Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pitts amendment. I am concerned with the change in the abstinence policy in the PEPFAR budget to permissive authority for the administration to give grants to abstinence-based programs. I fear that this is a setback to the work we are doing overseas with AIDS relief. The best way to stop AIDS is to encourage people to abstain from sexual behavior outside of marriage. Last July, southern African AIDS experts and officials listed, and I'm quoting here, reducing multiple concurrent partnerships as their number one priority for preventing the spread of HIV. I used to treat AIDS patients. I used to practice infectious disease. The reason AIDS exploded through the gay community in this country in the late seventies and the early eighties was because of this phenomenon, having multiple concurrent sexual partners. And the reason Uganda, and you're going to hear Uganda quoted over and over again, was successful in lowering their AIDS incidence from 18 percent to 6 percent, and there was very little foreign aid going in the country at the time they did this, is because they established an education program. People are rising on the floor today acting like there is no money for anything other than abstinence education. This is a very modest component of the bill. We have a lot of money for prevention. We have money for mother-to-child prevention. We are simply requiring that a third of the money go to what I think is the most cost-effective venue that we could be using. I would highly encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. I believe right now under the current law, the President has the authority to waive this requirement if the country team asks for it and as I understand some countries have and they have waived the authority. I believe that this language that they changed in PEPFAR is authorizing and this should have been left to the authorizing debate. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Pitts amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I just want to clarify a point just made by the gentleman from Rhode Island. Under the Smith language, contraceptive devices will be distributed. This whole debate is about whether we're going to give contraceptives to Planned Parenthood, Parenthood International, aggressively trying to overturn the pro-life laws in countries all over the world. We have dramatically increased distribution under Mexico City of contraceptive devices. Ethiopia, from 4.9 million to 19.5 million. A big, long list here. This is about Planned Parenthood and their effort to overturn pro-life laws all over the world and we don't want to give money to them. That's what this debate is about.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend Chairwoman Lowey for working diligently on this bill. She has produced a fairly good product here, and I want to commend her more for working with Mr. Wolf and myself to address many of our concerns. She has produced a bill that is good in many respects. I appreciate the efforts as well of the staff that have worked very hard on this bill. A great example of working together is what my colleague from New York, Mr. Israel, was talking about in dealing with Darfur. I want to commend Mr. Wolf for his passion on that issue and his passion for the issue of human rights throughout the globe. I also want to commend Ranking Member Wolf and Chairwoman Lowey for their work on Colombia, and I am very pleased with the final product that they have there. I am also very pleased that we have included language dealing with better accountability for the Global Fund to provide greater transparency. I commend Chairwoman Lowey for including the language that I introduced, the amendment, to get a better understanding of why the participation of faith-based organizations in the Global Fund appears to be significantly underrepresented. Numerous faith-based groups have been on the ground providing health care in many of those these countries for decades. In recent decades they have been on the frontlines in fighting against the spread of AIDS. I saw the critical role that many of those faith-based groups provided firsthand when I visited Africa twice in recent years. I can tell you what part of the problem is, and it is really spelled out very nicely, and I will include for the Record this brief 3-page article from Catholic News Services, ``African Churches Find Global Fund Money Fairly Inaccessible.'' Basically, what I feel is going on here with those faith-based groups is relatively simple. They are small. They are out there. They are going into these villages on foot and on mopeds. They don't have the ability to apply for grants with multi-billion dollar organizations in Geneva. It is going to require the Global Fund to reach into these countries, identify the groups, the church groups, the faith-based groups, that are doing the work. Frequently, they are on the pointy end of the spear. So I commend the gentlewoman for that language. I know there are a few issues that we disagree on. The Mexico City policy language, we will have amendments to address that. Certainly, I understand that the gentlewoman has tried to reach out on this issue. For me personally, the issue is an organization that is not only maybe providing abortion but as well is actually actively lobbying to overturn pro-life laws in many of those countries. We should not be supporting them even indirectly. Finally, let me just close on the PEPFAR language. I played a role in getting the President's plan through the Congress, the authorizing language and the appropriations language. To me one of the most important things was the requirement that a portion, actually a small portion, I think it is 20, 25 percent of the preventive dollars go to abstinence education and abstinence training. I want to make it very clear to my colleagues the reason why I felt so strongly about that and why I feel that we should continue the requirement that abstinence education be included in the preventive dollars is my experience in going into Uganda. Uganda lowered its AIDS incidence from 18 percent to 6 percent, a two-thirds reduction in AIDS. The Global Fund didn't exist. PEPFAR did not exist when they did this. They did not do this through distributing condoms and comprehensive sex education. They did it through what they called ABC, abstinence before marriage, be faithful in marriage. We all know, you can't expect everybody to comply. But what is amazing to me is when you educate people on this thousands of people comply. I just want to share with my colleagues that I had a meeting just 2 weeks ago with a Parliamentarian from Uganda who was an epidemiologist and a physician who was there from the ground up, and he verified just what I said, that people responded to the message. Let me just finish up on that. Last July, southern African AIDS experts met and they officially listed ``reducing multiple and concurrent partnerships'' as their number one priority for the prevention of spreading HIV. It was not distributing condoms and comprehensive sex education, it was reducing concurrent and multiple partnerships. That is what this is really all about. Let me just close and again commend the gentlewoman for a bill that has a lot of good in it. I am focusing on some of the things I disagree with. But for everything I disagree with, there are 10 to 20 different things that are good in it. The spending level, I am very concerned that the President may veto this bill. I know there are a lot of worthwhile programs covered in the spending. I certainly would like to see us get a bill enacted into law. I think that would be to the credit of the chairwoman and the ranking member, the good gentleman from Virginia. [From the Catholic News Service] African Churches Find Global Fund Money Fairly Inaccessible (By Michael Swan) Nairobi, Kenya (CNS)--In Kenya churches provide about 40 percent of all health care in remote and impoverished areas with no government services, but for their AIDS programs, churches receive no money from The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. ``Since the inception of the Global Fund, the Kenyan bishops' conference has not accessed any direct funding from the Global Fund, even after applying to all the rounds,'' said Titus Munene, an HIV/AIDS program coordinator for the Kenyan bishops' conference. ``It isn't rocket science to say if 40 percent of the health care is in the church system in Kenya, you would think a good portion of (Global Fund money) is going to go to our operational system. But unfortunately, it isn't that way,'' said Maryknoll Father Ed Phillips, who runs seven community- based health care clinics. The Geneva-based Global Fund, established in 2002, is a partnership among governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities. The Catholic Church alone provides more than 25 percent of all AIDS care in the world, according to Caritas Internationalis, the Catholic aid network. All faith-based organizations combined have received just 6 percent of the Global Fund's money since the first disbursements in 2002. The Southern African Catholic Bishops' Conference, which represents South Africa, Botswana and Swaziland, has almost stopped applying for Global Fund money. More than 18 percent of adult South Africans are HIV- positive, and the church is the largest health care provider after the government. But church bodies have been unable to access Global Fund money either directly or through the South African National AIDS Council, which coordinates South African applications to the Global Fund. ``I have sat on SANAC, the South African National AIDS Council, which is also the CCM (country coordinating mechanism) for the Global Fund. It has not been a helpful process,'' Dominican Sister Alison Munro said in an e-mail from Pretoria, South Africa. ``The Global Fund process is too large and too cumbersome for the churches,'' said Sister Alison. ``If they (the churches) could apply directly to the Global Fund, some would. They can't because of the procedures. . . . The work involved is too much for any church group other than a national structure or a group with lots of capacity.'' While many nongovernmental organizations employ grant application experts, church-based agencies have tended to regard such functions as wasteful of donor money. Munene said when the churches do not get Global Fund money it weakens the fight against AIDS among some of the poorest Africans. A lack of international and Kenyan-government funding has forced mission hospitals, clinics and dispensaries to charge some of the poorest people in Kenya for AIDS treatment and services, while relatively well-off people in the cities are accessing free services. Munene said when church agencies charge for health care it ``means some of the poor cannot access services, since there are no government facilities in those rural areas.'' The 6 percent of Global Fund money going to faith-based organizations translates into $325 million spread over five years in dozens of countries. The Global Fund recognizes the number is too low, said spokesman Oliver Sabot. ``Given the essential role that they play in health care in many countries, particularly in Africa, we would like to see the amount of funding to FBOs (faith-based organizations) increase,'' Sabot said. Part of the problem has been that churches have not done enough to fulfill conditions that might be expected from major international funders, such as making detailed applications for funding and monitoring expenditures to the satisfaction of donors, said Father Robert Vitillo of Caritas Internationalis, the Vatican's most prominent adviser on HIV/ AIDS policy. ``Each of these funding mechanisms comes with its own set of challenges for (faith-based organizations), which are more expert in providing support, care, treatment and prevention education than in completing such complicated funding applications and then in monitoring and reporting on the funds received,'' said Father Vitillo. Even if it is a lot of red tape, church organizations have to be willing to fight through it in order to continue delivering effective AIDS prevention and care, said Father Phillips. But the Global Fund also has a responsibility to help churches through the red tape, he said. ``The churches have to get more proactive,'' said Father Phillips. Sabot said the Global Fund has taken steps to ensure that faith-based organizations are able to apply for money. But by relying on countries' coordinating agencies or mechanisms, the Global Fund has become subject to the politics of Africa. ``This hands-off approach does mean that bias at the country level is sometimes reflected,'' said Sabot. He said sometimes faith-based groups are excluded from country proposals ``either because of deliberate efforts by the government or other groups, or simply because they are less experienced with applying for international aid funding, and not enough outreach and support was provided to them'' by country coordinating agencies. ``We have taken steps to help correct both these problems, but there is still more to be done,'' Sabot said. Father Phillips said more than bureaucratic bias is involved in shutting churches out of national applications to the Global Fund. ``The church was considered in some of these countries to be the opposition to the government,'' he said. ``Naturally, if they are considered to be opposition, well, they're (government mechanisms) going to make sure they're not going to target a lot of money'' for the church. Father Phillips said African bishops must get tough and vocal about demanding that they be represented fairly in national applications to the Global Fund, but Munene said the churches may be talking to a brick wall when they demand fair representation. ``The Kenyan bishops have made frantic efforts to meet the minister of health on several occasions, and even his excellency, the president. And promises were given, but to date the pledges have not been fulfilled,'' Munene said.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is a very good amendment. The State of Arizona reports it has saved $10.2 million by removing illegal aliens into Federal custody. The City of Nashville, Tennessee, in it's first year of implementing this program, is reportedly on track to deport as many as 4,200 illegal immigrants. This is a good program. It needs to be expanded. The lady should be commended. All of my colleagues should vote in support of this very valuable amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the bill as a physician who practiced medicine for many years prior to coming to the House. And, indeed, I still see patients once a month at the VA clinic in my district. I always considered it very, very important not only to help my patients with illness but as well to give them hope and to give them real hope and not false hope. And one of the things I've always been concerned about in this debate for the last 7 or 8 years since we've been conducting this debate is that the advocates for more funding, Federal funding, for embryonic stem cell research; and we are funding embryonic stem cell research, we're just not funding more research that involves destruction of human embryos; have been contending, the advocates of this have been contending for years that this has the greatest potential. And in reality, there are no phase 1 clinical trials with embryonic stem cell research. There are no phase 2 clinical trials. There are no phase 3 clinical trials. Embryonic stem cells have never moved beyond animal research because embryonic stem cells have never been shown to be safe. Embryonic stem cells form tumors when you put them in animals, whereas adult stem cells, cord blood stem cells, not only have been shown to be safe, but they're in phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials. They are in clinical trials in heart disease, I think about 28 clinical trials, FDA-approved clinical trials. They're in clinical trials on treating a whole host of blood-borne diseases. And just very recently we saw published research, amazing research in phase 1 diabetes, juvenile diabetes research. Indeed, I've been saying for years that medical science is going to move beyond this debate. And we saw a preview of that today published, that skin cells can be converted, possibly, back to forming embryonic- like cells. Science is going to move beyond this discussion. I don't think, being that millions of Americans believe in the sanctity of human life, that we should be funding research involving the destruction of human life.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This bill before us today entitled the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, is better entitled the ``Human Clone Implantation Prohibition Act.'' Essentially what it does is make it a crime to implant a cloned human embryo in the uterus of a woman. While the gentlewoman from Colorado has said this is a very different bill from the Greenwood substitute, it is true if you sit down with the two of them and read them, they read differently; but the net effect, let's be serious, is the same. It is the goal pursued by many research scientists, who I assume do not ascribe to a belief in the sanctity of human life, that they want to begin experimentation on human embryos produced through the process of human cloning. My position when we began debating this issue 5, 6 years ago, remains the same. There are a host of problems with this, not the least of which is that I and millions of Americans like me believe that human life is sacred and we should not be wholesale producing it to be experimented with in the lab and then discarded when the experimentation is done. Are we really trying to say to the American people we want to make the human embryo the lab rat of the 21st century? I will add, this is going to create a huge demand for human eggs. It has been very surprising to me to see so many people on the left who claim to be great champions of women's issues, it is going to create a lot of pressure for more human eggs. And the way you get human eggs, it is not a simple, overnight procedure. You have to give women a powerful medication that produces something called superovulation. It has the potential for complications, depression in some 25 percent of the women who get these drugs, possible significant complications requiring hospitalization called the superovulation syndrome. And who will be donating their eggs to all these research labs? We all know who it will be, it will be women who really need the money. You will probably have problems and complications, suicides from depression. What will end up happening is they will end up going overseas to Third World countries where they can't bring litigation. This is why many leaders in the feminist movement chose to support the Stupak-Weldon bill over this alternative. It is just down right bad policy. Let me say as well, the lady said previously that the women could, under my previous bill, could be criminally prosecuted. I disagree wholeheartedly. I thought the language of the Stupak-Weldon bill was very clear, that the criminal act would be the creation of the human embryo through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer. That is the way they created Dolly; that is the way this process begins. Let me just say in closing, the process by which we have undergone this, when we were in the majority, we had committee hearings. We allowed a substitute. And to rush this to the floor on the suspension calendar is an inappropriate way for us to deal with a very, very significant issue. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a profound slippery slope. They will not be satisfied with doing research on human embryos. The next target will be the human fetus itself, creating human models of disease so research scientists can do research on certain forms of human disease by doing research on human embryos and fetuses. That is the direction we are going, patenting some of those diseased human embryos. I say this is a place where we should be drawing the line. We should defeat this on the suspension calendar. I believe if you brought it forward under regular order, it would go down under regular order, and I encourage all of my colleague to vote ``no'' on this piece of legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to price gouging. The good news for Florida consumers is that the state of Florida already has the ability to protect consumers from price gouging. Florida law finds that gouging has occurred when a commodity's price represents a ``gross disparity'' from the average price of that commodity during the 30 days immediately prior to the declared emergency. This applies unless the increase is attributable to additional costs incurred by the seller or to national or international market trends. In fact, Florida law enforcement fully investigated over 58 cases of alleged gouging after Tropical Storm Rita. Violators of Florida's anti-gouging law are subject to civil penalties of $1,000 per violation. In 2005, the State of Florida enacted criminal penalties for those who engage in price gouging. In addition to the protections that Florida consumers already have in place through State law enforcement, the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to investigate and bring charges against those that engage in price gouging. In a significant departure from previous legislation addressing this issue, Floridians who are gouged would not receive a rebate. Instead, H.R. 1252 would direct any fines collected from gougers to a program that largely benefits the Northeast and the Midwest. Previous legislation on this matter directed that any fines collected from price gouging be returned to the State where the gouging occurred so that the consumers could be reimbursed. H.R. 1252, however, directs that all of these funds instead be placed in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance, LIHEAP, fund. Unfortunately for the residents of Florida, this is a fund that they get little benefit from. The primary beneficiaries LIHEAP grants are those living in the Northeast and Midwest. While New York and Florida have populations that are nearly equal, New York received 10 times the amount of LIHEAP money that Florida received ($247 million for New York vs. $26 million for Florida). Other large beneficiaries include: New York, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Illinois. In fact, on a per capita basis, no state does worse than Florida when it comes to LIHEAP. The bottom line is that if Florida consumers get gouged, those living in the Northeast and the Midwest get the rebate. This bill is more about show than about substance. Even the comprehensive investigation by the Federal Trade Commission, FTC, in the aftermath of hurricane's Katrina and Rita found no gouging or anti- trust violations. The real driver of price for gas is the growing global demand for energy. The rapid growth in the worldwide demand for crude oil is being driven primarily by economic growth in China, India and the United States. Ironically, during a Congressional hearing on this bill, the proponents of the bill offered some bizarre testimony. When asked if the oil companies were engaging in collusion--which is already illegal--a proponent of the bill offered that what was being engaged in is ``conscious parallelism.'' He then offered that you cannot prove ``conscious parallelism'' in court, so this bill does virtually nothing to address that. Another advocate for the price-gouging bill testified before the committee that ``drilling [for oil] will do nothing to lower the price of oil.'' I am concerned that these individuals are so dedicated to an ideology that they defy common sense. The most important thing we can do to lower the price of gas for American consumers and to ensure our energy independence is to expand domestic energy production, expand refining capacity in the U.S. by reducing excessive burdens, encouraging more nuclear power, fostering the development of renewable energy, and encouraging conservation. Unfortunately, it took us 12 years to end the Democrat filibuster that kept America from developing more oil and gas off the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS. Last year we were successful in opening a small portion of the OCS to oil and gas recovery, and I hope that we can build on that success. Also, last year we secured passage of legislation that allows for greater production of oil and gas from Federal lands. Unfortunately, Democrat leaders have introduced legislation and are holding hearings to close off those sources of domestic energy production. We streamlined regulations for nuclear power plants, yet Democrats are considering injecting new regulations into the process. I was also pleased that we were able to secure passage of renewable energy tax credits. I have cosponsored legislation to extend these tax cuts for renewable energy and conservation so they are not allowed to expire. The Democrats expression of ``outrage'' over gas prices is a bit ironic given that they are the ones who have consistently proposed higher gas taxes, higher energy taxes like the proposed BTU tax, and who are presently moving forward with ``cap and trade'' global warming legislation along the lines of what has been adopted in Europe. As the Washington Post pointed out last month, this cap and trade system has led German consumers to pay 25 percent more for electricity than they did two years ago, while German utilities are making record profits. This higher cost for electricity has made it difficult for some European countries to compete with cheaper foreign imports, resulting in European workers losing their jobs. The rhetoric simply does not match the policies being advocated by the Democrat majority.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, recently, the House considered legislation to reauthorize the Community Oriented Police, COPS, program. Unfortunately, this bill was brought up for consideration with no opportunity to amend and improve the bill. Rather than allowing an open discussion and amendment process, it was a take it or leave it choice that Members were given. In reauthorizing this program little has been done to address the glaring shortcomings of the program as pointed out in audits by The Department of Justice Office of Inspector General, OIG, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, and other independent analyses--including one by the USA Today newspaper. Before tripling a program that the Office of Management and Budget has graded as ``Not Performing: Results Not Demonstrated,'' members should have been given an opportunity to consider amendments aimed at improving this bill. This is particularly important at a time when the size of the program is being tripled from an appropriation of about $540 million in 2007 to nearly $1.5 billion within 5 years. These audits point out that New York City, the largest recipient of COPS funding--$422 million--actually has 300 fewer officers today than they did before they received $422 in Federal tax dollars. In 1994, New York City had 36,693 officers, yet by 2004 this had dropped by 321 officers to 36,372. The audit shows that Miami, while receiving over $45 million, increased their police force by only 21 officers. That works out to over $2 million per officer according to the audit. Since the creation of this program in 1994, over $13 billion has been spent on the COPS program. While some of that funding has been well spent, I am concerned that audits determined that, at a minimum, hundreds of millions of dollars were misspent. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers to make sure that the money that the Federal Government takes from them is not misspent. Analyses showed that in spite of spending $6 billion dollars in the first 6 years of the program, COPS fell short of placing 100,000 police on the streets. While the GAO found that the shortfall was about 12 percent, when you factor in historical hiring trends, the number of new police on the streets is far less. In fact, the Heritage Foundation analysis found when these historical police hiring trends are accounted for, the actual number of new police on the street nationwide is somewhere between 7,000 and 39,000--less than half of what was promised. While the COPS grants were not supposed to supplant local funds, the U.S. Department of Justice OIG audit of expenditures found that grant recipients routinely supplanted local funding with COPS grants: simply allowing the Federal Government to pick up the tab for what they otherwise would have and should have paid for. The OIG audit of 147 high-risk grants found that 41 percent used the COPS grant to supplant local funds. An investigative report by USA Today found in an audit of 3 percent of COPS grants that $277 million was misspent and ``tens of thousands of jobs funded by the grants were never filled, or weren't filled for long.'' This is particularly concerning given that my constituents, who happen to be net donors to this program, receive less than half of their equitable share of Federal COPS grants. Finally, the purpose of the COPS program was to reduce crime. While many of the grant recipients saw a reduction in crime, a USA Today analysis found that crime fell at the same rates in communities that did not get COPS grants. So, before we all embrace a bill that triples the size of this program, we should first make sure that we are being responsible with taxpayer dollars and getting the most out of every dollar. I am not sure the bill before us does that.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1615, Securing Aircraft Cockpits Against Lasers Act of 2007. I commend my colleague from Florida who serves on the Judiciary Committee for bringing this bill forward from that committee. This is an important step in furthering aviation security. We have already taken a number of steps since 9/11 to make our skies safer for the flying public and this is one more important step in that direction. This bill establishes a new Federal crime for anyone who aims a laser pointer at an aircraft or the flight path of an aircraft. This new statute will enable Federal law enforcement officials to pursue cases that it would not otherwise be able to pursue. Those prosecuted under this new law would face fines and time in prison. Establishing these penalties will help address an issue that threatens public safety, pilots, and aviation security. When aimed at aircraft, lasers can cause not only discomfort, but they can also cause temporary or permanent visual impairment at critical stages of take-off and landing. The National Transportation Safety Board has already documented instances in which pilots sustained eye injuries and were incapacitated during critical times of flight. Furthermore, the Judiciary Committee report on H.R. 1615 highlights the findings of a report from the U.S. Department of Transportation that since 1990 there have been over 400 reports of lasers being pointed at aircraft. In the aftermath of 9/11, the FAA took steps to require that air traffic controllers immediately notify pilots about laser events. The FAA is also to immediately notify local law enforcement and security agencies. This will enable police to act in a more timely manner to identify and prosecute those shining lasers at aircraft. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this bill is a good step in helping protect the flying public and pilots.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, while I believe that Government Sponsored Enterprise, GSE, reform is absolutely necessary, I cannot support H.R. 1427, the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, in its current form. It is important for Congress to promote home-ownership for all Americans by giving citizens access to affordable housing. However, this bill, under the Affordable Housing Fund, AHF, section, requires that GSEs set aside nearly $3 billion over the next 4 years into a special fund. H.R. 1427 essentially represents a $3 billion tax on those seeking to purchase homes. These new fees will simply be passed along to those purchasing homes. I'm not sure how a $3 billion tax increase is going to make homes more affordable. When given the opportunity to ensure that these costs would not be passed along to homeowners, supporters of the AHF voted against the amendment that would have protected homeowners. Clearly, this is designed to be a hidden tax on homebuyers. This newly created AHF would make grants to states and Indian tribes, which would then make grants to third-party housing-related entities. H.R. 1427 fails to provide adequate oversight of these third-party grantees and the funds could easily fall into the hands of politically motivated groups. Also, while using grant money for lobbying or other political activities is not permitted under the bill, there is nothing preventing groups from displacing their other funds for these activities while still receiving grant money. One such third party group that stands to benefit financially from this new grant program is ACORN. ACORN is notorious for partisan voter registration drives. Allegations of voter fraud have plagued ACORN political activities in Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico, Missouri, Michigan, Colorado, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Yet, the Democrats' plan is to create a slush fund to funnel millions of dollars in grants to ACORN and similar partisan groups, freeing up money for partisan political activities. Adding more layers of bureaucratic waste and pandering to left- leaning groups will not help low-income buyers purchase the homes of their dreams. While we need GSE reform, we should not be forced to sign onto a $3 billion tax on homeowners. There are better, more financially responsible ways to address affordable housing.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce the Reservists and Guardsmen Tax Relief Act of 2007. As Reservists and Guardsmen are activated, this can cause financial strains on many of them, and my legislation is meant to help provide some financial relief during the time in which they are called to active duty. My bill would extend the penalty-free withdrawals from retirement accounts for Reservists and Guardsmen who are called to active duty for more than 179 days. This benefit is set to expire on December 31, 2007. My bill extends this benefit through December 31, 2008. Under this tax benefit, Guardsmen and Reservists called to active duty can receive payments from their individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans and 403(b) tax-sheltered annuities, without having to pay the 10 percent early-distribution surtax. Some Reservists and Guardsmen have already taken advantage of this benefit. While premature withdrawals from retirement accounts should be very carefully considered by anyone who has a retirement account, this proposal may assist in dealing with economic difficulties that may occur when a self-employed reservist, or any Reservist or Guardsman, is called to active duty service. This would be one way to allow them increased access to their money at a time when they are defending our liberties. Some Reservists and Guardsmen, including small business owners and employees of small businesses, experience loss of income when they are called to active duty. The drop in income is real for many Reservists and Guardsmen. Removal of the early withdrawal penalty would be one way to help alleviate some of the income loss that a Reservist or Guardsman's family might suffer as a result of activation. Our Reservists and Guardsmen should have access to their own money in order to help them make ends meet while activated. This is a small step to help out those who are serving in defense of our Nation. As a former active duty and reserve Army officer, I am committed to doing what I can to make active duty service easier for all of our servicemembers, both active and reserve.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to commend the majority for including, under the rule, the amendment that will be offered later by Mr. Hoekstra, the ranking minority member, former chairman of the committee, to strike section 407 of the bill. This is the section of the bill that so many people have commented on so far today that will now task our national intelligence resources to start looking at the issue of climate change. To me there is a great irony in this happening here today because for many years we have heard criticism from Democrats over and over again on the so-called inefficiencies, inadequacies of our national intelligence capabilities, specially as it related to WMD in Iraq and their failure to get an accurate picture of that. And now we see today an expansion of their duties and responsibilities. I believe most Americans look for our intelligence agencies not to be engaged on the issue of climate change but more directly to be involved in the business of protecting American safety and security, protecting our national assets, protecting the American people. Furthermore, one of the other things that strikes me as greatly ironic about this is, we have an extensive array of Federal agencies currently studying this issue. We have NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has a wide array of satellites and scientists that are constantly studying both short-term and long-term implications of climate change. We have, additionally, NASA engaged on this issue, with three major Earth-observing satellites on orbit studying the issue of the Earth's climate. And as well, there are multiple programs run by the National Science Foundation; they have the Geosciences Directorate (GEO), the Office of Polar Programs (OPP), the Atmospheric Science Subactivity, the ATM. And, ladies and gentlemen, I haven't even touched on the EPA and all the work that they are doing on this issue. To me, this issue is controversial. There is a sizeable number of Americans who feel that the severity of the problem of climate change does not justify some of the extreme actions that many people in the radical environmental community are trying to propose today, and I just can't help but feel this is a political issue to try to hijack our intelligence assets to get them on the global warming bandwagon so we could have draconian changes in American policy that could adversely affect our economy and our Nation. So I thank the majority for putting the Hoekstra amendment in order. Mr. Hoekstra, the former chairman, now ranking member, is very knowledgeable on intelligence policy. I intend on supporting the Hoekstra amendment. I encourage all my colleagues to listen carefully to that debate.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the Democratic majority pays lip service to their support of religious people and faith-based groups, but now they are here today, in this House, enacting a piece of legislation that I believe is a shot across the bow to all faith-based organizations that are involved in social services in this country. The Head Start bill today says that if you participate in the grant process, you will not be able to hire like-minded people to work in your child-care facility. The Democrats are saying that a bureaucracy in Washington, D.C., has more wisdom to decide who you can and can't hire than the hundreds, thousands of small businesses that run these Head Start programs. The Democrats are essentially saying, with this legislation, while we thank you for your tireless dedication and recognize that you are an integral part of this process, we don't trust you to make fair choices in the employees that you hire. Don't be misled. This is in direct contradiction to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Supreme Court, both of which came to the conclusion that faith-based organizations had the right to hire employees on a religious basis. Faith-based organizations such as churches, synagogues and other faith-based charities are a central part of the fabric of communities all across America. Many of these organizations provide assistance and services to the neediest members of society, offering a helping hand to the less fortunate among us. Many faith-based organizations can and want to make a vital contribution to the Federal assistance programs. The landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act explicitly protects the rights of religious organizations to take religion into account in their hiring practices. In fact, the Civil Rights Act made clear that when faith- based organizations hire employees on a religious basis, it is an exercise of the organization's civil liberties and does not constitute discrimination under Federal law. The freedom to hire those who share religious beliefs was upheld in a unanimous 1987 Supreme Court decision, Corporation of the Presiding Bishop v. Amos, in which the Court observed, ``A law is not unconstitutional simply because it allows churches to advance religion, which is their very purpose. For a law to have forbidden 'effect' . . . it must be fair to say that the government itself has advanced religion through its own activities and influence.'' Now, in an attempt to appease Republicans and conservative Democrats, an alternative amendment will be provided by the gentleman from North Carolina. This amendment, in effect, praises the work of faith-based organizations, but tells them they have to give up their right to hire who they want to hire to participate in Head Start. Current Federal law protects the Civil Rights Act hiring protections for faith-based organizations and providers. And, indeed, as was stated earlier by a previous speaker, President Bill Clinton signed four laws protecting religious organizations in this context. Now, I want to close by just pointing out a very, very simple fact. There is a reason why on the floor today the amendment to correct this problem will not be allowed, and the reason is because it will pass. A majority of this Congress, Republicans working with Blue Dog Democrats, would pass the Fortuno amendment which would protect these faith-based religious organizations. We had many of the Blue Dogs vote with us on this issue in the past. But, alas, under this rule, and it is why I am imploring my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on this rule, that amendment will not be allowed and we will be asked to stifle the freedom of religion in the United States.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the authors of this piece of legislation, and make very clear that I am a strong supporter of the National Science Foundation. Indeed, I have an undergraduate degree in a science field, biochemistry. I did basic science research as an undergraduate, and I fully recognize the need for this country to make a significant increase in our investment in basic science research as the kind of research that comes through the National Science Foundation. My concern before the committee today is that the National Science Foundation is in the same budget category as NASA; and already, the new majority this year has chosen to significantly cut funding to NASA. Specifically, over one-half billion dollars was reduced out of the NASA budget to fund the replacement for the space shuttle. The replacement for the space shuttle is badly needed. Our shuttle fleet is aging, and indeed we are looking at a scenario in the early part of the next decade where we will not have the capability of putting men and women into space. And we, the United States of America, the greatest country in the world, will be relying on the Russians to put our astronauts into space for many, many years. And, that the further reductions in NASA that will put forward by the new majority have the potential to lengthen that period even further, and possibly perhaps permanently cripple our manned space flight program. So my amendment is very simple and very straightforward. Basically what it says is that we are not going to cut NASA for the purpose of plussing up the National Science Foundation. I believe we need to fund both of these programs, and that is my goal and that is the purpose of my amendment. I think one of the things that the authors of this bill keep talking about, which is very revealing and I think very important to the debate we are having right now, they talk about the importance of training kids in math and science, and that we are falling behind in our international competitiveness. But I can tell you, when I talk to teachers all across the country about what motivates our young people to study math and science, it is not the level of grants that are coming out of the National Science Foundation, it is actually our space program and an enthusiasm for the possibility or the chance that they might some day be able to participate in the space program, the manned space flight program in particular that motivates our kids. So I think these two programs are really linked at the hip, and I think it is important that we do not fund one at the expense of the other. The current language in this bill has the potential to create that climate, and so I think it is critically important that the point of order be waived and that my amendment move forward and be approved by this body.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I wish to be recognized on the point of order. Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is inappropriate to exercise a point of order on this amendment. It's quite clear that the NASA budget and the National Science Foundation are within the same budget category, function 250, and that there's a strong relationship between increasing the National Science Foundation that it can have a negative impact on NASA. Furthermore, as my friend from Georgia just indicated, we have moved several bills through this body. Just today we did one where multiple points of order were waived. And the bottom line here, in my opinion, is NASA a priority for the new majority in this Congress. I don't believe it is. I don't believe it's a sufficient enough priority, and I ask that the point of order not be sustained.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I commend my colleagues for bringing this important legislation to the floor. It was obvious, I think, to all people watching the news coverage during the recent Hezbollah-Israel war that it was standard operating procedure for Hezbollah to place its soldiers that were firing rockets into Israel, in housing projects, in housing areas where there were civilians, and the only way that Israel could respond to that rocket fire involved risking the lives of the women and children who lived in those areas. It was disgraceful and it was a violation of international law. And to me it is absolutely ridiculous that Hezbollah would find some photo of a bunch of Palestinian youths leaning on a tank and try to make an argument in front of the world stage that that is the moral equivalent of what they were doing. There is absolutely no comparison. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to commend my colleague from New York and people on both sides of the aisle for bringing forward this important piece of legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise today in opposition to the Progressive Caucus budget. This debate today could be described as a debate about the good, the bad, and the ugly. A kinder way you could describe it is the responsible, the irresponsible, and the reckless. We are going to have the House Republican budget brought forward on this floor today, brought forward by our chairman, Mr. Ryan, a responsible budget, a good budget, a budget that comes to balance in 5 years without raising taxes and tries to address the challenge that we face in the category of entitlements. We have the Democrat leadership budget that is going to be brought forward, a budget that has the biggest tax increase in our Nation's history, and a budget, I might add, that not only includes significant increases in spending, but as well makes no effort to deal with the challenge of entitlements. I will just quote from the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Chairman Bernanke, who said, ``Without early and meaningful action to address entitlements, the U.S. economy could be seriously weakened, with future generations bearing much of the cost.'' Now, the budget alternative that we have right now in front of us I would describe as the ugly or the reckless or the completely irresponsible, because not only does it include the biggest tax increase in our Nation's history and significant increases in spending; it runs up entitlement spending even further. And the part that I think is the most egregious, it actually calls the effort of our brave women and men fighting in Afghanistan, fighting in Iraq to establish a beacon of liberty in that dark area of the world, it calls that effort the single largest waste of taxpayers' money and the biggest current drain on the U.S. Treasury today. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this alternative budget and vote ``yes'' on the Republican budget.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my objections to the budget put forward by the new majority in the Congress. Their budget proposes the largest tax increase in American history and it presses the accelerator on government spending. What Washington has is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem. Revenues from taxes flowing into the U.S. Treasury have been flowing at record levels. Even when you factor in the $1 trillion dollar tax relief that was enacted by President Bush and a Republican Congress, the taxes that came into the Treasury in 2006 were exactly what the Congressional Budget Office projected they would be back in March 2000--nearly 9 months before President Bush proposed such tax relief. Clearly, Washington's problem is not a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem. Yet the Democrat budget plan fails to recognize this and instead they choose more taxes and more spending. They fail to extend important tax relief that has given Americans more control over their lives and businesses. It will put the breaks on the economic expansion that has put the United States in the enviable position of having the most vibrant and growing economy over the last 4 years. We have led the developed world in the creation of new jobs over the past 4 years-- creating 7.6 million new jobs for Americans. Not only does the Democrat budget impose the largest tax increase in our Nation's history, but it also puts spending on an upward trajectory that will further imperil our children's future, saddling them with even more debt. Not only does the Democrat budget fail to address the growth of entitlement spending that is imperiling our children's future, but also it makes the problem worse by putting off needed changes and by increasing domestic discretionary spending at a rate that exceeds the rate of inflation. With regard to tax increases, Democrats had a time during the House Budget Committee meeting to adopt amendments protecting the tax relief that Americans are enjoying today. The Democrats voted lock step against each and every amendment that would have protected the tax relief that Americans are currently enjoying and that is spurring our economy. Don't take my word for it, just look at the Washington Post. They sum it up in today's paper: ``Democrats say they want to preserve key parts of Bush's signature tax cuts, they project a surplus in 2012 only by assuming that all of the cuts expire on schedule in 2010.'' ``But the [Democrat budget] proposal, set for a vote today, requires either that millions of middle-class families be hit with higher taxes next spring or that somebody else pay an extra $50 billion. . . . That stark choice is the result of the inexorable expansion of the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax structure that adds $6,800, on average, to a family's tax bill. Next month, an estimated 4.2 million Americans will pay the tax. Next spring, that number will balloon to 23 million unless Congress takes action. Sadly, the Democrat's budget has no plan for addressing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Someone will face a $50 billion tax increase under the Democrats budget--we will have to see who is next on their hit list as they have already taken aim to repeal most all of the tax relief provided to Americans since 2001. Just what tax increases are already in store for Americans? The Florida sales tax deduction is repealed in this budget. Floridians will be hit harder than most Americans by the Democrats tax plan, as Floridians will no longer be afforded the opportunity to deduct sales taxes. While resident's of states that have a state income tax can deduct those costs from their taxes, Floridians have no such deduction, so I was pleased when we were finally able to give Floridians equal treatment by allowing a sales tax deduction--about $650 dollars for a family of 5 earning $40,000 per year. The Democrat bill repeals this tax deduction. Taxes on dividends will increase. This will hit senior citizens the hardest as they often rely on safe and secure investments to supplement their Social Security benefits in their golden years. The child tax credit is cut in half falling from $1,000 per child to $500 per child as if the cost of raising and caring for children is going down. Democrats resurrect the marriage tax penalty forcing married couples to pay more in taxes that those living together out of wedlock. The death tax will be resurrected making it difficult for mom and pop businesses to be handed down to their children. Marginal tax rates will increase for all Americans. The lowest wage income tax payers will see their tax bill increase by 50 percent, paying a 15 percent tax rate rather than a 10 percent tax rate. Capital gains tax rates will be raised significantly. For any student of the recent economic growth in our Nation knows that the capital gains tax cuts have been a significant driver of economic growth in the U.S. over the past 4 years. And, the stimulative effect that the cut in capitals gains has had on our economy has actually resulted in more revenue flowing into the U.S. Treasury than would have flowed with out the cut in capital gains taxes. Raising these taxes, as the Democrats are doing will put the breaks on our economy and slow economic growth. If there is any doubt about where the heart of the Democrat party in Congress lies on taxes and spending, only consider the votes that we just held. Over half of the Democrats in the House of Representatives just voted for the substitute budget offered by Representative Kilpatrick. That budget proposal raised taxes by more than $919 billion--more than 2 times the amount in the underlying Democrat budget. This is not really surprising given that the underlying Democrat budget is still $200 billion below the amount of increased taxes they will need to carry out their spending plans in their budget. So, Americans should be prepared, this proposed $400 billion budget that the Democrats are poised to approve today is just the opening shot. More tax hikes are in store. I would like to briefly address the spending side of the Democrat budget. Their budget favors higher spending. They put both entitlement spending and spending through annual appropriations bills (known as discretionary spending) on a path to receive automatic increases each and every year. Earlier this year, the Medicare Board of Trustees issued their report on the financial status of Medicare. They stated that Medicare will go bankrupt in a couple of years. Yet, rather that seeking to address this issue, the Democrats simply ignore the realities and pretend that this problem does not exist. It is irresponsible for the Democrats to simply stick their head in the sand and pretend that Medicare will not run out of money, but that is the path they have chosen--their budget does nothing to address this looming bankruptcy. I believe our seniors deserve better. If we simply allowed entitlement programs to grow at 4.1 percent a year rather than the 4.7 percent a year proposed in the Democrats budget, we could save Medicare and Social Security for future generations. Their PAYGO rules continue not only to favor automatic increases in spending and higher taxes, but they also allow them to spend now and pay for the spending later. By spending now, they also increase the baseline budget so that it is easier to continue increased spending in future years. The Democrat budget also eliminates the domestic emergency reserve fund contained in the current law, and provides no criteria for domestic emergency spending--which is exempt from budget disciplines. Absent a reserve fund, Democrats are destined to repeat in 2008, what they just did this month--designate another $28 billion in ``emergency spending'' bypassing all of the budgetary discipline rules. If there is any doubt about the Democrats' lack of budgetary discipline the fact that the majority of their caucus just voted for substitute budgets that increase taxes by between $950 and $717 billion. That is more than twice the tax increase in their base bill. And on the spending side, these alternative budgets would have increased spending by hundreds of billions of dollars more. Another unrealistic assumption in the Democrat budget plan is their assumption that they will receive over $392.5 billion in new tax revenue that they will be able to use for spending and reducing the deficit by closing the mystical tax gap. Yet The Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service has testified the IRS could collect, at best, about $20 billion of these taxes 5 years after implementing specific policies recommended in the President's budget. The Democrats remove the firewall between defense and non-defense spending enabling them to cut the defense spending further and spend the money on other programs. If there was ever any doubt about that Congressional Democrats are the party of ``Tax and Spend'' those doubts are put to bed today, as they have come out in spades for both.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I introduced the Blue Water Highway Act of 2007. As Members of this body know, the ability to cost-effectively transport goods to domestic markets is vital to our economy. It's becoming increasingly clear, however, that economic and population growth is far outpacing our ability to maintain and expand our existing transportation infrastructure, posing serious, long-term challenges to our current reliance upon land-based shipping. In Florida and around the country, roadway congestion and driver shortages are already making it difficult for trucking companies to expand capacity. Freight shipping by rail is encountering serious capacity problems in some regions, as well. And, recent estimates indicate that overall freight traffic will continue to increase exponentially in the coming years--up as much as 70 percent by 2020. Madam Speaker, we are presented with a choice as we seek to address this capacity crunch: We can try to engineer our way out of the current situation at hundreds of billions of dollars in new federal expenditures. Or, we can find alternate innovative modes of transportation that will help absorb some of the traffic our growing economy continues to create. While we must continue to invest in our surface transportation infrastructure, I believe that an alternative, environmentally sound mode of transportation is at our fingertips that will lessen highway congestion, save energy, and reduce air pollution. Short sea shipping, or what I call the ``Blue Water Highway,'' involves shipping cargo by sea between U.S. ports. By establishing a ``highway'' along our coast where smaller cargo ships travel from port to port along the Eastern Seaboard, Gulf Coast, Pacific Coastline, and the Great Lakes, we have the opportunity to significantly reduce highway congestion in an environmentally friendly and economically sound manner. Additionally, sea-based shipping would mitigate against wear and tear on our highways, potentially delaying the need for expensive taxpayer-funded improvement projects and allowing such funds instead to be used to free traffic congestion. Though getting the Blue Water Highway up and running is no small task, I believe that a modest tax policy change provided in my legislation would significantly encourage the development of a short sea shipping industry. The Blue Water Highway Act of 2007 would amend the Internal Revenue Code to exempt cargo shipped between U.S. mainland ports from the harbor maintenance tax. This simple tax reform would remove the primary prohibitive cost to short sea shipping, allowing designated cargo vessels to travel from Port Canaveral in Florida, to Baltimore, and then onto New York and Bridgeport, Conn. making other port calls along the way without having to pay the cargo tax each time it enters a port. Madam Speaker, amending the harbor maintenance tax is a reasonable policy objective that would go a long way toward moving short sea shipping from the backwater of the shipping industry.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thought freedom was worth fighting for. I thought, when we saw all those Iraqis risk their lives to go and vote and establish a government and establish a Constitution and to have, possibly, freedom of speech, that was something worth our level of effort. If you actually go over there and talk to those people, you find out that it is a minority that is trying to break the will of this body. That is what is going on. What I object to in this bill is the way you have brought this to the floor. You have got subsidies for spinach. You know, my constituents are asking, who put that in the bill, Popeye? Why don't you let us have a vote on whether or not we want to attach funding for peanut farmers and funding for spinach farmers to a war supplemental? Yes, why don't we have a vote on the Murtha language? Why are you denying us an opportunity, this body, a Democratic institution, the ability to say collectively as a majority, we think this kind of language is what we want to have? I don't deny the gentleman from Pennsylvania, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense, to put forward his plan. Even though he is not the Commander in Chief, the way I read the Constitution, he can do that. But the way I also read the Constitution and the Federalist papers, we are supposed to have some kind of a vote, and you are just bringing this thing forward under a closed rule. I personally think that is a disgrace, what is going on here. I am going to vote against this bill. I hope, as we move forward in this process, democracy, which the Iraqis are willing to risk their lives for, will someday be reinstituted in this body here.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my full support for alternative water supply initiatives and my opposition to the bill before us. We have an existing program that is able to provide affordable loans to communities to fund such projects--the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). The bill before us is fiscally irresponsible. It takes what was a pilot program enacted several years ago and which was never funded and turns it into a new, permanent $125 million federal grant program with a new bureaucracy to implement it. We do not need this program. The existing SRF gives taxpayers a much bigger bang for their buck. By establishing a new, permanent grant program, today's bill will divert dollars from the SRF leaving fewer dollars for the SRF to support a broader spectrum of water projects.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to H.R. 720, the Water Quality Financing Act of 2007. This bill is the third water bill brought to the floor this week. These three bills are filled with excessive spending, propose no way to pay for the increased spending, create duplicative bureaucracies, and impose requirements leading to inefficiencies that will lead taxpayers to getting less work for each Federal dollar spent. H.R. 720 is fiscally irresponsible. The fact is, Madam Chairman, we already have a program in operation designed to help State and local communities with water and sewer projects--The State Revolving Fund (SRF). The SRF is a fiscally responsible program that provides Federal assistance through loans and other cost-sharing arrangements to help States assist municipalities with high priority projects. I support the SRF and believe it strikes an appropriate balance between Federal and State responsibility with respect to improving water systems in communities across the country. While today's bill authorizes SRF funding, the Congressional Budget Office has determined that in total the bill will actually suck about $49 million over 5 years away from the SRF to be used in two new and less effective grant programs created in H.R. 720. Unlike SRF funds, these no-strings-attached grants do not have to be repaid and, in my estimation, will encourage States and municipalities to rely too heavily on Federal funding for improving their communities. Unfortunately, creating more government bureaucracy and undermining an existing loan program is not even the worst of this bill. H.R. 720 also amounts to a kickback to special interest labor unions. This bill imposes on States costly Davis-Bacon labor rules. Democrats are telling the American taxpayers that inserting special provisions for their political base is more important than fiscal responsibility. Under Davis-Bacon, any project funded through this bill will cost American taxpayers a 15 percent surcharge. This mandate effectively reduces the number of projects that can be completed under H.R. 720 by 15 percent. Adding a 15 percent surcharge will only serve to delay projects addressing water supply shortages and sewage treatment problems. The Davis-Bacon provision also discriminates against smaller--often minority owned--businesses that don't have the means to comply with its owner requirements. Finally, Madam Chairman, H.R. 720 raises taxes--$256 million over 5 years. In short, today's bill is an excellent case study for the new Democratic Majority's priorities: More expensive bureaucracy, a kickback to labor at taxpayers' expense, creation of duplicative government programs, and a hidden tax increase on ordinary Americans. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 720.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns about the bill that is before us, H.R. 569. At the beginning of the 110th Congress, the Democrat majority talked about the need for fiscal responsibility and with much fanfare passed the pay-go rules. Yet, for almost every bill that has been considered thus far this year they have waived the pay-go rules. They do so again today. The bill they have brought to the House floor authorizes $1.8 billion in increased federal spending over the next five years for state and local sewer programs. This $1.8 billion price tag is more than a half- a-billion more than what the Republican majority put forward in the last Congress when it was seeking to reauthorize this program. The bill under consideration today is anything but music to taxpayers' ears. Essentially, the Democrats are proposing a no-strings- attached taxpayer handout to states for local water sewer projects without responsible cost-sharing arrangements provided in currently existing programs. Furthermore, Florida communities would receive very little, if any, assistance. The state of Florida has already addressed many of the problems associated with mixed storm water and sewage systems and would thus receive very little benefit. So, this largely creates a new program for which Florida taxpayers will pay on others' behalf. A more equitable and fiscally responsible approach is to not divert funding from the State Revolving Fund program as is proposed in this bill. The SRF already helps states and local communities fund various water improvement projects. However, it does so in a more equitable and fiscally responsible manner by providing low-cost loans and other cost- sharing arrangements that encourage states and local communities to take ownership of high priority projects. Today's bill undermines this responsible approach and would incentivize states and local communities to become more dependent on federal subsidies for short- and long-term financing of their water sewer systems, rather than on the existing SRF. This bill simply hands money to the states, who then pass it on to local communities, without requiring them to have a detailed financing plan in place, and without cost sharing. For these reasons I am not able to support H.R. 569.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address H. Con. Res. 63, disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007 to deploy 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq. This resolution essentially has, by my interpretation, three sections. It has the first section, which speaks in support of our troops; and then it has the second section, disapproving of the mission of 20,000 of the troops, which is a little bit of an inconsistency. We are saying we support the troops, but we don't support what you are trying to do. But the most important part of this resolution is the third section shown here in white. There is nothing there. No plan. So the authors of this resolution are essentially saying, we don't approve of the President's plan but we have no plan to deal with this challenge. Ladies and gentlemen, we won the war in Iraq. What we are struggling to win now is the peace, establishing a peaceful government that can run this country. And we have very determined opponents seeking to make sure that chaos reigns in that country and we do what this resolution is leading us to do, which is essentially to leave. Indeed, a senior member on that side of the aisle recently said in the press that, ``This is the bark, and the bite is coming.'' We supposedly support the troops, but what is next is no funding for the troops; that this Congress under this new leadership is going to exercise the power of the purse and cut off the flow of money. But, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues, this is not Vietnam. The war in Iraq in not going to go away. It is going to continue to be a problem. If we do withdraw our troops, as many in this room want us to do, the war on terror will continue. We had a meeting today with the Ambassador from Jordan and the Ambassador from Egypt asking us not to withdraw; that we have to stay and persist and to try to establish a peaceful regime there. And they have their reasons, because they know this is a component of the war on terror. And the war on terror is a bad term; it is a war on radical fundamentalist jihadist Islam. And these jihadists are not going to stop coming at us. Indeed, since over the last 4 years, there have been attack after attack after attack in Bali, in Spain, in London, and they are going to keep coming after Western interests, because their goal and their agenda is to defeat the West, to defeat everything we stand for, and to ultimately establish a global fundamentalist Islamic regime. I oppose this resolution. I am going to vote against it, and I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same. The President's plan was recommended to us in the Iraq Study Group. It is amazing, many of the people who are saying they are going to vote for this supported the Iraq Study Group, and the Iraq Study Group recommended many of the components that are in the President's plan. We need to give this time to work. I know the American people are losing patience in this conflict, but I also know the stakes in this conflict are huge. And if we fail, the consequences could be huge to the region, they will be huge to the world, they will be huge to the American people and our children and our grandchildren. So I strongly encourage a ``no'' vote on this resolution