Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me start out by first saying that this is a fair rule. It gives the minority an opportunity for a substitute. I think they can also do a motion to recommit. I am certainly very pleased and honored that the Committee on Rules and our leadership has sought to bring this bill to the floor for a vote. We passed the tax relief package last year, and there was a provision in the bill that sunsetted all of the provisions in this bill. I think that was most unfortunate, but I understand the nature of the problem, although I do not support it over in the Senate. But the political realities of that body were such that this is what we ended up with. I think it is very unfortunate to have a sunset provision in any of the tax relief packages. I am hearing today from working-class families in my district, and in particular I spoke to a gentleman who works at Kennedy Space Center who just had a second baby. He discussed how the tax reductions, the increase in the child tax credit is really helping him and his family. The concern I had about the inheritance tax sunset was very, very specific in that I heard from people, indeed right after we passed that bill, I talked to a small businessman in my congressional district who told me he did not know what to do with his estate plan. Of course as we all know, we have this inheritance tax, and many, many Americans engage in very complicated estate planning to avoid paying the estate tax. I personally think that is very, very inefficient. I also think the death tax is immoral. If someone has worked all their life and paid their taxes, and been a small businessman creating jobs, and we in the Federal Government have been collecting Federal withholding and Social Security tax for years, to come along and tax the after-tax assets of those people, I think it is morally wrong. My good friend said what do I do with my estate planning? If I die in 2010, it would be okay for me to eliminate my estate plan. I am paying all these lawyers and accountants. But if I die after 2011, the estate tax comes roaring back. I am going to just keep my complicated estate plan. This guy has 400 employees. He has created hundreds of jobs. We as a Nation are benefiting from his work. Millions of dollars are collected in taxes every year off him and the people who work in his business. Mr. Speaker, I felt very, very strongly. We specifically had to repeal, if the inheritance tax repeal was going to work properly as we intended, if we want to create jobs and enable small businesses to be passed from the person who started that small business to their sons or daughters, we needed to get rid of the sunset provision; and that is why I introduced the bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the Democratic substitute. I note today it is true if we pass the Democratic substitute we will cover the vast majority of people. But as we all know, with inflation in time we will no longer be covering the vast majority of people. The other concern I have about that is we create an environment where there is no tax on the first $3 million, but then like a 50 percent tax on every dollar after that which is a huge marginal rate. As we know, every person with an estate will do everything possible to develop an estate plan so that their estate is less than $3 million at the time of their death. In the short run it may solve the problem, but in the long run I think it is going to perpetuate the problem. It is really picking winners and losers. I do not think we should do that. I think the estate tax is immoral, and I applaud the Committee on Rules for bringing forth a fair rule.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Colleagues, let us remember what this debate is really all about. There are a lot of people who want to reopen the whole issue of the inheritance tax, but we already passed a phaseout of the inheritance tax in this body last year. I think it was fairly overwhelming, the vote, and I think a lot of Democrats voted for phasing out the inheritance tax. Because of a quirk in the rules in the other body, the inheritance tax is phased out and then in 2011 it comes back. The reality is that for many people, small business owners in particular, and they are the group this tax most adversely affects, when they try to pass their small business to their heirs, 67 percent of them fail. And one of the biggest reasons they fail is because they get hit by this inheritance tax. They frequently have to lay off employees. And those people right now do not know what to do because the inheritance tax comes back in 2011. Many of them are maintaining elaborate estate plans specifically because of the feature in our bill. This really does affect jobs. Most of the job growth in my district over the last 7\1/2\ years has been from small businesses. And the only way to deal with this is to get rid of that sunset provision. That is why I introduced this bill. An economic analysis has been done on this, and getting rid of this feature can add up to $150 billion to our economy over the next 10 years. It can affect 200,000 jobs. I personally believe that if we leave these resources in the economy and create jobs out there, the Federal Government will actually take in more money, not less money, by getting rid of this very onerous tax. The other thing I want to say is that these people have already paid their taxes. They paid their taxes all of their lives, they created jobs, and the people in those companies paid the Federal withholding, paid the FICA tax, yet after they are dead we would tax them again. It is wrong.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his input on this special order. I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska for the last word.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for his very important input; and I believe the gentleman's colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), also would like to add to the gentleman's statement on this very important issue; and so I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the body regarding the very, very critical issue of repealing the sunset provision of the inheritance tax repeal. As many Americans know, last year we passed a very, very important tax bill. It reduced taxes on working families, it reduced marginal tax rates, it increased the child tax credit, and it had many, many, very, very good provisions. Indeed, I have been hearing from constituents, particularly parents, in my congressional district about how the tax reductions, even though they are phased in and, for example, the child tax credit only went from $500 to $600 in the first year, are helping. They tell me, particularly parents, where one spouse works, typically the father, and the mother is home with small children, struggling with the burden of trying to raise a family, that these tax reductions are really helping them make ends meet. Naturally, of course, with the Nation in a recession, these tax reductions have been very helpful in blunting the severity of the recession. Many economists claim that if our tax reductions had not gone into place, this recession would have been much, much worse. We just heard from the gentlewoman from Ohio how State income taxes being down because of the decline in the economy are hurting education expenses. Imagine where we would be as a Nation if this recession was much, much worse. And I think the tax reductions have been very, very helpful in putting more money into the economy and, therefore, helping create jobs and in protecting jobs. But, Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight specifically to address one particular feature of that bill. In the other body there is a rule that says we cannot make any provisions of the Tax Code permanent unless we have 60 votes. So all of these tax reductions which are phased in over several years essentially sunset in 2011. This is an unfortunate feature, and I was disappointed that we were not able to get the necessary votes to make it permanent. Essentially, it is a tax increase that is hanging out there over the heads of the American people, somewhat like the Sword of Damocles. For most Americans, I do not think it affects behavior. I do not think people will not have a child because their child tax credit might decline from $1,000 to $500 per child in 2011. I do not think that because marginal rates could potentially go up in 2011 that people will change their behavior in the sense that they will not pursue personal gain or they will not pursue career enhancements. But the one feature I think that is the most pernicious in all of this is the impact on the inheritance tax. The inheritance tax affects behavior now. People, today, who are affected by the inheritance tax, engage in extensive planning to mitigate the severity of the inheritance tax on their business and on their family. This was driven home loud and clear to me when I called a constituent of mine who is an auto dealer. Bruce Deardorf is his name. Shortly after we passed the tax cuts of last year, I called Bruce and he said to me, I am glad you passed it, it is a great step; but, he said, I do not know what to do about my estate planning. Bruce is like hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of small businessmen all over the country. He started out really with nothing. He scrimped and saved and managed to save up $60,000 and used that as the downpayment, then took out a big loan to open his first auto dealership many, many years ago. He has been successful and was able to acquire a second, a third, and now a fourth auto dealership. He employs 400 people. He has sent millions and millions of tax dollars to Washington, D.C., both from his personal withholding and all the jobs that he has created. All those 400 people of course pay Social Security tax. Now, this is not a story that is unique to my congressional district in central Florida; it is common all over the country. Really, the prosperity that enables us to pay for all the features of our government, from defense to education programs to local taxes that are collected is generated by entrepreneurs and family farmers that are going out working every day and creating jobs and creating prosperity. And Bruce Deardorf said to me over the phone, I do not know what to do with the estate plan I have established. This feature of the bill, this sunset provision, which basically repeals the inheritance tax by 2010 and then brings it back in 2011, makes it impossible for me to retire all the estate planning that I have generated, and I am going to have to keep it all in place. This is very, very inefficient. Most of the estate planning, granted, generates work for estate planners, accountants, and lawyers; but it is not in the productive side of our economy. And, indeed, I think this is an inefficiency that we have burdened our economy with. So I believe very, very strongly that we need to make the repeal of the inheritance tax permanent. It is impossible for people to plan, and I think it is the right thing to do. Now, I supported the bill that we passed last month that made all of the sunset provisions on all the features of the tax bill go away. If we cannot get that enacted into law, I think minimally we need to enact this provision. Mr. Speaker, I would like to now recognize my colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown). I understand that the gentleman wanted to speak to this issue on the inheritance tax repeal, and so I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the issue at hand. Many Democrats want to increase it 10 percent, and we put through an increase of 5 percent or 4 percent, and they call that a cut. Indeed, we saw that for years and years and years in this body. I know the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) got elected with me in 1994. That was one of the things in 1994 that I campaigned on. For years politicians in Washington would increase something by 5 percent, but the bureaucrats at the agency would say that they needed a 10 percent funding increase.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the story the gentleman told was very, very moving. Before I yield to my good friend from the great State of Nebraska, I want to tell another real-life story. I think it is so important when we make things like this understandable from real- life experiences. I want to talk about a florist in Kissimmee, Florida. His name is Danny Sexton. A lot of people on the east coast have passed through Kissimmee because it is right outside Disney World. Danny started out with a floral shop. His uncle had been established in the floral business in Kissimmee for many years, had a much bigger shop; he had about 20 employees and his uncle died, and Danny was the sole heir. Danny inherited his uncle's floral shop. Danny, like so many small businessmen, employed just a small number of people, five or six people. He had been involved in his community for years, giving to the United Way and other charitable programs. He really knew nothing about the death tax. Suddenly he found himself in charge of not only his floral shop, but his uncle's floral shop, which had been established many years earlier, was much bigger, had a lot of commercial accounts and he inherited all these employees. Lo and behold, he discovered that he was going to have to pay a tax bill, and the death tax was $160,000. But what was the real shocker, what was the real corker in all this is that you do not just take the floral shop and just give it to Danny, you have got to do a lot of other things. Lawyers got involved. There were $60,000 in lawyers' fees, there was $14,000 of accountants fees, there was a $15,000 bill for just miscellaneous expenses. And then this one here I thought was really kind of interesting, an IRS fee. I think that was to appraise the value of this floral business. If anybody knows, if you run something like a floral shop, the margins are kind of tight and he had to go out and borrow $253,000 to be able to pay for all of this. It was a real burden on him. He ended up having to lay off, I think, two or three of the employees in the shop. He additionally had to ask a number of the employees that he retained to take a cut in salary. Indeed, it was so bad for him initially that they went the whole summer in the office without the air conditioner. The air conditioner broke. If any of you have ever spent a summer in Florida, you know it is very humid. It is not only hot, it is very humid. And they had to totally cut off charitable contributions and helping out the Boy Scouts and the United Way when they would come around and they would have a special banquet or an event. Danny is pulling out of this. I know he is going to be okay. But this is really what it is all about. Danny's uncle had employed 20 people for years. Danny's uncle had paid a lot of money to the Federal Government in personal, Federal withholding, in the FICA tax. What is even more so is that all the employees who worked for him were also paying their taxes, their Social Security, their Medicare tax year after year after year. The Federal Government had actually gotten probably millions of dollars of revenue off of the enterprise that had been created by his uncle. And then for him to die and then for the Federal Government to come along and say, No, you've got to give us some more, I think, is taxing that is immoral. It is immoral to tax after you have taxed. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my good friend from Nebraska, another Member whom I believe has played a critical role in helping us bring this issue to the floor of the House making the repeal of the inheritance tax permanent law, because until you do that, you are not going to affect really all the estate planning that has to go on to prevent people from being burdened with this tax on their death.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the critical leadership he is providing on education. Educating our children is perhaps one of the most important issues that we perform here in Washington, although I believe that is really a priority for parents and local school districts, although we need to do everything that we can to try to help. The issue of the evening is the very important debate we will be having tomorrow. Tomorrow the House of Representatives will take up a piece of legislation that I introduced last year. It is to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent. It is H.R. 2143. It would not have been possible to get this piece of legislation moved to the floor if we did not have the support of a lot of people. Obviously the leadership of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the majority leader, and all of our leadership team. Critical as well was the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and on that committee one of the people actively pushing to bring this bill to the floor was the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). I now yield to the gentleman.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, did I hear the gentleman correctly to say that there are employees at the Department of Education that have used government credit cards to charge personal items?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the leadership he is providing on this issue. I want to just underscore that this is also a jobs issue. This poster I have here says it quite clearly. More than 70 percent of family businesses do not survive to the second generation. I was talking earlier about an auto dealer in my district. He has created his dealership and three others, and 70 percent of family businesses passed from the founder to the children do not survive. Eighty-seven percent did not make it to the third generation. Mr. Speaker, why is that? One of the principal reasons is the inheritance tax. When businesses go under, it means a loss of jobs. Sixty percent of small business owners report that they would create new jobs over the coming year if the estate tax were permanently repealed. Why is that? It is directly related to what I was talking about earlier. My friend has estate planning in order to mitigate his death tax when he tries to pass his business on to his son. If he did not have to do that, to employ those kinds of vehicles, he would have more money, and most of his money is tied up in his business, what would he probably do? He would probably sow it back into the business and create more jobs, which generates more taxpayers. The theme of the evening is the permanent repeal of the inheritance tax or death tax. Before we go on with that and before I recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), and I deeply respect his leadership on the Committee on Ways and Means. The gentleman has been instrumental in bringing this permanent repeal to the floor of the House, but I know that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) wanted to speak to some of the education issues that were brought up earlier this evening. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) to speak to this issue.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank both of my colleagues for their input on this very important issue. Let me just close with one very important point. We will also hear that making the inheritance tax repeal permanent will hurt donations to charity. The assumption there in that argument is that people are only giving to charity so they do not have to give it to the Federal Government. I just think that is not true. If we look at what happened after the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, giving to charity skyrocketed. I think wealthy people are motivated by the best intentions when they give. If they do not have to give as much money at death, I think they will give even more money to charity, and that America's charities will benefit from the permanent repeal of the inheritance tax.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman brought this up, because I wanted to get at some of the arguments we are going to hear on the floor tomorrow from the opposition. What the gentleman was just talking about, I think, segues very nicely into that. They are going to put forward an alternative proposal. The inheritance tax repeal we passed last year phases in over 8 or 9 years, and then the reason why we have got this bill on the floor tomorrow is in the 10th year it just comes back in its full force. What the minority will put forward is the notion we should just have a $3 million exemption and we could enact that immediately. They may point to the farmers and the ranchers and say if we just had this $3 million exemption, the Coble family that the gentleman cited is a good example, they would be covered, and they could pass the ranch on. Danny Sexton would not have encountered the problem he had. He could have inherited the floral shop from his uncle. The problem with that is that if your asset is worth more than $3 million, then everything over $3 million gets taxed at something like a 50 percent tax rate. We have inflation, and these farms and ranches that they say now are valued at less than $3 million, what are they going to be worth 10 years from now, what are they going to be worth 15 years from now? It obviously picks winners and losers, and that is the main gripe that I have. It is basically saying, well, if you have created a small business and it is only worth $3 million or less, then we will not tax you. But if you have been really successful, or if you have farmland in, say, Napa, California, where it is valued at incredible prices, no, we are going to tax you. I just think that is totally wrong. Let me also point out, 60 percent of the top black-owned businesses today in America are valued at over $2 million. That means in another 5 or 7 years, those assets are going to be worth probably over $3 million, and, boom, they are going to get hit by the inheritance tax. Another point is a point that I think the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) was alluding to earlier, that they look at making the inheritance tax repeal permanent and they say we are going to lose $99 billion. That does not take into consideration at all the fact that if you leave that money in the economy, you are going to put more money in the economy and it is going to create jobs and it is going to create wealth and that we would be able to then tax that. Indeed, it is estimated by economic analysts that the inheritance tax actually costs, and this is what the gentleman said earlier, I believe, it actually costs us, because it takes money out of the economy, money that would be flowing around the economy; it forces people to sell small businesses; it forces small business owners to take out a loan to pay the inheritance tax; and then their small business does not operate sufficiently. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona. I think we have about 5 minutes left.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Like a combine.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to recognize Brigadier General Donald P. Pettit, Commander of the 45th Space Wing in Florida, who will retire on July 31, 2002, after 32 years of distinguished service to the Air Force and his nation. For the past three years, Brigadier General Pettit has served as the Director of the Eastern Range responsible for the safe and secure access to space of America's manned and unmanned space vehicles. During this time, he achieved a perfect 70 for 70 launch record with many of the satellites deployed used to fight the war on terror and for scientific research to expand our knowledge of the universe. General Pettit entered the Air Force as an enlisted man during the Vietnam conflict and served four years as an aircraft electronics technician. He earned his commission as a distinguished graduate from the University of Miami's Reserve Officer Training Corps in 1974. During his early years of service, he served as a Minuteman Missile Combat Crew commander and strategic missile planner. During tours at Headquarters, Strategic Air Command (SAC) and the Pentagon, he was instrumental in developing, acquiring and deploying the Peacekeeper (MX) Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) now at F.E. Warren Air Force Base, Wyoming. As a field grade and general officer, he distinguished himself by serving in numerous capacities, including commanding a Minuteman ICBM squadron selected as ``Best in Strategic Air Command,'' and subsequently our nation's largest ICBM wing. As the Director of Plans and Programs at Headquarters, Air Force Space Command, Colorado Springs, Colorado, he created the command's Strategic Master Plan. While in Moscow, he negotiated with the Soviet Union ``The Reduction of Dangerous Military Activities Agreement.'' Since its 1989 signing, it has allowed Russian and American forces to operate in proximity to one another and precludes an involuntary act or miscalculation by either military force--whether land, air or sea--to escalate into a combat or war situation. Brigadier General Pettit's final command was at the 45th Space Wing, overseeing America's eastern space launch range. The Eastern Range encompasses a 15 million square mile area. Brigadier General Pettit's education accomplishments include an undergraduate degree from the University of Miami, Master of Arts degree from Pepperdine University, and graduating from the Marine and Air Force command and staff colleges and the Air War College. His awards and decorations include the Legion of Merit, Defense Superior Service Medal, and Joint Defense Meritorious Service Medal with oak leaf cluster and Air Force Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters. Brigadier General Pettit is married to the former Carol Worley, of Miami, Fla., and they have a son Michael, a 2002 University of Colorado graduate. I am honored to rise in support of General Pettit's service to our nation, and I am proud of his commitment to the cause of liberty and freedom.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. You can get your own time. We all know that under Lyndon Johnson we went under a unified budget. The gentleman from Iowa got up earlier and talked about how he was not here. I was not here either, but the reason I am here, the reason I left my medical practice is year after year, $200 billion being borrowed after you raided the Social Security trust fund. We all know we have a unified budget. We all know that. I will tell you what I think this is all about. I think this is all about wanting to spend more money. That is the way I interpret it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will not consume the entire 5 minutes. I know the committee would like to resume its work. Indeed, I came down here earlier to speak and the committee was taking action so I left, went back to my office, and I saw again a lot of what I would describe as political rhetoric. One of the reasons why I do not buy anything you all say is where is your budget? Where is your budget? Why did not you produce a budget 2 months ago, 3 months ago? Where is your budget? You do not have a budget. How are you going to pay for the war? The troops are in the field. We have raided all of the accounts. We have got to replenish those accounts. That is what the gentleman from Florida is trying to do in this supplemental. He is trying to put money back in for ammunition. They are out in the field and they have no weapons. They have no ability to continue to fight. We are trying to give the troops what they want. We put all this in our budget. Where is your budget, I ask you? And then you come to this floor over and over and say you want a straight up-and-down vote on the debt ceiling. Are you saying you will vote for that? I want to ask you all that question. Can I interpret that to mean, if we give you a straight up-and-down vote, you will vote for an increase in the debt ceiling? That is baloney.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. No, I will not yield.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. You guys have been talking for 8 hours straight.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would pose another question to my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The Social Security trust fund, they keep bringing that issue up. Are they trying to say to our troops in the field they consider it more important that we do not raise the debt ceiling, that we do not use the Social Security surplus moneys than put the ammunition in their guns, that we give them the fuel that they need? We all know what is going on.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Eight hours straight you have been talking.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Now I have another question.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4737. It is good work that this Congress is reauthorizing this program. America needs it. Today's vote comes at a critical moment in our country. At this time 6 years ago, interest groups were pouring into Washington saying that Congress would impoverish millions of children, that we would cause women and children to starve, that millions of families with children would lose income and be pushed into poverty, that the streets would be filled with the homeless, and that passing welfare reform would lead to increased infant mortality, increased drug and alcohol abuse, increased family violence and increased child and spousal abuse. Today, those claims are somehow forgotten. They are an embarrassment to the makers of those claims, knowing that welfare reform has led to fewer individuals and families dependent on the government, fewer teen pregnancies and a smaller caseload for State welfare workers. This is great news for America. H.R. 4737 builds on the success of the past and maintains full funding for TANF and investing in new programs that show promise for families and children. Congress maintains TANF funding, although the need for that funding has decreased. Every State has reported fewer cases of individuals and families needing assistance. But this should not be viewed as an opportunity to cut funds. Instead, Congress is prepared to provide more assistance to those who need it the most. Let me make it clear: the same level of TANF funding plus fewer caseloads means more resources available to those who need it. Because we know the job is not finished, H.R. 4737 provides additional authority, particularly with respect to promoting stable marriages and promoting and strengthening the role of fathers in the lives of their children. These programs directly speak to the well- being of children because of the toll that broken marriages, father absence, and out-of-wedlock births has on our culture and society. The reason that this vote today is so important is because it confirms that the reforms put in place in 1996 were the right thing and they continue to be the right thing today. After the last few years of implementation, each of us has heard from our States and talked to our constituents. We have been able to look at the data ourselves. The evidence is in, and welfare reform is a tremendous success. Here are the facts: 2.3 million fewer children living in poverty; 4.2 million fewer adults living in poverty; the lowest rate of poverty among single mothers in United States history; twice the rate of employment for single young mothers; a 60 percent increase in employment of mothers who lack a high school diploma; fewer children living in single-mother families; more children living in married- couple families; no increase in out-of-wedlock births. I could go on and on and on. In my State of Florida, an 84 percent reduction in the welfare caseload, the total number of individuals receiving cash assistance, has declined by 76 percent, and the total number of cash assistance cases has dropped from nearly 220,000 Floridians to less than 70,000 needing government assistance. Need I say more? What is exciting about all these statistics is that they represent people who have transitioned from dependence to independence. They represent children whose lives have been destined in the past to repeat the cycle of poverty but who are now watching their mothers, their fathers work and receive a paycheck. They represent young people who are changing their behavior, avoiding sexual activity and embracing their futures by refusing to be another teenage mother or father. These changes are positive, they breed hope, and they must be continued. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise not only in support of this resolution, but to be one of the original cosponsors or one of the sponsors of the resolution. Let me just point out that I do not have a large Jewish community in my district. The vast majority probably do not vote for me. I am not here to win friends, I am here to do what is right. This resolution speaks the truth. There are some people who are not going to be happy with this resolution. I can understand why, because it speaks the truth. It says ``Yasir Arafat and the members of the Palestinian leadership have failed to abide by their commitments to nonviolence made in the Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles (the Oslo Accord).'' Jeepers, they have not only failed, Yasir Arafat goes on the radio calling for more martyrs. Young people strapping bombs around their waists going into restaurants and supermarkets, blowing up innocent women and children, and he is calling for more of that. To say he is a terrorist is an understatement. I mean, this resolution goes on to talk about the Karine-A affair, how they were trying to import into the Palestinian authority tons of weapons. Mr. Speaker, we tend to gloss over the fact why we support Israel, and we will frequently just say Israel is a democracy, and then we move on to the next sentence. We need to dwell on that issue for awhile. To my knowledge, there have never been two democracies that have fought each other. There has never been a democracy that have done the horrible things the Palestinian authority has perpetrated against Israel. We have given the Muslim world a pass for too long. 1.2 billion people living under dictatorships where they have no freedom of speech, they have no freedom of religion, or political freedoms. This is the right resolution. This is the people's House. We listen to the people. The people want us to stand by Israel.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I have a chart very similar to the gentleman; and, Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend both the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for their leadership in support of real meaningful education reform for our kids. Our children are the most important heritage we have. We devote so much of what we do in this country to raising up the next generation of children in the hope that they will be able to become responsible citizens and become the leaders of tomorrow. We have a great heritage in the United States. Millions of great Americans have gone before us walking in all kinds of fields of knowledge and expertise, from the sciences to politics, to poetry, to education, the arts; and what we do and how we go about raising up the next generation is, in many ways, the most important thing that we do. In my opinion, we do have in many ways an inefficient system of helping educate our kids. We take a dollar out of a taxpayer's pocket and then what do we do with it? This chart to my left, I think, lays it out very, very clearly. It goes from the taxpayer's back pocket to the Department of the Treasury, then it goes to the Department of Education, then it goes to the State, and then from the State it typically goes to the State Department of Education, after it gets politically manipulated, and then it goes ultimately down to the local school district. In the State of Florida, which I represent, it goes to the county. We have a county system of school districts. So the county I happen to live in, Brevard County, Florida, 500,000 people, they have a very large school district, over a billion dollar budget. They get these Federal dollars that comes through the Department of Education and through the State, through the State Department of Education, finally to the local school district; and ultimately, it ends up at the school level. But here, way down here on my left, here is poor Johnny. And what we are really talking about here is that dollar that came out of the taxpayer's pocket is not a dollar when it arrives down here. I do not know what the figure is, maybe one of these gentlemen here can help me. Is it 50 cents, 60 cents?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I would be happy to yield; however, I think the gentleman from Colorado controls the time.