Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009: Requesting Member: Rep. Dave Weldon (FL-15). Bill Number: H.R 2638 Account: DOD, RDTE. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Harris Corporation. Address of Requesting Entity: 1025 W NASA Blvd, Melbourne, FL 32919. Description of Request: DTP will be a powerful multi-processor for hosting new capabilities such as Time Sensitive Targeting, Multiple Target Tracking, Automatic Target Cueing, and the ability to distribute this target information to other warfighters.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009: Requesting Member: Rep. Dave Weldon (FL-15). Bill Number: HR 2638. Account: Military Construction. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: EDC of Florida's Space Coast. Address of Requesting Entity: 597 Haverty Court, Suite 100, Rockledge, FL 32955. Description of Request: Construct a permanent Satellite Operations Support Facility (SOSF). The new facility will support existing and future satellite processing operations for GPS II, GPS Ill, the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) and future generations of military satellites. The new facility will provide a consolidated location for approximately 140 personnel.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009: Requesting Member: Rep. Dave Weldon (FL-15). Bill Number: H.R. 2638. Account: DOD, Procurement--Defense Wide. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Soneticom Inc. Address of Requesting Entity: 1045 John Rodes Blvd., West Melbourne, FL 32904. Description of Request: FeC was built to autonomously identify, capture and accurately geo-locate RF Signals of Interest (SOI) used by our enemies. Initial test deployments have provided relevant field information that cannot be easily derived from any other source. This has generated an immediate tactical field need for FeC systems.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009: Requesting Member: Rep. Dave Weldon (FL-15). Bill Number: H.R. 2638 Account: DOD, RDTE. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Northrop Grumman Corp. Address of Requesting Entity: 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 2300, Arlington, VA 22209. Description of Request: The MP-RTIP radar is modular and scaleable in design enabling the USAF to share development efforts between the smaller radar intended for the Global Hawk and a larger radar for a larger aircraft like the E-8. More importantly, the large radar can detect and track targets with a much smaller radar signature--such as cruise missile or small targets on the ground.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 2638, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009: Requesting Member: Rep. Dave Weldon (FL-15). Bill Number: H.R. 2638. Account: DOD, Other Procurement, Navy. Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Northrop Grumman Corp. Address of Requesting Entity: 1000 Wilson Blvd, Suite 2300, Arlington, VA 22209. Description of Request: ALMDS is a major technology innovation in Airborne Mine Countermeasures that will revolutionize the U.S. Navy's ability to rapidly detect and localize near-surface and moored mines in the littorals. ALMDS will provide Navy assured access to Pacific Rim and Middle East Littoral waters by providing wide-area, 3-D imagery capable of detecting and classifying types of mines.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, many of my constituents have called and written me in opposition to the current plan to deal with the Nations financial crisis. I consider this to be one of the most serious and important issues I have dealt with in my 14 years in the House. My father was born in 1919 into a poor working class family in New York City. During his most critical formative years from the time he was 10, until he went off to fight in WWII, all he knew was the deprivation of the great depression. He and his brothers and sisters regularly went to bed hungry, on many nights dinner consisted of a choice of either a ketchup or a mustard sandwich. He was a good student, nonetheless had to drop out of school at age 15 so he could go to work, often making only pennies a day, but his family needed food. After the war he met my mother and had a family and was never able to go back to school. One of the things that emerged from his experience was a tremendous amount of appreciation for having a good job and the importance of saving and preparing for retirement. Those enduring values he passed on to me. Today, our Nation is faced with what is being described by many economists as the worst financial crisis since the great depression. With the decline in the housing market there are many banks and other financial institutions that have been adversely effected. This has caused many of these banks to have to stop or reduce lending money. Many banks have gone bankrupt. There is no question that this problem was started by the Federal Government's efforts to modify lending rules to allow those with lower incomes and poor credit scores to purchase homes, often with no money down. The inappropriate and meddling actions by the Government- sponsored entities Fannie May and Freddie Mac laid the groundwork for this crisis and it was made worse by unscrupulous Wall Street Bankers and mortgage brokers. What started as a housing market decline has now become a credit crisis effecting global finance, and it is beginning to affect the retirement savings of millions of Americans and our national economy. Many companies are starting to find it difficult to get financing and we are starting to have leaders in finance and business tell us that if this is not contained we may begin to see spreading business failures and unemployment. It is against this backdrop that Treasury Secretary Paulson and the head of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke originally proposed a plan that calls for the U.S. Treasury to purchase with cash many of these mortgage backed securities held by these banks. Many of the assets are backed by real estate, but because there is no market for them today the bankers are being told they are worthless under the new accounting rules put in place after the Enron scandal. Banks loan out money at a ratio of 10 to 1. For every 100 dollars of assets they have on their books they are able to make $1,000 in loans. The banks that now hold these mortgaged backed securities have seen the value of many of these plummet to zero which has wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars of capital from their balance sheets. This has taken trillions of dollars out of the capital markets because of this 10:1 ratio. If you were a bank and on your balance sheet was a $100 million dollars worth of mortgage backed securities that the accountants are telling you it is worth zero then you can't do $1 billion in loans. The Paulson Plan called for purchasing these mortgage-backed securities with cash. I was not happy with the original plan put forth by the Secretary. It called for providing him unfettered access to $700 billion. The bill I voted for on Monday September 29th and which failed to get a majority was a significant improvement over Secretary Paulson's original proposal. It reduced by half the amount of cash he could access without coming back to Congress. It required that he also develop an option other then asset purchase that included offering insurance to back up the value of these mortgage securities. It also had strong restrictions on excessive executive salaries for many of these troubled companies. No golden parachutes. Despite the improvements in the bill it did not get my support because I liked it. I voted for it because I was concerned that inaction was too risky. My preferred approach was that proposed by former FDIC Chairman William Isaac. This plan was never given a vote. Since that failed House vote, the Senate took up the bill and it has added some good things. There are several extensions of existing tax breaks that help families and businesses that were due to expire. Two important items are the coritinuation of sales tax deductibility for the people of Florida and the increase of FDIC insurance to $250,000. It also has a provision to modify the alternative minimum tax. If this provision is not enacted over 20 million families in America will be saddled with huge tax increases next year at a time when they can least afford it. Unfortunately, the Senate put in several unnecessary items as well such as earmarked tax breaks for special interests. Despite the many flaws in this bill it is the only bill that I will be given a chance to vote on by the Democrat leadership. In light of the very serious problems in our economy, I will give it my support with a yes vote. I realize that there are many like-minded conservatives in District 15 of Florida and around the country that disagree. I am reminded at this time of the great controversy surrounding the drafting of the Constitution and its ratification at the birth of our Nation. Today, the Constitution is revered and it has served out Nation well for over 200 years. But the debate surrounding its drafting and ratification was highly controversial with many patriots at the time being strongly opposed to it. Time will determine if this financial rescue package will serve our Nation well. I am concerned that we are heading into a recession. This package if it works well will likely not allow us to avert a recession, but may allow us to avert a depression.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I wanted to stay and linger and listen to the direction of your special order here. And I couldn't help but feel the need to come down here and ask you to yield time, and I thank you for doing that. I sat on the Financial Services Committee from 1996 through to 2002. And one of the first things that was brought to my attention, once I got on the committee, was the concern that many of us had on the committee about the rapid growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two very, very large government-sponsored entities--they call them GSEs. It was sort of a mongrel creation that was somewhat free market, selling stocks and bonds. And then, nonetheless, it had a Federal backing to it creating an impression that it was an arm of the Federal Government. And the concern was, essentially, that it was not a properly regulated entity. There was this very small agency within Treasury called OFHEO, which was given the responsibility, very small staff, very limited number of examiners, to monitor these two gigantic entities that had assets into the trillions--not billions--but trillions of dollars. And the concern that many of us, many of the Republicans had on the committee was that if one of these entities had significant problems, that it could be a major, major hit to our economy. And we got tremendous resistance from the left, from the Democrats. They were telling us there is nothing wrong with Fannie and Freddie. Indeed, what I found to be particularly objectionable whenever we would bring up the thing that we were most concerned about, which was giving loans to people who had limited ability to pay back their loans and the potential systemic effect that that could have on our economy, we were accused of being racists. And low and behold--and thank you for mentioning President Bush. President Bush repeatedly brought bills forward saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac represented a significant risk to our economy and that we needed to regulate them better. Of course, the President was rejected by the other side of the aisle in his initiatives, and you can never get anything like this through Congress if you can't get Democrats in the Senate on board because of the cloture rule over there. So we were essentially never able to really move forward in this. And low and behold, it was discovered in 2004 there were significant problems with fraud, abuse, executives getting--cooking the books, getting huge multimillion dollar payoffs. Some of these--a lot of these people were former Clinton administration people. And then low and behold, we come to today where we have this huge meltdown in the real estate market and the Federal Government literally has to step in and take over both of these entities. And the important thing that is worth mentioning, we now have a credit crisis, and the reason we have a credit crisis is we have all of these banks holding stocks and bonds in Freddie and Fannie, a lot of it which is now worthless, and so they're seeing their balance sheets very negatively affected by that. And banks, of course, lend out money on a 10-1 ratio. For every $1 of deposits they have, they can loan out $10. They're seeing hundreds of millions of dollars of their holdings in mortgage-backed securities collapsing in value, and so, therefore, of course, we have a systemic credit crisis and, as a result, one of the toughest economic times that we've had in years and years and years, and a lot of it goes back to failure. And I really appreciate the gentleman doing this because there were many Republicans on that Financial Services Committee, and I was one of them, who wanted to get better regulation, strengthen OFEO so that they would become a better regulatory agency and actually reduce the size of Fannie and Freddie. And I will say this, those two entities should never be allowed to be resuscitated. The good assets they have should get sold off to private investors. The money, the revenue that comes in from that should be used to repay the taxpayer for the lost taxpayer money that's going to result from us having to bailout Fannie and Freddie, and they should never be allowed to occur again. I'm all for helping lower-income people who have the resources to pay for a mortgage to get into a mortgage, but we shouldn't be doing it to the extent that we did do, and the result now is some of the economic problems we're having today. So thank you, John Mica, for bringing this up. This is an important issue, and I again applaud you for your work on the Government Reform Committee because I know you have been working this issue as well for years.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I will be brief. I want to thank you for rising as you have tonight and acknowledging this time for me, my retirement from the U.S. Congress. It is extremely kind and very nice of you to do this. We couldn't be busier than we are today, and for you, John Mica, to take a moment to acknowledge me and as I understand it, you are also going to say a few words about some of the other retiring Members, I think it speaks very well of you. I want to thank you for you being my big brother. I got elected in 1994. I came right out of my medical practice. The delegation or Newt Gingrich assigned you to make sure that I would be able to find the restroom and things like that. Of course I am being silly on that point. You gave me a lot of excellent advice on how to be a good servant of the people. I want to thank you for that. Certainly I am going to be missing people such as yourself, obviously a man very dedicated to fighting for good Republican conservative principles here in Washington; but really more importantly, American principles of freedom and democracy. So you have been an outstanding role model for me. There will be a replacement for me in a few short months, and perhaps you can take that new congressman under your wing and provide them continued leadership as you have done in the past. I also want to thank you for all you have done for the State of Florida on the Transportation Committee. Your work has been very, very helpful to my constituents and I really think to the entire State. So thank you, John Mica, for all you do. Certainly I extend my thanks to your wonderful wife, Pat. It has been great getting to know her over the years. I am hoping this is not good-bye, that I will be in some capacity involved to the degree I will be able to see you and your family in the months and years ahead.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about a provision in this bill waiving the Iran Nonproliferation Act to allow NASA to purchase launch services from Russia. NASA is the greatest proliferator to Iran. Indeed, just this week, Russia announced its intent to provide Iran a missile defense system, not to protect its people, but to protect its nuclear weapons production facility. Now NASA has been asking for this provision because of their concern that without it, they will not be able to get our astronauts to the space station after 2010, when the space shuttle is retired. Now we are told we have to do this because we can't afford to fly the shuttle anymore. Mr. Speaker, this is pathetic. In the same week we are debating a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street, we are told we can't afford to fly the shuttle and we have to rely on Russia. Mr. Speaker, this is bad foreign policy. It sends a bad signal to Russia and a very bad signal to Iran.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information for publication in the Congressional Record regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 6599, The Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act for FY 2009. I have requested that the committee provide the full $122,000,000 requested by the Administration for construction of the East-Central Florida (Orlando) New Veteran's Medical Facility under the Department of Veterans Affairs Major Construction account. The committee provided $220,000,000 within the bill. The Medical Center will consist of a 134-bed hospital, a large medical clinic, a 120-bed Nursing Home, a 60-bed domiciliary, and full support services, utilities, and infrastructure on a new site. It will provide VA Acute Care, complex Specialty Care and advanced Ancillary/ Diagnostic services for approximately 92,000 veteran enrollees. The site selected is in the Lake Nona development in Orlando, Florida.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this summer has been a breath- taking one for stem cell researchers around the world, but not because of embryonic stem cells or cloning. Building on important work published last year showing that it is possible to reprogram an adult cell back to its primitive embryonic-like state, researchers led by Doug Melton at Harvard University have done what was thought impossible only a few short years ago. Melton and his team used mice to show that it is possible to directly reprogram support cells or exocrine cells of the pancreas into insulin-producing beta cells without ever removing any cells from the pancreas. Amazingly, it appears that one adult cell type has been directly and specifically transformed into another adult cell type. In other words, a simple injection of three critical reprogramming factors successfully produced insulin-producing beta cells and gave patients with diabetes and their families new reason to hope in the power of regenerative medicine. Melton and his colleagues have brought us one step closer to what many have called the ``holy grail'' of regenerative medicine. He has shown that, in principle, it is possible to induce the body to heal itself by reprogramming one cell type into another. Imagine that; your beta cells can no longer make insulin and you are diabetic, perhaps because of immune destruction of your insulin-producing cells like in Type I diabetes, or perhaps because, like in Type II diabetes, your insulin-producing cells have just given up. If the work Melton describes can be reproduced in human patients, diabetes patients would have to receive a simple injection, maybe two or three times, and with that, their pancreas could resume producing insulin and they would be cured of their diabetes, no longer requiring insulin injections, no longer requiring painful pinpricks. Of course, Melton's work is a long way from the clinic. Mice are not people, and some of the details must be modified to ensure that the injection is safe and won't cause tumors. But this work represents an enormous step forward and should be pursued with all of the resources NIH can provide. This exciting news comes on the heels of another announcement also this summer, that researchers from Harvard and Columbia have used the reprogramming protocol to create 21 disease-specific stem cell lines that will enable researchers to intimately study diseases such as Lou Gehrig's disease, Type I diabetes, Parkinson's and muscular dystrophy. And it is important to note that this technique also does not require the creation, destruction or even the presence of human embryos. These cells may not be ready to transplant into humans in the near term, but they will be available for research today and for use in screening for drugs. So in a few short months, the promise of regenerative medicine comes closer to reality. Just last year, scientists and cloning advocates told us that we had to do human cloning--or at least to create cloned human embryos--so that we could accomplish these two goals that were deemed essential for moving regenerative medicine forward; creating disease-specific cell lines, and regenerating stem cells that could be a perfect match for patients affected by these diseases. Both of these goals have been accomplished with the reprogramming protocol; no cloning, no human embryo stem cells required. To say it another way, there is no medical reason to proceed with research into cloning human embryos for their stem cells because that science is obsolete, it is more cumbersome, it is more expensive. We have a better, quicker, easier way to do it. Now, I will note that these researchers who were involved with these breath-taking breakthroughs have done the politically correct thing and have said we still have to move forward with embryo stem cell research for compelling reasons. What those compelling reasons are I do not know. And I disagree with them. It cannot be denied that research is moving forward at a breakneck speed, and the Bush policy is still fully in place. This work also lends more support for all the adult stem cell work that we have been talking about in this body for years. For years, embryonic stem cell research advocates have claimed that only embryonic stem cells can be transformed this way. Now we have direct evidence that it is not necessary. Science is moving beyond the debate. Science is taking us in a direction of ethically responsible research.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. There is a reason why there's so much speculation in the oil commodities market, and it is because supply is less than demand. This happens in any commodities market. Where demand is exceeding supply, the speculators dive in. And you can try to encourage the CFTC and you can pass new regulations on speculation, but as long as supply is less than demand, the speculators are going to move in. And I will say further, that if you try to regulate this market so much that it becomes dysfunctional, it will just go overseas. And the reason the speculators are getting in is because they know that this Congress does not want to open up American sources of energy. I sit on the Appropriations Committee, and outrageously, today, we had the Interior bill before us, and we had three amendments: one to open up ANWR, a huge source of oil; one to open up our offshore assets of natural gas and oil, which can be done safely with today's technology; and the third is to open up shale. We have more hydrocarbons in shale than the Saudis have oil, but amazingly, the Democratic leadership didn't want to vote on those things. They don't want to open up those sources. That is the political position of the majority, the Democratic majority in this Congress, no increased domestic oil production, and that's why the speculators are pouring in. And there's going to be no relief for price at the pump, no matter what we do in this body, if we do not address the issue of supply. We have domestic energy. We can access that domestic energy safely and cleanly, but people are standing in the way in this body and the Congress of the United States. I predict that this bill is going to have absolutely no impact. We're going to do two more bills that probably will have no impact, and prices will probably continue to go up. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. This bill is a step in the right direction. It gives NASA the ability to extend shuttle operations. And I want to just point out, there is a very important scientific mission, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer mission. We spent $1.5 billion building that piece of machinery, and NASA's current plan is to leave it on the ground. This bill correctly calls for launching that mission, and it is the right thing to do. To spend all that money to build that thing and then to never launch it is just wrong. However, I do want to underscore that the future Congress and the next administration is going to have to wrestle with the issue of getting the funding in the appropriation process. But I just want to say that, based on current economic growth, over the next 5 to 7 years 1 trillion additional dollars is going to come into this U.S. Treasury. This is a matter of priorities. The American people support our space program. It's the right thing to do to keep the shuttle flying beyond 2010.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of the underlying bill. And I commend the gentlelady from Florida for her inspiring words. This bill is on the right track by extending shuttle operations, giving NASA the option to extend shuttle operations beyond 2010. Taking away the artificial 2010 deadline and allowing NASA to finish all the flights currently on the manifest will give NASA more flexibility and provide needed transportation to the International Space Station and help lessen the severity of the gap. However, I want to underscore that this bill does not fix the problem established by this administration. And my hope is that the next administration and the next Congress will fix this problem of putting NASA and the United States in a situation where we will be dependent on the Russians to put our astronauts into space for possibly longer than 5 years. The Government Accountability Office recently testified before a congressional committee indicating that there are a number of technological challenges facing the Constellation program, the program to replace the shuttle, and that delays in the program could occur and could lengthen this gap beyond the 4\1/2\ to 5 years that it currently is. History has shown time and time again that complex technological problems often lead to delays, and that attempts at closing gaps can often be frustrated. Therefore, it is my opinion that the only way to assure that we do not get a lengthening of the gap, and the only way to make sure that we eliminate this gap is to extend shuttle operations. Now, I was very disappointed in the Statement of Administration Policy on this bill that whoever was responsible for drafting this thing, they chose to dig up the canard that it is unsafe to extend shuttle operations beyond 2010. The truth is that the last shuttle that flies in 2010 will be the same shuttle that flies in 2011 if we extend shuttle operations. And if we are to argue that it is unsafe to fly the shuttle beyond 2010, you could just as easily argue that it's unsafe to fly it today. The truth is, after the improvements that have been made after the Columbia and the Challenger disasters, the shuttle that flies today is the safest shuttle that we have ever flown. And yes, going into outer space has its risks, but we choose to do so because we are a Nation of explorers, and we feel that the risks are justified for the benefits of space exploration. I just also want to point out that relying on the Soyuz vehicle-- supposedly because it's safer, as the administration is implying in their statement--is not exactly correct. We just recently saw a situation where the returning Soyuz vehicle was thrown off course into a dangerous ballistic reentry, exposing the astronauts on board, including a female astronaut, Peggy Whitson, to very dangerous G forces.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Nation of Israel on its 60th anniversary and add my support for H. Con. Res. 322. The Nation of Israel holds a unique position in the history of Western Civilization, and is supported the world over by millions of Christians, Jews and people of other faiths. I have had the pleasure to serve as the co-chair of the Israel Allies Caucus in the House and it has been my pleasure to work with members of the Knesset on important issues of concern to both United States and Israel. During my years in Congress I have come to know and befriend numerous Israelis, and I am always moved by their sincere desire for peace. The vast majority of people in Israel hope for a day when their hostile neighbors recognize and embrace their presence in the Middle East. I am proud that America was by Israel's side in 1948, and I am proud today to highlight this relationship between our countries that is now 60 years strong. Only two short years ago, the Jewish population in Israel surpassed the Jewish population in the United States, and soon there will be more Jewish people in Israel than perished in the Holocaust. While we will always remember the atrocities of the 20th century against the Jewish people, today we recognize and affirm this moment in history as a triumphant realization of the dream for a Jewish homeland.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for the courage and the leadership that he is providing on the very important issue of standing up for Israel and the right of Israel to survive and how much I have enjoyed working with the gentleman from New York on this issue and for him to come to the floor and make these comments and voice my total agreement with the sentiments that he is stating here tonight. This is a very, very important issue. Israel is a key ally of the United States in the war on terror. And now is the time for us to stand together with the people of Israel, and I want to commend the gentleman.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is my honor to rise in celebration of the coming 60th anniversary of the creation of the Nation of Israel next month. I have long been a supporter of Israel, and I am proud of the strong bonds that unite Israel with our own Nation. Not only is Israel one of our foremost allies in the current fight against terrorism, but they have been a long partner in peace, in commerce and in the values of liberty. Israel, like America, rose to prominence through the hard work of immigrants, and Israel remains the best model of democracy, religious freedom and peaceful coexistence in a very hostile location in the world. The contributions of Israeli ingenuity and Israeli technology are making an impact in the Middle East and throughout the world. And today, with Iran threatening to destroy Israel and developing nuclear technologies and ballistic missile technologies, it's more important than ever that people of good will, Jews, Christians and of all faiths rise up in support of Israel and acknowledge Israel's coming 60 birthday. Mazel Tov, Israel.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong opposition to this rule, and very strong opposition to the underlying bill. And let me just say from the outset that I used to take care of AIDS patients before I came to this Congress back in 1994. I was one of only two physicians in a county of 400,000 people that was seeing AIDS patients. And I have announced my retirement, my intent to leave the House of Representatives at the conclusion of this Congress, and I will most likely go back to seeing patients in January. And I may, indeed, be seeing AIDS patients again. Let me additionally say that I'm very concerned about the situation in Africa. Indeed, I have gone to Africa twice in my term of service here in the Congress specifically to look at the issue of helping in Africa with the issues of AIDS and malaria and TB, and so I think I have credibility to be able to say I care, I'm concerned. But this underlying bill and this rule that restricts any cutting amendments, in my opinion, is just excessive. Years ago, when the President originally came up with PEPFAR, he came to me and asked me to help him with his plan, and I did. And I actually thought his plan was very, very generous, $3 billion a year. And when he gave his State of the Union message just a few months ago indicating that he wanted to double the size of this from $3 billion to $6 billion a year, I personally thought that was excessive. When you look at all the problems we have with health care access for Americans, the problems that we have with transportation infrastructure, the problems that we have in fighting the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, the homeland security issues, I thought to take this program from $3 billion a year to $6 billion a year was excessive and over the top. But now we have before us today an underlying bill to not increase it by 100 percent, which is what the President was asking for, but to increase it by over 200 percent. That's the underlying bill. And the Democrat leadership of the House under the Democratic Rules Committee is saying, well, no, we don't want any cutting amendments. Now, let me tell you a little bit of why I am so passionately upset about it. Yesterday, NASA announced that, with the retirement of the space shuttle, they are going to be laying off over 6,500 people in east central Florida, my congressional district. That is a huge amount of people. It has a huge economic impact on the State of Florida. And for us to be putting our astronauts on Russian rockets, we're going to have to sign a contract with the Russians for the construction of these rockets, we're essentially going to be laying off people in Florida and hiring people in Russia with U.S. taxpayers. Now, this Congress, under this Democratic leadership, is saying that we have no choice, we cannot afford to continue to fly the shuttle in 2011, 2012, 2013. We cannot afford to bring the new rocket system online any sooner than 2005 or 2006, we don't have the money, while we have all this money to send $50 billion to Africa for AIDS. Now, again, let me just say, I understand this is a terrible problem. I don't even mind increasing the Africa AIDS account. And what, to me, is insult on top of injury, my staff has informed me that they have $1 billion in this account unspent that they are working to try to spend. So, they can't even spend all the money that we're sending them over there, and we want to send them a 240 percent increase? Now, I know every Member of this House can get up and give a speech like this; they have water projects in their district, they have health care clinics in their district. In my particular case, it's pretty significant. We've got over 6,000 people who are going to get a pink slip. So, for us to say we can't fly the shuttle beyond 2010 because we can't afford it, but that we can somehow find $50 billion to send to Africa, to me is just way over the top. I can't justify that back home. I'm opposing this rule. I'm going to vote against the underlying bill. And I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 18 for final passage to H.R. 3524 I voted ``aye'' but my intent was to vote ``no.'' I ask that the official Record reflect that my intent was to vote ``no'' on final passage.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 16 for the Capito amendment to H.R. 3524 I voted ``no'' but my intent was to vote ``aye''. I ask that the official Record reflect that my intent was to vote ``aye'' on the Capito amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I rise to bring to the attention of the House an important new plan that seeks to bridge the longstanding divide between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The plan is titled ``The Right Road to Peace,'' and it is a comprehensive proposal for finding an avenue to peace, as well as addressing the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people. As we know, the Palestinian people have, for nearly three generations, languished in U.N.-run refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Gaza and the West Bank. The author of the proposal, Mr. Binyamin Elon, a highly respected member of Israel's Knesset, he, at the heart of this plan, has offered an innovative approach for providing opportunity, housing and education to a population which, for a long time, has lived as a ward of the international community. Mr. Elon's proposal would end the cycle of dependence that long has shackled Palestinian development. Madam Speaker, I will include a summary of the document entitled ``The Right Road to Peace'' into the Record after my remarks. Today, there are approximately 1.3 million registered Palestinians being cared for in 59 camps run by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, or the U-N-R-W-A, sometimes referred to as UNRWA. Nearly 60 years after the first of these camps were established, virtually nothing has been done to return this population to a settled existence. The 1.3 million Palestinians living in these camps live in a world of poverty, their day-to-day existence solely reliant on international handouts. The history of Palestinian refugee problems clarifies why the Elon peace plan is so needed at this time: Following the Israeli War of Independence in 1948, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced. At the time, hundreds of thousands of Jews fled also or were ousted from their homes in Arab lands. The U.N. established the U.N. Relief and Works Agency in 1949 to care for the Arab/Palestinian refugees. The U.N. has never created an agency solely to serve the interests of one displaced group of people. Many of the refugees do not even have historical roots in the territory now known as Palestine. Many of those residing in the West Bank are descendants of those who came from Syria and the Trans-Jordan area. While the displaced Jews of the region settled in Israel and were integrated into the Israeli society, the Palestinians remain sequestered in these refugee camps. Why the Arab community that perpetually talks about the welfare of the Palestinians does nothing to relocate these people out of these camps is strange and, for many, it's considered no mystery. Many of these regimes fought against Israel in 1948, seeking to destroy Israel, and their desire is to perpetuate the camps and to perpetuate the terrorism the camps breed. This, in my opinion, is unfortunate, and UNWRA is a U.N. agency established purportedly for the benefit of the refugees. However, in my opinion, it serves to perpetuate the terrorism problem. While UNWRA lets camp residents run their own activities, under its own oversight, the camps have become centers of terrorism, lawlessness, and crime. This further victimizes the Palestinians in the refugee camps who have no involvement in these criminal activities. Palestinian terrorists operate freely in many of these camps, coordinating attacks against innocent Israeli civilians and Palestinians who oppose their terror agenda. In 2004, the UNWRA commissioner, Peter Hansen, admitted in an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the agency employs individuals who are members of groups like Hamas, a group the U.S. Government considers to be a terrorist organization. Madam Speaker, it is high time that the truth be told and that the UNWRA mandate come to an end. In its place, a proposal should be adopted that would truly resolve the Palestinian refugee question, regardless of whether there is ever a formal resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. There is no reason why generations of Palestinians must continue to subsist in squalor and deprivation just so regimes in the Arab world have a diplomatic foil with which to attack Israel. The Elon plan is simple. Working cooperatively with nations around the world, Israel and the international community will assist the Palestinian refugees to find new homes outside the camps. Why should Palestinians continue to languish? Support the Elon plan. The Israeli Initiative: The Right Road to Peace principles of the israeli initiative (1) Rehabilitation of the refugees and dismantling of the camps. Israel, the US, and the international community will formulate it multi-year program for full and rapid rehabilitation of the Palestinian refugees. while absorbing them as citizens in various countries. During the rehabilitation process, UNRWA, an organization that perpetuates the status of the refugees, will be dismantled, and all residents of refugee camps will be offered permanent places of residence, citizenship, and a generous rehabilitation grant. The refugee camps will also he dismantled following this process. (2) Strategic cooperation with the Kingdom of Jordan, Israel, the U.S., and the international community will recognize the Kingdom of Jordan as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinians, and Jordan will again grant citizenship status to the residents of Judea and Samaria. The Palestinian Authority in Judea, Samaria and Gaza will no longer be recognized as a representative body, and all weapons will be collected from armed organizations. Israel, the US, and the international community will invest in the long-term development of the Kingdom of Jordan to restore and strengthen its economy. Israel and Jordan, together with Egypt, Turkey, and the US, will create a strategic organization to halt the Islamic axis based in Teheran, and to promote overall peace between Israel and the Arab countries. (3) Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria. In coordination with Jordan, Israel will extend its sovereignty over Judea and Samaria. Arab residents of these areas will become citizens of Jordan (Palestine). Their status, their relationship to the two countries, and the nature of the administration in the populated areas will be formulated and set forth in an agreement between the governments of Israel and Jordan.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, earlier today in this body we observed a minute of silence to honor the great life of Henry Hyde, our distinguished former colleague from Illinois. Henry Hyde clearly established himself in America as one of the great defenders of the sanctity of human life. He was eloquent on a host of issues in his outstanding rhetorical skills, but perhaps none was he more able and capable than in defending the dignity and sanctity of human life. And this body has been engaged in a tremendous debate involving the sanctity of human life as to whether or not for years now the Federal Government should fund the experimental research called human embryonic stem cell research, which involves creating human embryos for the purpose of killing them. President Bush, in what I believe to be one of the finest moments of his Presidency, decided to let the research go forward at the NIH, but denied funding to any more research which involved killing human embryos which had been occurring prior to the beginning of his term. This body has been engaged in a tremendous debate for years now as to whether or not the Bush policy should be overturned. And the defenders of overturning the Bush policy have contended for years and years and years now, number one, that there was great potential from human embryonic stem cell research, which is something I and others have questioned for years. Adult stem cell research and cord blood stem cell research have been showing great potential and clinical utility cures. Embryonic stem cells form tumors. They have never been shown to be safe or useable. But nonetheless, many people felt, myself included, that the science would outstrip this debate; and recently, I was very pleased to see the publication in two publications, Cell and Science, from two different research labs, one here in the United States involving Dr. Jamie Thompson, the researcher who originally was credited with discovering human embryonic stem cells. I would disagree, he didn't really discover them; we always knew they were there. He was just the first one to isolate them. The other is a research lab in Japan, I believe, and they have shown that you can create human embryonic stem cells from skin cells. Why is this so important? Why is this so significant? Well, for years in this body, in this Congress, we have been trying to pass a bill to ban human cloning. Everybody agrees human cloning is bad, but there have been people in this body and in the other body contending that we only want to ban attempts to create a baby; we shouldn't ban the creation of human clones in the lab because embryonic stem cells can never be used in therapy. I could never be treated for a disease from some other embryo because my tissues would reject it; but through embryonic cloning, we could do something called therapeutic cloning. Now, I have contended that was a science fix in that it had never been done in a research setting involving animals; and, furthermore, that it was not necessary. Now, this research shows you could scrape my skin and create embryonic stem cells from that skin scraping that would be genetically identical to me and could be used in therapies. So why is this important? Number one, I think President Bush has been vindicated. We shouldn't be funding this research. It is ethically questionable research, and it is unnecessary. Number two, it is now time for the Congress of the United States to put on the desk of President Bush a bill to ban all forms of human cloning because it is just not necessary. I started out talking about Henry Hyde and the sanctity of human life. Even if you don't believe in the sanctity of human life, one thing is absolutely certain: to create embryonic stem cells in the old way you needed human eggs. Where were we ever going to get all of these human eggs from? You have to get them from women, a very ethically and morally questionable thing for us to be doing, to ask women to donate through a painful, difficult surgical procedure, to donate their eggs for a form of research that has never been validated in the lab, in animal models as being viable in clinical therapeutics. So you don't have to invoke the sanctity of human life, but I must say I personally believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe Henry Hyde was right when he spoke over and over again on the importance of this. And it is now time for the Congress of the United States to act, put a bill on the President's desk to ban human cloning. The science is finally with us now.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor our veterans. This Sunday is Veterans Day. As a veteran myself and the son of a combat-wounded veteran, I believe it is very, very important that we as a nation take time and honor those who have served in our armed services. It is a fact that we all understand that freedom comes at a price and that it is those who put on the uniform and serve that preserve freedom for us and so many others around the world. It's unfortunate that I have to rise as well and express my concern over our failure to move a veterans bill through this body to fund the Department of Veterans Affairs. Thanksgiving is less than 2 weeks ago, and as a physician who volunteers his time in a veterans clinic in his congressional district, I can say that I know that we can put our partisan differences behind us, put them aside, and we can come together and finally pass a veterans funding bill. I regret that we have not been able to do that today so late in the year right before Veterans Day. Let's see if we can get that work done next week.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise to express my concerns about H.R. 3685, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Unfortunately, this bill goes far beyond simply providing protections against discrimination. If that had been the sole purpose of H.R. 3685, the authors would have closely tracked the Civil Rights Act. The fact that they chose not to follow the Civil Rights Act, but instead create a whole new statute belies their true motives. Because H.R. 3685 does not consider the rights of other protected classes by giving them less protection than have already been provided for them under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, I believe this legislation is unfair and unwise. Again, as has become the common practice with the new majority, this bill is on the floor with little review, no committee hearings, and little input from religious organizations and employees that will feel the largest impact from this legislation. Having a one-sided piece of legislation rushed to the floor is no way to pass legislation whose implications will be deeply felt by all Americans. This haste to the House floor, fear of constructive criticism, and failure to model this bill after other successful Federal civil rights legislation, is unwise and is plagued with pitfalls. The Committee summarily rejected amendments to (1) broaden the exemption for religious schools not covered by the definition in H.R. 3685 to make it consistent with Title VII exemptions; (2) strike the vague and confusing ``perceived'' sexual orientation language; (3) prohibit retaliation against employees who may not agree with employer policies relating to this bill on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs and; (4) remove the provision making it unlawful to condition employment in a State in which a person cannot marry a person of the same sex. One wonders why in the quest to protect one group, the authors of this bill are so willing to infringe and discriminate against the rights of others. In fact, I do not believe it is going too far to say that the authors of this bill are willing to infringe on the consciences of others in their attempt to create new protections. H.R. 3685 contains a much narrower religious exemption than is provided under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which broadly exempts religious corporations, associations, societies, and educational institutions. There is strong evidence to suggest that non- denominational independent religious schools will not be exempt from complying with H.R. 3685 even though they are under Title VII. This issue has been glossed over by the Democratic leaders even though Congress specifically amended the Civil Rights Act in 1972 to forthrightly protect the mission-critical hiring rights of religious organizations. A significant concern over H.R. 3685 is its inadequate protection for religious employers and those with deeply held religious convictions. Under Title VII, religious corporations, associations, societies and educational institutions are given broad exemptions. H.R. 3685 contains insufficient exemptions for religious organizations and companies with sincerely held religious beliefs. While houses of worship, missions, and some religious schools would be exempt, H.R. 3685's definition of ``religious organizations'' is a two-part test to determine if an educational institution qualifies for an exemption. In light of the broad exemptions provided in Title VII and the successful management of competing protections, why does H.R. 3685 feel it is necessary to subject religious organizations to intrusive snooping of the Federal Government to investigate if the organization is ``religious enough?'' This requirement indeed constitutes an excessive government entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment, and it is doubtful that it would survive scrutiny by the Supreme Court. H.R. 3685 is vaguely drafted to prohibit employers from discriminating against an individual's actual or ``perceived'' sexual orientation or the actual or ``perceived'' sexual orientation of a person with whom the employee associates. Again, someone's ``perceived'' status is not included in any other civil rights legislation, including Title VII, which protects race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. Employers will now be subjected to claims and potential liability based on the highly subjective standard of someone's perception. With this legislation applying to essentially every company in the country with more than 15 employees, exposing employers to the threat of liability based on ``perception'' seems highly unwise and will create a lawyer's bonanza. This will force employers to defend themselves in claims and litigation by having to prove a negative--that they weren't able to perceive someone's sexual orientation. I'm sure this is welcome news for the nation's trial bar who will welcome vague loopholes to create Title VII claims to litigate. We should not open employers up to lawsuits because they were unable to ``perceive'' a person's sexual orientation, but that is what this bill does. This is especially an unfair burden on our small business owners, who will not be able to afford lengthy and costly litigation. This bill allows individuals to file suit, if their claims aren't resolved by the EEOC, for punitive damages up to $300,000. H.R. 3685 will also needlessly create hostile work environments, as religious employees protected under Title VII will have their right to free religious expression challenged by the new rights created in ENDA for individuals based on their ``actual or perceived sexual orientation.'' The balancing of these two will lead to an impossible balancing test of which law to follow and which to violate. While I strongly oppose intentional discrimination in the workplace to anyone, H.R. 3685 would favor some classes of citizens over other already protected classes. I cannot support a bill that does not provide adequate and equal protections to religious organizations, especially religious educational institutions that will be forced to act against their consciences if this legislation becomes law.