? Should we not be encouraging parents to take more time to stay at home and be with their kids? Another thing that I want to address head-on, and we heard this from one of the previous speakers, is that, oh, we are better off using this money for something else. I heard that argument in 1997 when we passed the $500 per child tax credit and the capital gains relief. We passed those, and all the naysayers said, well, the money will be gone. We will not see that money anymore. We could better use it to spend on this or that. What happened? Well, revenue into the Treasury went up. Indeed, those same arguments went on in 1980 when Ronald Reagan lowered taxes. The same arguments went on in 1960 when Jack Kennedy lowered taxes. Every time we lower taxes, revenue into the Treasury goes up, it does not go down. It is not a zero sum game. The parents who get that money are going to spend that money. They are going to create jobs, stimulate the economy. We pass this tax package and it will be the best way for us to make sure that Medicare is solvent and that we can have a prescription drug plan, because revenue into the Treasury will go up, it will not go down. It is not a zero sum game.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Prescription Drug Package, H.R. 4680, The Medicare Rx 2000 Act. 2.7 million Floridians depend on Medicare for their health-care coverage. Currently, we are taking tremendous steps to provide American seniors with comprehensive prescription drug coverage, because no seniors should have to choose between life saving prescription drugs and food for their table. This program will be flexible and voluntary and will give every senior citizen a choice between at least two different plans. Our plan recognizes that two-thirds of American senior citizens have their own prescription drug coverage from their retirement, or they have little need for prescription drugs throughout the course of the year. These are the lucky ones and we do not want to force them into a plan they do not want nor need. However, some seniors have a tremendous prescription drug burden. Estimates indicate that the average senior citizen will have an annual prescription drug cost of over $2,300 by the year 2003. Some would argue that this is because of inflated drug prices. That may be good rhetoric, but the truth is not that simple. As a physician, I understand the importance of prescription drugs to seniors. I also understand the great amount of time and effort and expense that goes into manufacturing a drug. These miracle pills take years to craft, test, and finally pass Federal Drug Administration (FDA) muster. It's been said that it costs upwards of one-half billion dollars to get a drug from original conception to the shelf in your local pharmacy. True, prices are higher, but that is due to the increased research and development in our pharmaceutical labs that offer Americans vast improvements over drugs that are currently on the market. With nearly every drug there are side effects. Advances in new drugs offer Americans more precise drugs with fewer side effects and greater conveniences. These advanced drugs are, because of their complexities, more expensive to develop and produce. According to studies on the impact of our plan, the costs of prescription drugs would quickly fall by 25%, by giving seniors the same collective bargaining powers as members of other prescription drug plans and by forcing pharmacies to compete for seniors' business. Under our plan, the federal government would assume 50% of a senior's drug cost up to $2,350. In addition to this coverage, the plan would guarantee catastrophic coverage so that no senior will ever have to pay over $6,000 a year for life saving prescription drugs. Another facet of this bipartisan Medicare Rx plan is that it provides a 100% benefit to the poorest seniors. Under our plan, any senior whose annual income is 135% of the poverty level or below will have their full premiums, deductibles and co-payments assumed by the federal government. Some have offered an alternative plan which would be run solely by the federal government. It is estimated that such an alternative plan would not force competition and would, instead, rely on government mandates and price controls. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said that this alternative would only reduce prices by about one-half of the amount of the bipartisan plan. Additionally, government price controls would place the government in a greater position of determining which research companies conduct certain types of research, and I believe that would ultimately reduce the availability of new, more precise drugs. I would add, that as a physician, I know how important it is that doctors work with their patients to find drugs that best serve the patients' needs and that are most affordable for the patients. For example, some of the more expensive drugs may be time-release drugs and only require that a patient take that drug once a day. On the other hand, there may be a considerably less expensive drug that a patient may have to take twice a day. It is important that doctors take the time to work with their patients to find the best drug treatment for their patient and consider that patient's physical and budgetary considerations. I have repeatedly done this in my practice. In this nation we are very blessed. And the prescription drug plan that we are considering is indeed a demonstration of our bounty. It addresses this need in a manner that focuses the most effort to serving those with greatest need. It ensures that market forces, not government price controls and mandates--which have always lead to poor quality and inefficiency--are the mechanisms employed to help keep costs down. It ensures that those who currently have coverage are not forced to pay for something they do not need. And, it works in such a way that will lower drugs costs for all seniors. Finally, to those who would argue that we should have a government run prescription drug plan, I would only point out one of the latest battles in Medicare. Since Medicare was established it has been required that a physician supervise a nurse anesthetist who may be administering the anesthesia to a senior. Over the past decade, the nurse anesthetists have put on a massive lobbying effort to urge Medicare to remove the physician supervision requirement and allow nurse anesthetists to work unsupervised. On June 27, a peer reviewed medical study was released showing that when administering anesthesia in the absence of an anesthesiologist (a physician), the loss of life was 2.7 per thousand greater than it would have been under the supervision of an anesthesiologist. The Administration, which sets the rules for Medicare, is in the process of removing this supervision requirement. Any argument that seniors are better off with a government mandated system is severely undercut by this recent action by Medicare and should give us all pause at such a prospect. I say let's pass this bipartisan bill. Let us move forward with a plan that does meets seniors needs. It is too important to our seniors to allow politics to stop this legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me, and I rise in support of the rule and support of the underlying piece of legislation. I, too, am an original cosponsor of this bill. In the general debate, I hope to be able to elaborate further on my experience in this particular arena. I do have some real experience, and it is underlying my strong support for the bill. But one thing I want to just amplify on, and the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill) really covered this very nicely, but he was very, very pressed for time, there are some people going around saying this is going to unfairly tip the playing field, this Campbell legislation. Mr. Speaker, the field is not level. The gentleman from Montana just explained that to us. This Congress passed legislation that tilts the negotiations and strengthens the hand, I think, excessively of insurance companies. This legislation I believe is going to take a situation that is like this and level it out. Regarding the issue of the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn), I happen to personally feel that the gentleman from Oklahoma is very well intentioned, and his concerns, I think, are legitimate. I happen to personally believe his concerns are most likely not necessary, but the language in his amendment I find to be acceptable. I intend on supporting his amendment. I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule. We have amendments allowed under the rule that would allow people on both sides of this issue to cast their vote in good faith and then ultimately get the final product up for a vote. Support the rule and, of course, support the underlying bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the bill, and I wanted to relate to my colleagues in the Chamber my experience on this issue, the very issue we are discussing today. Many years before I got elected to the U.S. House, and as most of my colleagues know, I am a physician; we had an insurance company come to the community offering a product, they called it a PPO, Preferred Provider Organization, or network; and it had a fee schedule in it that was substantially below what was the prevailing rates in the communities. So a whole bunch of the providers, the doctors in the community, were concerned about this because this was a big company, it insured a lot of people. So we all agreed to gather together in a hotel ballroom to discuss this issue, and we invited an attorney to join us and asked him to get up first and explain to us the antitrust laws so that we would not run afoul of antitrust. So we allowed him to speak, and he got up and he said, if you want to stay out of trouble, go home. You can't talk about this. If you discuss it at all, you can be prosecuted. So we all went home. Now, back in those days there was one group that had about 20 doctors, a few other small groups, and then a lot of solo practitioners. Now, in that community there are four large groups, my group, which had 20 doctors, has 100 doctors, and there is virtually no solo practitioners left. That is really what this bill is about. We are talking about the solo pediatrician, the two-man group, the family practitioner who operates alone, being able to negotiate with these insurance companies. There are some people who will argue against this bill and say it is going to tip the playing field. The playing field is overwhelmingly in the favor of the insurance companies. We have provided them antitrust exemptions. They can trade information amongst each other. They can trade information about providers, their pricing, but the doctors cannot talk amongst themselves at all. So what we are really talking about here is evening out the playing field, and I think it is the right thing to do. I commend the gentleman from California for moving this legislation and the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska. I have the utmost respect for him, but happen to disagree with him on this issue. I think the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) was fairly eloquent on this issue. He presupposes that there is no correlation between reimbursement and quality. When I talk to a lot of the physicians in my community about their experiences on this issue, many of them share with me the same thing, that the lower and lower the reimbursement schemes that the insurance companies are essentially ramming down their throats, the way they cope is they see more and more patients in a given amount of time. There has been some very good research out of Canada to show that physicians spend very little time seeing patients because the reimbursement is so bad that patients have to go to a doctor two, three, or four times before they finally get properly diagnosed, and the essential problem is the doctors are not spending any time with the patients. While this bill passed with the gentleman's exception would be better than no bill, I think the gentleman's amendment does serious injury to the fundamental issue. There are 220 cosponsors of the underlying bill. I would encourage all of them to vote no on the Terry amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to thank the committee for providing $5 million for the Brevard County Beach Renourishment Project. This $5 million, when combined with the $5 million we approved last year and the 37 percent local match will provide a total of $14 million in renourishment funding this year. Beginning in October, just a few short months from now, the contractor will move into place and begin placing sand on these beaches. This is a great accomplishment and everyone who has worked on this effort should be commended. This $5 million appropriation matches last year's earmark of $5 million and moves the project forward. Last year's Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA) authorized more than 150 new projects; however, the bill before us does not provide funding for any of those new starts. This clearly demonstrates the difficulty in securing an appropriation for a new Corps project. We were successful in securing funding in the fiscal year 2000 budget and this additional funding builds on that success. This will help us make significant progress on the north reach of the renourishment project. This 9.4 mile stretch reaches from Patrick Air Force Base north to Canaveral Inlet. Clearly, a considerable amount of the erosion along Brevard's beaches south of Canaveral Inlet is due to the federal navigation inlet which has disrupted the natural southward flow of the sand. Corps studies as far back as the early 1960s have documented the severe loss of sand along Brevard's beaches. More recently, and with more years of measured losses available, the Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers concluded, in June 1989, that ``the net loss of littoral material from the shore line to the south of the harbor is estimated to be between 335,000 and 410,000 cubic yards a year.'' Consistent with Section 227(A)(2) of WRDA '96, this Project should receive preference based on the mitigation of damages attributable to the Federal Navigation Project. The bill before us recognizes this preference. Over the 40 year history of the inlet, we have lost approximately 18 million cubic yards of sand along Brevard's beaches, primarily as a result of the federal navigation channel. Houses that once stood great distances from the shore now literally have waves at their doorstep. This funding will help us take some significant steps toward addressing this concern and will add another 75 to 100 feet of beach along Brevard's coast.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the immediate reaction of the advocates of additional gun control to violence we see in our communities is to call for new, more restrictive gun controls on law- abiding Americans. The American people are smarter than that. In fact recent survey's have shown that the American people don't believe additional gun control laws passed by the Congress will reduce crime. The American people know that criminals, by definition, are not law abiding citizens. Criminals are law-breakers and if they are not willing to abide by laws against murder and robbery, they are not going to comply with a new law that would require that they go down to the local police station and register their firearms. To believe that they would do such a thing is lunacy. Mr. Speaker, the solution to our problems is two part. To address the near-term problem of violent crime we need to lock up criminals, including those who use guns in the commission of a crime. Examples of where this has been initiated in various states shows that this works. Second, we need to emphasize in our society that life has value, that life is not expendable. Many Americans may recall just a few months ago, the stand-off between police and Joseph C. Palczynski, the Maryland man who killed four people and held three others hostage in Baltimore this past March. Let's take a look at this guy's criminal record, and ask whether or not this man should have been out on the streets. (According to Wash Times) In 1988 he was convicted of battery and sentenced to two years probation. In 1989, he assaulted a 16 year-old girl and was subsequently sentenced to four years in jail. However, he was somehow let out and in 1991 he beat up his girlfriend, while she attended high school. In 1992, following another domestic violence complaint by a girlfriend, and after holding police at bay for 16 hours, he was arrested on two outstanding warrants including a weapons violation charge. In 1995 he received a 10 year suspended sentence for the battery of another girlfriend's father. On March 4, 2000, he was arrested on assault charges in a domestic- violence incident and released the next day on a $7,500 bond. Just 2 days later, on March 7, he murdered three people with a gun bought by a friend and on March 8 murdered another person. On March 17-2 1, he held police at bay while holding a family hostage. Al Gore and his liberal friends in Congress have a solution to prevent this crime in the future: gun registration. The American people are not stupid. They recognize this as an opportunist's attempt to exploit this situation to advance their anti- Second Amendment agenda. Their solution has no relation to the crime and is no solution. Common sense says this guy should never have been out on the streets. The real solution is to ensure that these types of criminals are kept behind bars, not impose new restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. Let's turn to another tragedy, for which liberals have proposed as a solution, additional restrictions on the Second Amendment. It is important that we look at the circumstances and see if their solution would have addressed the problem. In early March, a six year old boy brought a gun to school and shot a six year old little girl. This is an unspeakable tragedy and my heart goes out to the little girl's family. No one should have their little girl taken from them in a senseless act of violence. At its root, this tragedy is a reflection of moral decay in our society. It reflects a lack of value on human life in American society today. As we as a nation consider a response to this tragedy, it is important to look at the specific events that led to this tragedy. The six year old who shot his classmate was living with his uncle in a crack house. The boy's father is in jail for a burglary charge. ABC's Nightline indicates that the boy's father had at least five children by four different women. The mother had been evicted from her apartment. The gun the boy used was sitting out in a bedroom, underneath some sheets and was a stolen gun. It has been reported that the gun may have been traded for drugs. The father described his son as enjoying violent movies and television shows. And, teachers described the boy as aggressive and a bully. They also stated that he had been suspended from school twice, once for fighting and a second time for stabbing a little girl with a pencil. Mr. Clinton has already laid the blame for this tragedy at the feet of Congress for not approving his gun control proposals. The reality is his gun proposals would have done nothing to stop this tragedy, and he refuses to admit that the problem in this case runs much deeper into the soul of this individual, his relatives, and our nation. Mr. Clinton's statement is a shameful exploitation of this tragedy to secure support for legislation that would have done nothing to prevent this tragedy. Too often the media and politicians point to the need for additional gun control as the ``solution'' because they do not have any other answers or lack the will to consider the root causes that lead to these tragedies. It appears that this child was raised in a culture of violence with little respect for the rights of others, including the right to life. The blame for this tragedy rests primarily with the parents who failed to teach this child to respect life and others. Also, the peddlers of violence in our society are also partly to blame. Professor William Allen, at Michigan State University, said it best when he stated, ``When you have 6 year olds shooting 6 year olds, you are not talking about crimes anymore, you're talking about moral decay.'' We are dealing with a cultural meltdown. Many are proposing simple, quick fix solutions. However, we must recognize that there are no quick fixes to such a tragedy. At the root of this tragedy is a corruption of the heart and soul of our nation. We must work to restore a value on life. We must counter the message that some adults in our society are sending is that some life is expendable. Children learn from our actions. Not only do many of our movies, music lyrics, and video games portray life as expendable, but many of the actions of adults in our society convey this message as well. When our children see adults, including political leaders, advocating the acceptance of drugs, euthanasia, partial-birth abortions, and abortion on demand, adults devalue life and teach our young people that life is expendable. Today, we must ask ourselves if we will have the courage to confront the root causes of violence. I am once again reminded of the comments made by Mother Teresa in 1994, when she stated ``Our children depend on us for everything--their health, their nutrition, their security, their coming to love and know God. For all of this, they look to us with trust, hope, and expectation. But often father and mother are so busy they have no time for their children . . . So their children go to the streets and get involved in drugs or other things. We are talking of love of the child, which is where love and peace must begin.'' We as a nation must heed this advice. We must work to renew in our society a respect for the value that human life has. Only if society places a higher value on life will we be able to make serious progress in reducing the violence in our society.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the DeGette amendment. The DeGette amendment would strike section 103 which prohibits Federal funding of abortions, except where the life of the mother would be endangered, or in the case of rape. As I understand it, while legalized abortion may be somewhat controversial in America, there is very little controversy over the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars for the purpose of performing an abortion. The vast majority of Americans are very, very strongly opposed to this, and many of those people are pro-choice. I believe the reason why many people who are pro-choice are opposed to Federal funds being used for an abortion is because they recognize that it is the taking of a human life, and I think out of the respect of those who have very strong opposition to this, they think it is a reasonable thing that we should not be taking tax money from these people who believe that abortion is evil and use it for the purposes of performing an abortion. Just because these women happen to be incarcerated, I believe that it in absolutely no way undermines the sanctity of the human life that is in the womb. Indeed, when I am in Washington here, I stay around the corner from the Capitol, and my wife was watching this debate with me, and she asked me to come down because she felt so compelled that the arguments that were being made were just so ludicrous. I could go on and on and on. But there is a person I would like to quote from who I believe is a much more powerful person to speak on this issue, Mother Teresa who, of course, has gone on to be with the Lord. But in 1994 at the National Prayer Breakfast Mother Teresa said, ``please don't kill the child. I want the child.'' She went on to say, ``We are fighting abortion with adoption.'' It has been said this evening, what will happen to these kids? Most of them get adopted or they go to be with the family of the incarcerated inmate. Mother Teresa went on to say, ``The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion because it is war against the child, a direct killing of an innocent child.'' She then urged all Americans and diplomats who were assembled at that meeting to more fully understand the linkage of abortion with other forms of violence. She said, ``Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of peace and love is abortion.'' Now, I believe Mother Teresa was right in saying those words. I am a physician. My mother was pro-life, but when I was in school, I came under the influence of a lot of liberal thinking and I began to question, indeed, whether or not legalized abortion should not be okay. But then I had an experience as a medical student of actually seeing an abortion and realizing that it was the killing of an innocent human life. We as physicians, we are frequently asked to pronounce people dead who have expired, and what do we do? We listen for heart beats. In people who have had serious brain injuries, we look for brain waves. All of these children have beating hearts and brain waves. Many of my pro-choice physician colleagues, when I talk with them about this issue and they explain to me why they think legalized abortion should be available, they always close their arguments with this statement, they always say: though I believe it should be legal, I would never perform an abortion. Now, why do they say that? Because they know exactly what it is. It is the taking of a human life. It has been said tonight that this amounts to only 15, 50, 100, 75 a year. Nobody would propose a lax attitude if a new drug came out, certified by the FDA, but had a side effect of killing 15, 20, 30 people, or if our food safety system was sufficiently compromised that 50 or 100 people were to die a year. I think one life saved is worth the sacrifice, and I think one life saved is worth the argument, and I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I understand very well the gentleman's concerns from New York City, but if we take this amount of money out of the Space Station program, we are effectively going to kill it. This program is operating on absolutely no margin. It has been cut repeatedly by this Congress. We have a load of hardware built and ready to fly. The Russian module was supposed to launch next month. The missions are essentially stacked up. Cutting this amount of money in my opinion is going to be potentially lethal to the program. The gentleman has admitted that he voted against the Space Station, so a cutting amendment like this that is going to kill it I am sure is no offense to him. Might I just add, I understand there are some legitimate issues in housing, but I believe HUD is being plussed up $4 billion in this VA- HUD bill that we are taking up today. NASA has been declining for the past 7 years. I would support the chairman on this issue.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. (Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Tancredo amendment and to the Gutierrez amendment. I would like to say straight out, though, that I certainly am very sympathetic to the idea of plussing up these veterans accounts. I believe I have the fourth largest number of veterans in my congressional district and the veterans in my congressional district have been historically very underserved. I believe the gentleman from Texas just related a very similar story to what has gone on in Texas and many other Sunbelt States that have not been receiving the appropriate amount of veterans care for their communities. My objection is based on the issue of cutting funding out of NASA. NASA, unlike most Federal agencies here in Washington, has actually seen its budget decline in real dollars over the past 8 years. NASA from the time period of about 1982 to 1992 saw its budget double and then over the past 8 years of the Clinton administration, it has actually gone down by several hundred millions of dollars. When we factor in inflation on this, it is actually about a 30 percent reduction in the purchasing power of the agency. I would like to point out to my colleagues because there have been many eloquent comments about the need to plus up veterans research, the funding that has gone to NASA has played a critical role in enhancing our breakthroughs in medical technology and medical research. I would just point out to my colleagues that much of the technology that goes into current pacemakers currently employed by hundreds of thousands of veterans, the technology used in scanning, MRI scanning, CAT scanning, the technology used in cardiac catheterization, many of the material science that goes into the prosthetic devices which some people have been talking about today, it is all actually a spin-off from our space program. So what we are really talking about doing here is the proverbial borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. We have an agency that has been cut year after year after year and now for the first time we are actually talking about plussing it up. I think it would be very, very inappropriate for us to go into this agency. There are many other places in this bill where we could find the appropriate reductions to be made. I would certainly hope that if this amendment considered en bloc passes that the subcommittee chairman and the full committee chairman work in the conference process to get these NASA reductions plussed back up. I would like to also point out that some of this money that is being cut is going for flight safety for our shuttle program which is very, very critical to making sure that the Space Station program succeeds.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just like to point out to my colleagues here that my congressional district has no veterans nursing home, even though it has needed one for years; and I certainly would support increasing funding for veterans nursing care, veterans medical research. I just object to the place where these reductions are being made.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I commend the author of this piece of legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan). Landing on the Moon has been considered to be the crowning achievement of the 20th century. I am proud to say that, in my congressional district, Kennedy Space Center was the departure point for this incredible adventure. On July 20, 1969, the culmination of man's dream to go to the Moon was realized. For the first time, people were taking their first steps on a new world. America led the way and showed the world how a republic can harness its power for scientific and peaceful purposes. Thirty years ago, American know-how and technology and its technological might was demonstrated in a way that benefited every human on the planet. Thirty years ago, we aimed higher than ever and accomplished that goal. The names Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neil Armstrong will forever be etched in the edifice of human history next to the names of Columbus and Lindbergh. We all know by heart the phrases oft repeated this afternoon, ``The Eagle has landed'' and ``That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'' Every one of us who was of age at the time can recite to our children and grandchildren where we were at that historic moment. The magic of television helped take the whole world on that most fantastic of voyages. We all thought that by now, in the year 2000, we would have bases on the Moon and people on Mars. Sadly, we are not at that point. And it is even more sad that today we will be taking up the funding bill for NASA, the VA-HUD bill, and there will again be attempts by some to cut our investment in the space program, keeping us further bound here on Earth. Our efforts into space have an uncanny ability to unite all peoples and excite the imagination like nothing else, particularly the imagination of our young people. We should be proud of our space program and continue to support it to the fullest extent possible, supporting this effort to award these three historic pioneers in this very, very appropriate way.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).