Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to say while I am pleased with many of the provisions in this bill, and I certainly want to commend the chairman particularly for a hard-fought negotiation with the other body on the issue of getting a toxic substance, mercury, out of the injections that we give little babies, I have to vote ``no'' on this conference report. I want to make very clear that there is an important, I think, distinction. There has been a lot of discussion back and forth about how we had combined appropriations bills in the past as the majority is doing today. At least my recollection of the facts in the past, we were forced to combine appropriations bills typically because there was a problem getting these bills through the other body because they wanted more spending and we wanted less spending. The purpose of the combination here tonight is to achieve more spending. Now, I saw a poll recently, and it truly amazed me, if you asked the American people a question, do you think the Federal Government taxes and spends too much, you get about 85 percent of Americans agree with that statement. Indeed, a majority of Democrats feel that we tax and spend too much. This bill increases spending $21.2 billion over last year. Now, the majority has been very quick to point out this is less than what we will spend in 2 months in Iraq and Afghanistan as if we can't deal with those problems and we can walk away from them. I think we have all agreed in this body, we have to try to see the war on terror and the challenges we have there through. But the important point with those conflicts is they will some day end; whereas, the money that is going in this bill will be incorporated in the baseline, and next year, all of these dollars will be increased another, I don't know, what, 3, 4, 5 percent. Depending on how you do the calculations, this $21 billion of increased spending could be $200 billion in 7 years, 10 years, and in my opinion, we have a responsibility to make tough decisions. And this bill is an attempt to achieve additional spending over and above the President's request. In my opinion, it just goes too far. I also want to just mention one other item. There are a lot of items in this bill. We cut the Department of Labor 20 percent that oversees our unions. When I first got on this committee, I have to say, I was shocked to see the loose degree of regulation and oversight that we have. The unions have to file a document called an LM-2, which details all their spending. And I saw a document from one union. It was a big union. They had taken in about $78 million. It was one page on one side. The reason it had gotten so bad is because, under the previous administration, oversight had been very, very lax. And this administration, because it is the union workers' money, and how it gets spent needs to be monitored because sometimes it is abused, and it is funneled into political operations inappropriately, this bill reduces that level of oversight. Now, I think that is taking us in a wrong direction. While there are a lot of features in this bill I think are good, I am forced to vote ``no'' on the conference report.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As a physician who practiced medicine for many years prior to coming to the House, I dealt with the issue of the uninsured on a daily basis. Indeed, I used to see it regularly, up close and personal. And certainly I think it is a noble endeavor for this body to try to address this issue. But I would have to say I think it is really shameful and disgraceful the way the majority has proceeded in this whole process. The first time they brought the bill forward they gave it to us at the 11th hour with no opportunity to amend it. They did it the second time. They did it the third time now. Never, as I understand it, sitting down and seriously trying to discuss this issue with the President. The President needs to sign it. And people keep coming to the floor and saying we need to do this for the children. What about the children who have to pay for this? I mean, let's talk about all of the children. The way this bill is crafted, the nonpartisan CBO has estimated it will migrate 2 million kids in middle- class families who currently have insurance onto the government payroll. And, jeepers, we can't afford Social Security. We are told that that is going to be insolvent. We can't afford Medicare. Under the current Medicare formula, doctors in this country are supposed to get a 10 percent cut in reimbursement. And now we are going to expand this program. And the other thing I just want to point out, we are really creating a new entitlement. And one of the very reasons I came here is that this body year after year was creating entitlements that it didn't have the ability to pay for. And all I can say is here we go again. We are expanding this program, we are making it like an entitlement, and we are saying over and over again we are doing it for the children. What about the tens of millions of children, the hundreds of millions who are going to have to clean up this mess? I am against this rule. I am against this bill. I'm going to vote against it again.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise as a supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, which focuses on covering children in families at or below 200 percent of the poverty level, $41,000 per year. I have voted to extend this program and to provide additional resources to ensure that those living in families below 200 percent of the poverty level, $41,000, have access to affordable health insurance through the SCHIP program. Before sharing my concerns over the bill that was vetoed by the President and that we are voting on today, I would like to share with my colleagues an overview of the SCHIP reauthorization bill that I am joining in introducing today. Our bill will provide families with health care choices, health care transferability and health care security. The bill I have cosponsored would ensure that all children between 100 percent and 200 percent of poverty are eligible to enroll in SCHIP. In addition to being able to enroll in SCHIP, these families could also decide to use their SCHIP credit to pay for the additional costs of enrolling their children in the parent's employer provided health plan. For those making between 200 percent and 300 percent of the poverty level, our bill would provide a $1,400 per child health care tax credit. This credit would be refundable for those who have tax liability less than the amount of the credit. Parents could use this credit to pay the additional costs of enrolling their children in an employer provided health care plan or in another state licensed health care plan. This plan borrows from the proposal put forward by a broad range of organizations that run the political spectrum--from the liberal Families USA, to the Chamber of Commerce, and the American Medical Association, AMA. The biggest question remaining after this vote is taken today is whether or not our House Democrat colleagues will do something that they have by and large failed to do so far with regard to SCHIP: invite House Republicans to participate in developing the legislation. To date, House Democrat leaders have abused the rules of debate to totally shut Republicans out of the legislative process. Two weeks ago, rather than having an up or down vote on the President's veto, the Democrat majority chose to put off the final vote for two weeks in order to engage in political posturing and partisan attacks. Today we are holding that vote and the outcome today is no different than what it would have been two weeks ago. So, why the delay? Solely for partisan posturing. Madam Speaker, our children deserve better and it is time to stop using them as political pawns. Unfortunately, recent press reports are filled with quotes from Democrat leaders stating that they want to keep this alive as a political issue, calling for ``repeated votes'' and temporary extensions of SCHIP over the next year, rather than approving a long- term bipartisan bill that secures SCHIP coverage for those it was intended for--children in low-income households with family incomes of less than 200 percent of the poverty level. I would now like to address once again, why I cannot support the bill before us. This bill: 1. Fails to place a priority on first enrolling uninsured children in households earning less than $41,000 per year, 200 percent of the federal poverty level; 2. Expands government SCHIP subsidies to those making far more than the Federal poverty level; 3. Spends half of the additional SCHIP dollars to enroll children in the government SCHIP program who are already enrolled in private insurance; and 4. Uses budget gimmicks--like booting millions of children off of the program in 2012--in order to fool the public into believing they can fund the program for the next 5 years. It is fiscally irresponsible to expand this program by enticing millions of children in families earning far above the poverty level to drop private coverage and enroll in the SCHIP program that cannot be sustained. In August, House Democrat leaders forced an earlier version of SCHIP through the House that cut over $150 billion from Medicare and moved that money into SCHIP so that they would have a way to pay for millions of new SCHIP enrollees over the next 10 years, including millions of currently insured children from middle and upper middle class families. Their plan to cut Medicare was rejected not only by Republicans but by the U.S. Senate, and most importantly by the public at large. The bill that the President vetoed is a bait and switch. This nearly triples the size of SCHIP over the next 5 years--including enrolling millions of children currently insured by private plans--only this time they have chosen to hide from the public how they plan to pay for the program for the next 10 years. They ramp up the annual SCHIP budget to nearly $14 billion a year, and then they simply leave it to a future Congress to find a way to continue paying for the massively expanded SCHIP program. And they hand the bill to future generations of Americans. It turns out that their nearly tripling of the Federal cigarette taxes still leaves them tens of billions of dollars short. Americans should be on notice that in 2012 the Democrats will ask for another $180 billion to continue SCHIP for another 10 years. Particularly troubling is that by significantly expanding SCHIP enrollment eligibility to those far above the poverty level, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, estimates that millions of new SCHIP enrollees will be children that move from private coverage to the SCHIP program. By moving children from private insurance onto the government program, this bill essentially enrolls 5 uninsured children for the price of 10. Enticing millions of children to drop private coverage and sign up for SCHIP is shortsighted and irresponsible, particularly given the multibillion dollar SCHIP budget shortfall that hits in 2012. What we should be doing is focusing this program on enrolling uninsured children in households earning less than $41,000 per year. Madam Speaker, our children and the American taxpayers deserve better than what the Democrat leadership has put before us today. In February of this year, States that had overspent their SCHIP funding grants came to Congress begging for more money to ``insure uninsured poor children.'' The root problem in many of these States was the fact that they had used their Federal grant to enroll children in the SCHIP program who were neither poor nor uninsured. New Jersey, for example had used their grant to enroll children in families with incomes of more than $72,000, even though there were and still are over 150,000 children in New Jersey in households earning less than $41,000 who are uninsured. I offered an amendment in February that would have refocused SCHIP to make sure that children in families under 200 percent of the poverty level were covered first. My amendment was rejected by the liberal majority on the Committee, who Stated that they had no intent to refocus SCHIP on lower income children. Rather, they planned to continue expanding the program to those well above the poverty level-- to include adults and illegal immigrants--as a step toward universal government-run health care. A recent op-ed in the Washington Post, by liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., removes any doubt of this goal by writing: ``This battle [over SCHIP] is central to the long-term goal of universal coverage.'' While the press releases about today's bill focus on uninsured low- income children, the language in the bill is about much more than uninsured low-income children. If the bill before us was focused on low-income uninsured children, I would be voting for it. The bill before us does the opposite. It repeals recent rules requiring States to ensure that at least 95 percent of those under 200 percent of the poverty level are insured under their State SCHIP programs. Democrat leaders in Congress have responded to the rule by arguing that there is no way to ensure a 95 percent enrollment rate of uninsured children in households earning less than $41,000 per year. They argue that since they cannot achieve the goal we should simply expand the program to those in households earning more than $60,000 a year or more. They use budget gimmicks to say that their bill is balanced and paid for through higher cigarette taxes. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that the amount of money Democrats estimate they will raise from higher cigarette taxes comes up billions of dollars short and that over the next 10 years they will have to find 22 million new smokers to bring in the amount of cigarette tax revenue they hope to raise. It is also noteworthy that lower-income Americans pay a higher percentage of cigarette taxes, but it is middle-income Americans that will receive most of the expanded SCHIP benefits under this bill. I am also concerned over provisions included in the bill that repeal the requirement that individuals must prove citizenship in order to enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP. This opens the program to fraud and the enrollment of illegal immigrants. In 2006, the Inspector General, IG, of the Department of Health and Human Services found that 46 States allowed anyone seeking Medicaid or SCHIP to simply State they were citizens. The IG found that 27 States never sought to verify that enrollees were indeed citizens. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that repealing this requirement will cost $1.9 billion. And finally from a Florida perspective, Florida taxpayers come up short. Florida taxpayers will send $700 million more to Washington than we will receive back in SCHIP allocations. Where will Florida taxpayer dollars end up going? Residents of California, New York, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and New Jersey will be the biggest recipients of Florida tax dollars. Yet, Florida has a higher rate of uninsured children than several of these. Florida voters will also be asked to foot part of the bill for a $1.2 billion earmark inserted into the 300-page bill at the last minute by the powerful chairman of the committee for his home State of Michigan. Madam Speaker, let's open up the legislative process and develop a strong bipartisan bill. It is time to end the politics around this issue and ensure that low-income children have access to this program.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to take the opportunity to recognize the importance to our Nation of what happened 50 years ago today. On October 4, 1957, Russia launched Sputnik I, the first artificial satellite to successfully be placed in orbit around the Earth. On that day, Americans were shocked, and many believed that we were no longer the technological leader of the world. On that day Americans realized that, like never before, our homeland was threatened. This was significant, because the leader of the Nation that launched Sputnik, Nikita Khrushchev, less than a year earlier had aggressively delivered to America the now-famous threat, ``We will bury you.'' To many Americans, Sputnik was a major step showing how the Russians were starting to make good on their promise, and it was a promise that America had to counter and nullify before it was too late. The reverberations of Sputnik and its launch were felt many years thereafter. Thankfully, our Nation got busy after October 4, 1957, to ensure that our space program became second to none. We began an aggressive effort to educate and train a new generation of engineers and technicians, and we began the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs and ultimately, of course, putting Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin successfully on the Moon and bringing them home safely. Since then, of course, we have built the most versatile and complex machine ever made by man, the space shuttle. We have constructed the International Space Station. I am proud of what we have accomplished with our space program, and now we are moving forward with the next step in human space flight, the Constellation program, which will, again, carry us back to the Moon and, with international cooperation, on to Mars. But we are, today, facing another watershed moment in the history of our space program. By 2010, the space shuttle is scheduled to end its over quarter century of operations. While this is a sad time for many, it will also allow us to continue on into the future with the Constellation program. Unfortunately, Constellation is not set to begin space flight until 2015. What will America's manned space flight program be doing to put men and women into space between 2010 and 2015? Quite puzzlingly, we will be asking the Russians, the country that agreed to bury us 50 years ago, to launch our astronauts into orbit. Now, I supported President Bush's announced plan in 2004 to someday retire the space shuttle and replace it with a new, safer and less expensive system to operate that could go back to the Moon and on to Mars, but I was critical of the President at the time, with his notion that we retire the shuttle in 2010 and not launch the new system until 2015, and that we rely, of all places, on Russia to launch our astronauts into orbit. Yet, today, that is what we are planning on doing. What is very troubling about our relationship with Russia, while we have had good cooperation with them in recent years, there have been problems, problems with proliferating weapons of mass destruction to rogue nations such as Iran. Indeed, this body passed the Iran Nonproliferation Act, and then we had to go back and amend it to allow our current cooperation with the Russians. Then, of course, more recently, the Russians have engaged in a number of behaviors that I consider to be very ominous for our future relationship with them, placing a Russian flag on the bottom of Arctic Circle and claiming the Arctic bottoms resources for Russia. The Russians have bitterly opposed our deployment of missile defense systems to protect us against Iran in Europe. The Russian leader, President Putin, has claimed that it will lead to a new missile race, and he has, indeed, threatened to specifically target European capitals. Is Russia trying to bring back the Cold War? It has reinitiated its bomber patrols, patrolling our NATO allies. I think if you add up all of these things and their recent abrogation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, which placed restrictions on conventional forces, I think this does not bode well to our continued reliance on the Russians in the years ahead, and we need a new plan to deal with our manned space flight program in the years ahead.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about the need to enhance access to affordable storm damage insurance, particularly for those living in communities like the one I represent in Florida. Indeed I have cosponsored and authored legislation that would do just this and compliment the steps that have already been taken by the State of Florida to address this issue. Asking American taxpayers to assume $19 trillion in potential liabilities under a program that the Government Accountability Office, GAO, has already deemed insolvent just does not make good common sense. If an insolvent private company came before the regulators asking the regulator to further expand their liabilities, as is being done in H.R. 3121, the regulators would reject the application outright. Increasing the potential liabilities of the National Flood Insurance Program, NFIP, as is done in H.R. 3121--without first paying off the NFIP's $19 billion debt--is unwise. Furthermore, the GAO and the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, admit that the $2 billion in annual premiums that NFIP takes in each year makes it virtually impossible for the NFIP to pay off this debt. No rational person would buy insurance from a private company who was $18 billion in debt or has borrowed from the U.S. Treasury (taxpayers) 14 times just to keep from going bankrupt. Forcing H.R. 3121 to the floor while blocking amendments from Republican Members of Congress, especially from Members from Florida and other States who deal with hurricanes on a regular basis, does not speak highly of the integrity of this program. As a father, I worry greatly about the burden we are passing onto our children. With reckless abandon, this Congress is rushing headlong into the future without any thought of what the ramifications of our decisions will have on our children and grandchildren. With every indication that Social Security will be bankrupt by 2042, with the Medicare program $17 trillion short already, the House passed another massive spending program with unfunded liabilities estimated at $180 billion this week in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. In the college student loan bill that we passed earlier this year, this Congress added tens of billions of dollars in potential liabilities. Today this House is going to ram through another massive spending program where, as stated in a study by actuaries Towers Perrin, payouts to insurers for wind damage in a given storm could be $100 to $200 billion. The GAO estimates that the current unfunded liability that our children face is over $46 trillion, amounting to nearly $375,000 per full time working American. Adding the additional potential liability of $19 trillion in this bill would raise that to more than $500,000 per full-time working American. We need to face reality and begin to think about our children and the America that we are going to leave them. As we think about the type of America we are creating for our children, I am reminded of a warning given years ago: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy . . . That is what this bill before us today does. It votes largess today, for political gain, while saddling our children with the debt. In good conscience I cannot do that. We owe it to future generations of Americans to turn the corner here and put their interests above our own. As the Comptroller of the GAO stated in his testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee in 2005, the United States is on an unsustainable fiscal path and our future standard of living will be gradually eroded--if not suddenly damaged--if we continue on this path. Reforming the NFIP is necessary, and this bill includes some important reforms, such as a phase-in of actuarially determined rates for some currently subsidized property owners. However, this bill does nothing to address the concerns raised by the GAO in the 2006 report that outlines the management and accountability problems after hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The easy thing to do would be to simply vote for this bill and put the burden of paying for it on our children and grandchildren, much like Washington has done already with dozens of other insolvent federal programs. But that would not be the right thing to do, and it is for that reason that I cannot vote to further burden our children with costs that we are not willing to pay for ourselves today.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a supporter of the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which focuses on covering children in families at or below 200 percent of the poverty level ($41,000 per year). I have voted to extend this program and to provide additional resources to ensure that those living in families below 200 percent of the poverty level ($41,000) have access to affordable health insurance through the SCHIP program. What I cannot support is the Democrat's SCHIP bill, because their bill: 1. Fails to place a priority on first enrolling uninsured children in households earning less than $41,000 per year (200 percent of the federal poverty level); 2. Expands government subsidies to those making nearly $80,000 per year; 3. Spends half of the additional SCHIP dollars to enroll children in the government SCHIP program who were otherwise enrolled in private insurance; and 4. Virtually eliminates all funding for SCHIP beyond 2012 because they have no way to sustain funding for SCHIP beyond that date. It is fiscally irresponsible to expand this program by enticing millions of children in families earning as much as $82,000 per year to drop private coverage and enroll in the SCHIP program that cannot be sustained. In August, House Democrat leaders forced an earlier version of SCHIP through the House that cut over $150 billion from Medicare and moved that money into SCHIP so that they would have a way to pay for millions of new SCHIP enrollees over the next ten years, including millions of currently insured children from middle and upper middle class families. Their plan to cut Medicare was rejected not only by Republicans, but by the U.S. Senate, and most importantly by the public at large. But now the bill before us is simply a bait and switch. They have brought a bill before us today that nearly triples the size of SCHIP over the next five years-- including enrolling millions of children currently ensured by private plans--only this time they have chosen to hide from the public how they plan to pay for the program for the next ten years. They ramp up the annual budget of SCHIP to nearly $14 billion a year, and then they simply leave it to a future Congress to find a way to continue paying for the massively expanded SCHIP program. It turns out that their nearly tripling of the federal cigarette taxes still leaves them tens of billions of dollars short. Americans should be on notice that in 2012 the Democrats will ask for another $180 billion to continue SCHIP for another ten years. Particularly troubling is that by significantly expanding SCHIP enrollment eligibility those in families making upwards of $80,000 per year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that millions of new SCHIP enrollees will be children that move from private coverage to the SCHIP program. By moving children from private insurance onto the government program, this bill essentially enrolls five uninsured children for the price of ten. Enticing millions of children to drop private coverage and sign up for SCHIP is short-sighted and fiscally irresponsible, particularly given that it goes bankrupt in 2012. What we should be doing is focusing this program on enrolling uninsured children in households earning less than $41,000 per year. Mr. Chairman, our children and the American taxpayers deserve better that what the Democrat leadership has put before us today. In February of this year, states that had overspent their SCHIP funding grants came to Congress begging for more money to ``insure uninsured poor children.'' The root problem in many of these states was the fact that they had use their federal grant to enroll children in the SCHIP program who were neither poor nor uninsured. New Jersey, for example had used their grant to enroll children in families with incomes of more than $72,000, even though there were and still are over 150,000 children in New Jersey in households earning less than $41,000 who are uninsured. I offered an amendment in February that would have refocus SCHIP to make sure that children in families under 200 percent of the poverty level were covered first. My amendment was rejected by the liberal majority on the Committee, who stated that they had no intent to refocus SCHIP on lower income children. Rather, they planned to continue expanding the program to those well above the poverty level-- to include adults and illegal immigrants--as a step toward universal government-run health care. In today's Washington Post, liberal columnist E.J. Dionne Jr., removes any doubt of this goal by writing: ``This battle [over SCHIP] is central to the long-term goal of universal coverage.'' While the press releases about today's bill focus on uninsured low- income children, the language in the bill is about much more than uninsured low-income children. If the bill before us was focused on low-income uninsured children, I would be voting for it. The bill before us does the opposite. It repeals recent rules requiring states to ensure that at least 95 percent of those under 200 percent of the poverty level are insured under their state SCHIP programs. Democrats leaders in Congress have responded to the rule by arguing that there is no way to ensure a 95 percent enrollment rate of uninsured children in households earning less than $41,000 per year. They argue that since they cannot achieve the goal we should simply expand the program to those in households earning more than $80,000 or more a year. They use budget gimmicks to say that their bill is balance and paid for through higher cigarette taxes. The Heritage Foundation has estimated that the amount of money Democrats estimate they will raise from higher cigarette taxes comes up billions of dollars short and that over the next 10 years they will have to find 22 million new smokers to bring in the amount of cigarette tax revenue they hope to raise. (It is also noteworthy that lower-income Americans pay a higher percentage of cigarette taxes, but it is middle-income Americans that will receive most of the expanded SCHIP benefits under this bill.) I am also concerned over provisions included in the bill that repeal the requirement that individuals must prove citizenship in order to enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP. This opens the program to fraud and the enrollment of illegal immigrants. In 2006, the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Health and Human Services found that 46 states allowed anyone seeking Medicaid or SCHIP to simply state they were citizens. The IG found that 27 states never sought to verify that enrollees were indeed citizens. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that repealing this requirement will cost $1.9 billion. And finally from a Florida perspective, Florida taxpayers come up short. Florida taxpayer will send $700 million more to Washington than we will receive back in SCHIP allocations. Where will Florida taxpayer dollars end up going? Residents of California, New York, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and New Jersey will be the biggest recipients of Florida tax dollars. Yet, Florida has a higher rate of uninsured children that several of these. Florida voters will also be asked to foot part of the bill for a $1.2 billion earmark inserted into the 300-page bill at the last minute by the powerful chairman of the committee for his home state of Michigan.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Local Law Enforcement Restoration Act of 2007 in response to the recent decision by a federal judge to strike down a local ordinance in Hazleton, Pennsylvania aimed at addressing out of control illegal immigration in that community. The purpose of that local ordinance was to keep illegal aliens from taking up residence within the town's jurisdiction or taking local jobs. I believe that my legislation is necessary at this time in order to provide clarity and ensure that local elected officials are able to enforce ordinances against illegal immigration in their communities. Immigration enforcement has already overburdened our federal law enforcement agencies, and state and local governments should not be hampered when they want to step in where the federal government has failed. The federal judge misread current federal immigration law and communities should not be penalized by over-reaching federal judges. My legislation simply clarifies the right of local communities and states to address the consequences of illegal immigration within their jurisdictions. A number of other communities and several states have taken similar approaches to address illegal immigration in their communities. Given the Federal Government's failure to act to enforce the laws already on the books to combat illegal immigration, a growing number of state and city officials across the United States are pursuing laws similar to those enacted in Hazelton. These elected officials are driven by Washington's failure to control our borders or deal with the more than 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. It is important to remove any ambiguity about the ability of states and localities--the ones who bear the financial costs associated with illegal immigration--to enforce their local ordinances aimed at addressing illegal immigration in their community. In many ways, illegal immigration is the ultimate unfunded mandate--the federal government fails to control the border, but then saddles states and localities with the costs imposed by illegal aliens (in the form of education spending, public services, and law enforcement costs). It is important to clarify that states and localities are not preempted by federal law from imposing civil or criminal sanctions upon those who employ, recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens. In the case of the ruling against Hazleton, the judge went well beyond the intent of federal law. Essentially, he said that cities and states are powerless to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdiction. The good news is that by amending the INA we can address this problem and provide the degree of clarity to this issue that would remove any ambiguity in the law. My legislation does just this, and makes sure that cities and states have leeway to reinforce federal immigration law. If you believe that the Federal Government has failed to effectively enforce our immigration laws, and believe that the Federal Government should ensure that states and local communities have the ability to discourage illegal immigration consistent with federal law, then join me in passing the The Local Law Enforcement Restoration Act of 2007.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in support of efforts to make college education more affordable for more Americans. Indeed, earlier this year I voted in support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007. I believed that bill took some positive steps. Unfortunately, the bill that is being brought before the House today for consideration, H.R. 2669, is full of budget gimmicks, creates five new entitlement programs, spends tens of billions of dollars, and shifts from the private sector to the taxpayers the potential liability for billions of dollars should student loans borrowers default. I am very disappointed that the bill before us, H.R. 2669, falls far short of its goal. While those who drafted the bill assert that it is a comprehensive solution to making college more affordable, H.R. 2669 fails to address the core problem of access to U.S. colleges and universities: sky-rocketing rates of tuition and room and board. In just the last 7 years, annual inflation has increased on average 2.7 percent. However, higher education costs for students have increased an average of 4.2 percent--a rate that is 55 percent higher than regular inflation. This bill takes a pass on addressing that fundamental issue, and simply makes it easier and more likely that students will borrow more money and accumulate a larger debt by the time they graduate from college. H.R. 2669 completely ignores the root problem. The end result of this bill will be that the average college student graduating from college 4 years from now will still face a higher college debt than those graduating this year--even with all of the billions of dollars included in this bill. Under H.R. 2669, those attending college in the future will be able to borrow more money and perhaps pay a lower interest rate for a short period of time, but with college expenses growing at a rate that far exceeds the annual inflation rate, students will end college with a significantly larger debt. This bill creates five new Federal entitlement programs, costing tens of billions of dollars. In an attempt to feign compliance with the pay- as-you-go rules adopted by the current Congress, the Democrats include a provision that sunsets these new entitlement program. This is a budget gimmick designed to fool the American people. Does anyone really think that when these programs expire and students are half way through their college education, they will simply be allowed to expire? Of course they won't, and taxpayers will be forced to hand over tens of billions of additional dollars to continue these programs. Incidentally, this will come at about the same time when the House- passed state children's health insurance program, SCHIP, funding dries up and Congress will be looking for tens of billions of dollars to extend that program. Creating five new entitlement programs and spending tens of billions of dollars puts this nation on a path to financial ruin. The bottom line is that H.R. 2669 enables students to take on more debt which will further burden them for many years past graduation. In 2006, the Higher Education Price Index, HEPI, calculation showed that inflation for colleges and universities jumped to 5 percent. This is 30 percent higher than the consumer price index, CPI--the regular inflation rate. When colleges and universities know that students have access to more funds through financial aid, loans, and grants, they have simply seen this as an opportunity to raise costs for students. This was the case in the past when college loan limits were significantly expanded and it will be repeated after this bill is passed. The bill takes a pass on encouraging colleges and universities to put a lid on uncontrolled tuition increases. But it's not surprising given that this is the same Democrat majority that created a massive $100 million lobbying loophole for public universities. If we truly want to help our students go into the world with a good education saddled with less debt, we should hold colleges and universities who take government aid more accountable and not allow them to continue their excessive increases in college costs. Colleges and universities have an obligation to exercise fiscal responsibility rather than simply seeing these new student loans and grants as an opportunity to shift more of their fiscally irresponsible costs onto the backs of students and taxpayers.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns about the bill before us (H.R. 3221 and H.R. 2776). While there are a number of good provisions in the bill, including the incorporation of several renewable energy provisions from legislation that I have cosponsored, these bills also contain seriously objectionable provisions. As a member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus I am supportive of many of the renewable energy provisions in the bill. I have been very supportive of securing funding for solar and hydrogen energy research nationally and in my congressional district. I also believe that conservation is important and am pleased that several important conservation provisions are included in the bill. Certainly conservation remains an important part of meeting our future energy needs and energy independence. I am disappointed, however, that while pursuing conservation initiatives this bill takes unnecessary steps that hamper our Nation's domestic energy production. I am disappointed that this bill not only does very little to enhance domestic energy production but is counterproductive in that it takes a number of steps that will raise the cost of energy on the American people and American businesses. One provision in the bill will cost Florida consumers alone, over $4 billion. Furthermore, through its restrictions and higher taxes on domestic production of fossil fuels, this bill will result in increased imports from overseas. At this time when American consumers and businesses are being taxed due to higher energy prices the Democrat bill that is being brought to the House floor will actually exacerbate this problem. It is also troubling that the Democrats have denied Members of the House the opportunity to offer and discuss over 100 amendments that they filed to this bill. Furthermore, of the 23 amendments that were allowed to be considered under the Democrat rules only five of them were offered by Republicans. The American people deserve better. This bill: Locks up additional reserves so that we cannot extract oil and natural gas; Raises taxes on domestic energy suppliers--giving foreign oil and gas producers a competitive edge over U.S. producers; and Raises the costs of all energy projects undertaken in this bill-- costing billions of dollars--by applying Davis-Bacon wage requirements for any energy project undertaken through this bill. Additional specific provisions in the bill that will do nothing to increase domestic energy supplies and in fact increase energy costs for the American people include: A $15.3 billion in tax increase on domestic fossil fuel producers; Sunsetting tax credits for refined coal at the end of 2008; Banning natural gas drilling for 4.2 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in the Roan Plateau in Colorado; Applying Davis-Bacon (union wage) requirements to all projects resulting from the tax credit bonds authorized under this bill--raising labor costs on such projects by 20 percent-30 percent; Giving New York City $2 billion to use for any transportation project of their choosing--the Chairman of the Committee represents New York City; Phasing out the tax credit for hybrid vehicles after more than 60,000 of them have been sold--discouraging further production and purchase of the most popular hybrid vehicles; Raising taxes on oil and gas companies for the costs of oil and natural gas exploration; Restricting the tax credit on biodiesel produced in the U.S.; Creating a $1 billion foreign aid program for energy efficiency programs in developing countries; Allowing individuals to sue the Federal Government for damages caused by global warming; Giving bureaucrats a longer time period in which to approve oil and gas drilling permits; Imposing Federal building energy codes on States; Permanently authorizing the expenditure of $125 million a year for a grant program; Creating a new global warming bureaucracy in the U.S. Department of State that will cost American taxpayers $750 million; Putting the government in the role of picking winners and losers which leads to serious inefficiency; Directing the U.S. Government to negotiate costly global warming treaties with developed countries--leaving developing countries like China and India free from such costly mandates on their competing industries; Cutting $1.2 billion from agriculture producers and shifts it to already subsidized biodiesel companies; Spending an unlimited amount of money on a cap-and-trade program whereby Federal agencies can purchase greenhouse gas emission offsets-- already proven to be very expensive for consumers in Europe; Making it more difficult to develop oil and gas on Federal lands by closing down Bureau of Land Management offices; Slowing the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, tar sands leasing program; and Including dozens of additional costly mandates on businesses and individuals that are essentially hidden taxes. It is no wonder that this bill is opposed by a host of organizations, including businesses, seniors, and energy organizations. This bill does little to relieve the high energy costs that consumers and businesses are paying today, and in fact; it raises the cost of energy for consumers, businesses, State governments, and the Federal Government. This bill does nothing to enhance our access to oil and natural gas. It does nothing to enhance the development of clean coal technology--a supply of which we could meet our nation's energy needs for the next 200 years. The bill does nothing to enhance our use of nuclear energy--a source of energy that produces zero greenhouse gases. It is important that we not view this bill in a vacuum. We must consider it along with other steps the current Democrat majority has taken that hamper our ability to move toward energy independence. Earlier this year the Democrat majority voted to prohibit the Department of Interior from issuing oil shale leases in Utah and Wyoming. They defeated an amendment that would have permitted offshore drilling. They voted to shut down the state of Virginia's plan to allow for drilling solely along their own coast. They voted against allowing drilling for oil in a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, which has oil deposits large enough to replace our imports from Saudi Arabia. I urge that this bill be rejected and that provisions that hamper our energy independence be removed. The President has said that he will veto this bill because it ``would lead to less domestic oil and gas production, higher energy costs, and higher taxes . . .'' Higher energy costs for American consumers will tax the family budget and will jeopardize American jobs by making it more difficult for American businesses to compete in an increasingly competitive international marketplace.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns about the final conference report on H.R. 2272. There are many good provision in the bill, and as a medical doctor, I share the goal of increasing participation in math and science education and in fostering research in these critical areas. In particular, I applaud funding for the National Science Foundation. However, I am concerned about the level of increase that is in this bill for the National Science Foundation--amounting to a 12 percent increase in each of the next four years. The NSF bill that the House approved earlier this year, and which I voted for, provided about an 8 percent annual increase for NSF. I was concerned over the fact that because NSF and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) compete for the same pot of money, increasing NSF by more than this amount might cause problems for our national space program. Now that the bill has come back from the Senate and the House-Senate Conference Committee with a 13 percent annual increase for NSF each year through 2011, I am very concerned about the threat this poses to our human space flight program. While this bill says that it is the sense of the Congress that NASA should be funded at the 2005 authorization level in FY08, the Democrat Majority could not even accomplish this goal for FY07 when the new Democrat leadership cut over a half a billion dollars for the space exploration account and funded NASA at only $16.2 billion--$1.7 billion below the authorized level. In addition, the House-passed Commerce State Justice Appropriations Bill for FY 2008 actually funded NASA at $17.6 billion--$1.2 billion below the authorized level. So, while H.R. 2272 includes nice rhetoric about fully funding NASA, the authors of H.R. 2272 know that such rhetoric is empty. Additionally, I am concerned that the bill creates 40 new federal programs, 20 more than were in the House-passed version. Many of these new programs are duplicative of over 200 existing federal science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) programs and will siphon money away from research in order to fund bloated bureaucracies. My belief is that there is no program that inspires interest and study in math and the sciences like our nation's space program. So recognition of this fact should follow with adequate and fair funding levels. This bill jeopardizes that and, unfortunately, I cannot support it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I rise to express my opposition to the bill before us. As a physician who still sees patients I find this piece of legislation to be completely unacceptable and extremely irresponsible. The Democrat majority--under the guise of providing insurance to uninsured lower-income children--has chosen to expand the State Children Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) far beyond its original intent of insuring low-income children. What is worse, they've chosen to pay for it by cutting benefits for Seniors and other Medicare beneficiaries by more than $157 billion. They have rushed this 500-page bill to the House floor without first allowing the committees of jurisdiction to fully debate and amend the bill. They introduced their bill last night just before midnight. Shortly after midnight, they added a 45-page amendment. This morning they made this available to Members of the House. Now they have only allowed two hours of debate and denied Members of Congress any opportunity to offer amendments to the bill. In fact, they are brazenly complaining that by giving Members time to read the bill, it would unnecessarily delay moving this bill forward. What is so offensive about suggesting that Members of Congress have an opportunity to read the bill before being asked to vote on it? Why the rush? Why the secrecy? Why are they shutting down the legislative process and rushing this bill through before anyone can read it? It is because they don't want the American people to know what they are doing until it is too late. And they don't want Members of Congress to know what they are voting on and what the true effects of the legislation will be. They don't want the 780,000 seniors in the state of Florida-- including over 40,000 seniors in my congressional district--to know that their Medicare benefits will be cut in order to provide health insurance to non-U.S. citizens, including illegal immigrants, and millions of children who already have health coverage. They don't want 8 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans across this Nation to know that their benefits are being cut so that the SCHIP program can be expanded to subsidize health care benefits for adults in states like New Jersey, some with annual incomes of $80,000 per year. They want to hide from America's seniors the fact that Medicare benefits are being cut in order to subsidize health care benefits to a new group of ``children'' who happen to be between 18 and 25 years of age. They don't want seniors to know that budget experts in Congress estimate that nearly one-half of the children who will be signed up to the SCHIP program after this bill passes--using money that is being cut from Medicare--are simply dropping their private health care coverage in order to get the federal subsidy under the SCHIP program. Earlier this year, I was troubled by the fact that Democrats planned to significantly expand the SCHIP program and I offered an amendment in the House Appropriations Committee that would have focused the program so that states would first be required to ensure that all children in homes earning below 200 percent of the poverty level were covered. My amendment was rejected by the Democrat majority in that Committee who said they opposed it because my amendment would focus the program on serving uninsured children. They made it clear that they had no intent of focusing this program on lower income children, but rather planned to expand the program to those well above the poverty level and to include adults and non-citizens. What else is in this bill that they are trying to hide from the American people? They repeal the requirement that individuals must prove citizenship in order to enroll in Medicaid and SCHIP. This opens the program to fraud and the enrollment of illegal immigrants. In 2006, the Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Health and Human Services found that 46 states allowed anyone seeking Medicaid or SCHIP to simply state they were citizens. The IG found that 27 states never sought to verify that enrollees were indeed citizens. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that repealing this requirement will cost $1.9 billion. The bill provides a bonus payment to states that choose not to implement an asset test for those enrolling in SCHIP. In other words, a family could hold assets of as much as $1 million (a house, car, mutual fund) but could still qualify for SCHIP if their income for that year fell within the amount allowed for SCHIP enrollment. For example, a family of four living in a $1 million home in New York with an annual income of $80,000 could qualify for enrollment in SCHIP. And if New York does this--they get a bonus! It is my understanding that this 500-plus-page bill imposes a tax on private health insurance. Certainly, they want to hide that from the American people. Mr. Speaker, it is clear that they don't want the American people to know that they are creating a massive new entitlement program just at the time when the financial strains of the Social Security and Medicare entitlements are being stretched as Baby Boomers retire. They are putting this Nation on a path to bankruptcy by creating a huge new entitlement program that they have no way of sustaining long-term. This is the wrong time to be saddling the American taxpayers with a gigantic new program. Additionally, I am concerned that this bill fails to secure the senior's long-term access to quality physicians. The 1997 Budget Act (a bill I voted against) created a formula that has resulted in payment to doctors being cut. As a result, today some doctors (typically the best doctors with the busiest practices) are starting to refuse to see new Medicare patients. This SCHIP bill does not fix this problem. It provides doctors with a 1 percent increase over 2 years then cuts doctor reimbursement by 12 percent in 2010 and 12 percent in 2011, or 23 percent over 2 years. The effect of these cuts could be devastating with many doctors facing the possibility of losing money when they see Medicare patients. The result will be seniors will not be able to see a doctor. Mr. Speaker, I could go on about the additional cuts to Medicare, including cuts to the following Medicare benefits: home health, end stage renal disease, oxygen therapy, imaging services, dialysis, and skilled nursing facilities. By cutting Medicare and spending the money elsewhere, this bill will make the challenge of securing the long-term solvency of Medicare even more difficult. Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Democrat leaders have chosen to pit health care benefits for America's senior citizens against those of children. There is a better way. Had the Democrat leadership chosen to consider this bill under the regular legislative process, we could have worked through this in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi has chosen to put politics before prudence. This bill goes far beyond the bill passed by the Senate, and the President has vowed to veto the House bill. This bill should be sent back to committee and debated in regular order. America's seniors, uninsured children, and the American taxpayer deserve better.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 748 I voted ``no.'' I meant to vote ``aye.'' Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Rangel

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to express my view of H.R. 1, The 9/11 Conference Report. I commend the bipartisan group that worked together on this bill, which on balance is a good bill, although I do have reservations about some provisions of the bill. There are some very good provisions in this bill, which were not part of the House-passed bill. I am pleased that many of the significant problems in the version of this bill that passed the House in January have been removed from the final conference report that we are voting on today. This bill no longer contains the provisions that place the collective bargaining policies of Transportation Security Administration, TSA, employees above the homeland security needs of the American people. This was a troubling provision that was included in the original House- passed version of this bill. It was troubling because collective bargaining rights would have interfered with the ability of the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA to impose the best work policies and procedures possible in order to make our Nation safer. It would have interfered with the ability to fully and quickly implement security-based policies. I am pleased that the Conference Report contains a provision that grants immunity from civil lawsuits to those who report transportation- related suspicious activities. This is a crucial provision that will free American citizens from the fear of reporting activity that they think is suspicious. No one should be subject to a lawsuit because they report suspicious activity. We cannot allow an atmosphere of fear of litigation to further hamper our ability to thwart acts of terror. If people feel some activity is suspicious, they should feel free to report it to the proper authorities. It is then up to the authorities to determine if it is suspicious enough to investigate. In weighing the rights of Americans, I believe the right to be free from injury or death from terrorists trumps the right of threatening people to conduct their threatening activity with impunity. This provision directly addresses the case of the six Imams who have brought suit against the passengers on their flight who reported their suspicious activity. It is clear to most observers that these individuals were likely fomenting fear in order to create the lawsuit that has resulted. I, and my fellow Americans, will not stand for the patent abuse of our own legal system used against us. Provisions in the bill enhancing the screening of air cargo carried on passenger airlines is an important provision and one of which I am very supportive. The bill will also implement a program to collect biometric data on those entering the U.S. from visa waiver countries. This will enhance security as will the provision enabling us to take into account visa overstay violations when considering visa waiver country policies. I agree with these and other provisions in the bill and believe they will enhance national security. However, there are some provisions that have little to do with homeland security and should never have been in this bill. In fact, none of these provisions were included in the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and in fact, do just the opposite of enhancing security. I am greatly disappointed that the Democrat majority chose to include a provision that will disclose to the public, including terrorists, how much money our Nation spends on intelligence gathering. This should never have been included in a bill aimed at securing our Nation. How does disclosing to those who seek to harm the American people make our Nation safer? I will be supporting efforts to ensure that this budget is not revealed and that this is not disclosed. Additionally, I am concerned that the bill included a provision that allows the administration to increase the scope of the Visa Waiver Program. Currently, individuals from 27 nations are permitted entry into the U.S. without having to go through the security processes related to obtaining a visa. I oppose this provision and will support legislative provisions to limit the administration's ability to expand the program. Finally, I share some of the concerns raised by my colleagues relating to the provision requiring 100-percent screening of container cargo. I am concerned that there are loopholes and weaknesses in such a system and that simply requiring 100-percent screening may give the American people a false sense of security. There are deficiencies in the screening technologies and, once screened, the cargo can still be tampered with. I believe we need to weigh the implementation of this program and adjust it along the way to ensure that we are using our homeland security dollars as wisely as possible. Even the 9/11 Commission recommended that we base cargo inspections on a security risk assessment rather than a 100-percent screening program. I think they recognized the value of a focused program. I look forward to continuing to work to address these issues.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to explain the purpose of two amendments I submitted to H.R. 3093, the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill of 2008. While I had planned to offer these amendments, I was disappointed that just prior to offering my amendments to the bill on the House floor, was informed that the Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science was going to object to my amendments and insist on a point of order against them. After discussion with the Parliamentarian, who said the point of order would be upheld on a technicality, I decided to not offer my amendments. I am disappointed that the Democrat majority chose to object to my amendments on a technicality, particularly when you consider that technical objections were waived for a host of other provisions in this same bill. I believe if is important to explain here and get on the record the substance of these amendments and why they are critical to securing our homeland. My first amendment (No. 14) would have tied funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program to whether recipients are complying with the federal prohibition on sanctuary policies. Sanctuary cities have been prohibited under Federal law (8 U.S.C. 1373 and 1644) for more than 10 years. Yet, there is no enforcement mechanism and no penalty for those cities that choose to disobey the law. My amendment would have prohibited COPS funding from going to State or local governments that have sanctuary policies which prevent cooperation between local or state police and federal immigration authorities or prevent local or state police from enforcing immigration laws. Terrorists know all about sanctuary cities and the concealment that such cities provide. The 9/11 terrorists are a case in point. Two of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001, ran afoul of police months and days before the attack. Mohammed Atta was ticketed in Broward County Florida in the Spring of 2001 for driving without a license. Atta was in the U.S. on an expired Visa and was in the U.S. illegally. If the local or state police had looked into Atta's immigration status, the leader of the 9/11 attacks would have been departed 5 months before the attacks took place. In addition, of the 48 Al Qaeda operatives who operated in the U.S. between 1993-2001, including the 9/11 hijackers, almost half were illegal aliens. Sadly, jurisdictions with sanctuary policies would not only prohibit their apprehension, it would also prohibit the police from informing federal officials of their immigration status so that they could commence deportation proceedings. Three of the Fort Dix Six--the men who tried to pull off a terrorist incident at Ft. Dix, NJ--were pulled over by local police for traffic violations. Three of these individuals had run-ins with police 75 times, but no one ever checked their immigration status. They were all in the U.S. illegally. The jurisdiction in which they were charged supposedly had a sanctuary policy ... which explains why they were never reported to federal immigration officials. We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that terrorists do not know about these sanctuary jurisdictions... so harboring illegal aliens creates an environment where terrorists can easily hide and not be found out. I want to be clear that I do not believe that all illegal immigrants are terrorists. Very, very' few illegal immigrants are terrorists. But those few who are terrorists can kill thousands of innocent Americans, as only 19 did on September 11, 2001. Obviously, the COPS program adds to our arsenal in combating crime by increasing the number of police in our communities. But funding increased police presence while at the same time not reporting known illegal immigrants to federal authorities, as is the policy of jurisdictions with sanctuary laws, is contradictory and self-defeating. If we simply allowed our law enforcement officers to follow Federal law by requiring them to inform immigration officials of violations of immigration laws, we would likely need fewer police officers to enforce our laws. Why would we need fewer officers? Because requiring local jurisdictions to cooperate with the Federal agencies to quickly and efficiently deport illegal immigrants, particularly those engaged in criminal acts, would help reduce the size and capabilities of criminal gangs. A large percentage of those who populate violent criminal gangs, including MS-13, are illegal immigrants. Violent criminal gangs are making these communities unsafe. FBI Director, Robert Mueller, has even declared MS-13 as the top priority of the bureau's criminal-enterprise branch. Even more, the gangs that are populated by illegal immigrants have increased the threat to our homeland. Honduran Security Minister, Oscar Alvarez, even stated that Al Qaeda might be trying to recruit Central American gang members to help terrorists infiltrate the US. Additionally, Salvadoran President Tony Saca echoed this theme, saying he could ``not rule out a link between terrorist and Central American gang members.'' My second amendment (No. 15) would have tied funding for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) to whether recipient jurisdictions are complying with the federal prohibition on sanctuary policies (8 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1373 and 1644). The amendment would have given priority in SCAAP funding to those communities that are cooperating with federal immigration officials in deporting illegal immigrants, rather than State or local governments that have sanctuary policies and simply release criminal aliens back onto U.S. streets. My amendment says if you expect to get federal money for incarcerating illegal immigrants you must also report them to federal immigration authorities so that they can be deported, rather than being released back on to U.S. streets. If a community cannot live by this policy, it is only right that they not get a taxpayer subsidy. What's amazing is how much money sanctuary cities are raking in from the Federal Government. During fiscal 2005, the Justice Department distributed $287.1 million in SCAAP payments to 752 state, county and local jurisdictions. Seventy percent of SCAAP funds went to just 10 jurisdictions: the states of California, New York, Texas, Florida, Arizona, Illinois and Massachusetts; New York City; and two California counties, Los Angeles and Orange. Many of the largest recipients of SCAAP funds are sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with Federal authorities on immigration enforcement. Some of the largest sanctuary cities and counties that received SCAAP money in 2005 include New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Houston, and Seattle. It seems as if we did not learn anything from 9/11 about the need to treat illegal immigration seriously and recognize that the failure to enforce our immigration laws can endanger our national security? Some of America's most important cities are sanctuary even though it is prohibited under Federal law. And it is time that the Federal Government stops turning a blind eye to sanctuary cities. If a community chooses to be a sanctuary, they should no longer expect to receive the largess of taxpayers from across this country. Once again, I am disappointed that the Democrat majority would not permit these amendments to be considered for all up or down vote. However, I will continue to work to address this serious national security concern.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to commend him and Chairman Mollohan for fully funding the exploration initiative. These are the funds that will allow us to continue to operate the shuttle and as well to continue to develop a replacement for the shuttle. And, importantly, that replacement, the Orion capsule, will be a safer and less expensive space vehicle, and so it is very important that we keep funding on track. I want to commend Chairman Mollohan for bringing up the important issue of the gap in human space flight. I would simply point out that when the President originally put forward this proposal, I shared Chairman Mollohan's criticism that this gap in human space flight is not good for America, and I am certainly anxious to work with the administration and with the committee to see if it will be possible for us in the years ahead to reduce that time where Americans will be relying on the Russians, essentially, to put our astronauts into space. While I certainly share the concerns raised by Ranking Member Frelinghuysen about the veto threat against this bill because of the excessive spending, I just want to go on record regarding the spending increase concerns raised by the administration in the aeronautics account. I am very concerned about our air traffic control system and its ability to handle the ever-increasing volume of commercial air traffic, and that we are falling behind on this critical investment of modernizing our air traffic control system. Additionally, I want to comment on the accounting changes in the NASA account that Chairman Mollohan has championed. While I agree that they represent perhaps a more elegant way for us to keep track of NASA funding, the 90-day time window he has provided NASA to implement this new initiative may not be physically feasible for the agency, and I am certainly hoping that he is willing to work with NASA officials in the years ahead. And then, finally, I just want to comment on two other important issues. One, I am very pleased that both the chairman and the ranking member are seeking to protect the census account. This is a very important account. It is probably one of the few constitutionally mandated responsibilities in this bill. I know that the census account is frequently used as a piggy bank by Members seeking to increase various sections of the bill, and I am pleased and I would want to continue to encourage both the chairman and the ranking member to protect the census account. Then finally, I want to comment on two amendments that I am offering in the bill. I have two amendments that deal with the issue of cities and municipalities that create sanctuaries for illegal aliens who basically say that we are not going to enforce Federal laws in our jurisdiction, and then they turn around and apply for grants in this bill to help them with the responsibility of dealing with criminal illegal aliens. In my opinion, that is inappropriate, and if they want to have access to the money, they shouldn't be creating sanctuaries. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to commend her on a very thoughtful amendment. As I understand it, the majority is going to be willing to accept it. I had two amendments that dealt with this very same issue that specifically dealt with the SCAAP program and the COPS program, denying funds to any of the sanctuary city or sanctuary community jurisdictions. As I understand it, her language covers both of those things, and I am going to be looking forward to working with the gentlelady in the years ahead to make sure that these sanctuary cities do not have access to these funds.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I just want to say a few words about marijuana. First of all, it does cause cancer. I have seen it. I have seen people with lung cancer, no risk other than they were chronic marijuana smokers. Additionally, the last time we were debating this bill, I called one of my former colleagues in my medical practice who is an oncologist, I had three oncologists, and I asked him for the latest information on cannabis, or THC. He again informed me this is available in pill form. You can actually get it in pill form. Additionally, it is not a very good antiemetic and not a good appetite stimulator. There are about 18 different products legally available that doctors can prescribe. By and large, most of the people who want to use this want to get high and there are consequences to letting this move forward. Saying that this State and this State allows this, we need to remember something: States govern where you practice medicine. If I want to practice medicine here, I have got to get a license in the District of Columbia. If I want to open a satellite office, I have got to get a license in Maryland or Virginia. But the Federal Government regulates prescribing, for obvious reasons. If the patient comes in to see me here and lives in Virginia, they are going to go over to a pharmacy there. So the Federal Government has always regulated this. There are significant consequences to making this product widely available, and that is what this amendment will do. This is a very, very bad amendment. Marijuana has been implicated in railroad accidents. It has been implicated in car accidents. It is documented to have an adverse effect on memory. Jeepers, we have people dying in this country from the effects of cigarettes. We have people dying in this country from the effects of alcohol. We have people in this body wanting to ban cigarettes and ban smoking. And now we are going to take action to allow another dangerous substance on the market? And there is an agenda of the people who are behind these kinds of amendments. They want to legalize marijuana, and they want to make another dangerous product available to our society. I think that this is a bad direction for us to go in. This a bad amendment and a dangerous amendment. I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I'm happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concerns about H.R. 980. Unfortunately, this bill, like many under the new majority has come to the House floor under a closed process that prevents Members of Congress from offering any amendment to this bill. Florida is a right-to-work State, and while the proponents of the legislation argue that this bill does not preempts states rights, the details of the bill simply do not match the rhetoric. This bill, which is opposed by the National League of Cities, has the effect of forcing thousands of State and local governments to recognize union officials as the exclusive bargaining agents of public-safety officers. Under the process established in this bill--even in right to work states--if union organizers win the representation of 50 percent of workers plus one, they are recognized as the sole bargaining representative of each and every public safety officer. This preempts State laws and strips tens of thousands of police and firemen of their freedom to negotiate directly with their employer. This is tantamount to compulsory unionizing. The bill amounts to an unprecedented federalization of collective bargaining; an area traditionally left to State and local governments. This issue was succinctly stated by R. Theodore Clark who testified on behalf of the National Public Employer Labor Relations Association during the Committee hearing on H.R. 980 when he said: [My] opposition to federal collective bargaining legislation such as H.R. 980 is not because I oppose public sector collective bargaining, but rather because of my firm belief that the enactment of a federal collective bargaining law would severely limit the demonstrated innovative and creative abilities of the states and local jurisdictions to deal in a responsible manner with the many complex issues that the public sector collective bargaining poses. Finally, concerns have been raised that H.R. 980 might endanger public safety by decimating volunteer fire departments that currently protect countless small communities across America. A fact well understood and opposed by small community mayors and volunteer firefighters across the country. Our local cites and States are the best deciders of how to provide vital services to our citizens. We should not tie their hands by establishing a ``one size fits all'' Federal pattern that cannot hope to account for the unique conditions and structures that our states and localities face. It is for this reason and the decision by the majority leadership to deny the ability of members of Congress to address these shortcomings that I could not vote for final passage of H.R. 980.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise to speak about an amendment that was introduced by me in the committee, and overwhelmingly adopted by the committee by voice vote. And I rise mainly to address the concerns being raised by members of the American Academy of Pediatrics and other members sending letters to the Congress from the public health community. Let me state from the outset, as a physician, I strongly support vaccinating children and adults. Indeed, I gave a lot of vaccines. Immunizing kids against the flu is a particularly good idea. It prevents the kids from getting the flu, but it also, because children have bad personal hygiene and they tend to spread the flu around if they get it, by vaccinating kids and preventing them from getting the flu you actually prevent adults from getting the flu. Certainly I believe the American Academy of Pediatrics is a great organization, as are the public health officials who do the work in administering these vaccines, even though they are complaining about my amendment. Let me just state from the outset, my amendment simply implements the policy that the American Academy of Pediatrics established in 1999, when they stated, The Public Health Service, the American Academy of Pediatrics and vaccine manufacturers agree that thimerosal-containing vaccines should be removed as soon as possible. My amendment does nothing more than implement that policy. Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is toxic. If I brought some thimerosal to this Chamber, spilled it on that table, we would have to evacuate the Chamber. That is how toxic it is. Now, in 1999, the manufacturers, in coordination with the AAP, the CDC and the drug industry, removed all of the mercury from all of the childhood vaccines in 18 months. They removed it from the DPT and the hepatitis B. Eighteen months after adopting that policy in 1999, all of the pediatric vaccines had been produced and manufactured without any mercury in them. And then in 2004, a decision was made to add flu vaccine to the vaccine scheduled for children. And since that time it has been very difficult for me to get the American Academy of Pediatrics and the CDC and the manufacturers to take this issue seriously and get the mercury out of the childhood vaccines. And let me just also add, this is a bipartisan issue. I have a bill that I've introduced with Representative Carolyn Maloney from New York to get all this mercury out. There are many Democrats and many Republicans on this bill. Now, some of the people who are opposing my amendment are actually claiming that children who were not vaccinated last year who got the flu died, and if there's not enough flu vaccine available, that more children may not get vaccinated and there may be more deaths. I would like to just simply point out that one of the issues here is public confidence in the vaccine program, and that many of these parents who didn't get their kids vaccinated maybe didn't get their kids vaccinated because they were concerned about the mercury in the flu vaccine. And, indeed, you might ask the question of the deaths that occurred last year, might some of them not have occurred if we had a mercury-free vaccine on the market? Now, I want to refer to this chart briefly because I think this basically says it all. In 2004, we were producing a little bit over 80 million doses of flu vaccine, and today we're producing over 130 million doses. But yet, officials have made no attempt to increase the amount of mercury-free vaccine that is being produced in this country. Mind you, the Europeans are producing more than enough mercury-free to vaccinate their kids. They have figured out how to do it. Mind you, I said earlier 18 months was all it took to get the mercury out of all of the other childhood vaccines. And why, after all these years, year after year, they say they want to get the mercury out of the childhood vaccines and they're not doing it. They're got getting it out of the flu vaccine. And they can do it and they will do it. What this really boils down to, my colleagues, is an issue of leadership. CDC, AAP, the public health community has not exercised proper leadership on this issue, and it falls to us to do the right thing. The language that I put in this bill is not covering this flu season, it's covering next flu season. They have more than a year to address this issue. I think they can. And that's why I put that language in the bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues in support of efforts to make college education more affordable for more Americans. Indeed earlier this year I voted in support of H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007. I believed that bill took some positive steps and was pleased to support it. I am very disappointed that the bill before us, H.R. 2669, falls far short of its goal. While those who drafted the bill assert that it is a comprehensive solution to making college more affordable, H.R. 2669 fails to address the core problem of access to U.S. colleges and universities: sky-rocketing rates of tuition and room and board. In just the last 7 years, yearly inflation has increased on average 2.7 percent. However, higher education costs for students has increased an average of 4.2 percent--a rate that is 55 percent higher than regular inflation. This bill makes it easier for students to borrow more money to face these costs, but it does nothing to fix the root problem. And, the end result will be that under H.R. 2669, the average college student graduating from college 4 years from now will still face a higher college debt than those graduating this year--even with all of the billions of dollars included in this bill. Why is that the case? Because this bill does nothing to address the core problem facing college students: uncontrolled growth in tuition, room and board. Under H.R. 2669, those attending college in the future will be able to borrow more money and perhaps pay a lower interest rate, but with college expenses growing at a rate that far exceeds the annual inflation rate, students will end college with a significantly larger debt. By failing to address this fundamental problem, this bill avoids the major issue facing families and college students. It is due to this obvious omission that I could not vote for final passage of this bill. H.R. 2669 will enable students to take on more debt which will further burden them for many years past graduation. In 2006, the Higher Education Price Index, HEPI, calculation showed that inflation for colleges and universities jumped to 5 percent. This is 30 percent higher than the regular inflation rate. When colleges and universities know that students have access to more funds through financial aid, loans, and grants they have simply seen this as an opportunity to raise costs for students. This was the case in the past and it is likely to happen again. This bill does nothing to discourage colleges and universities from further inflating their tuition rates. In fact, it will do the opposite. If we truly want to help our students go into the world with a good education and saddled with less debt, we should hold colleges and universities who take government aid more accountable and not allow them to continue their excessive increases in college costs. Our students deserve better.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns about legislative amendments related to permitting drilling for oil or natural gas off of our Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OSC). I want it to be very clear what I support with regard to offshore drilling. I believe it is important to ensure that we can adequately protect Florida's shoreline and I believe that the legislation approved last year by the Congress more than protects Florida's shoreline. I support a 100-mile buffer of protection for our beaches when it comes to drilling oil wells. Additionally, I am not opposed to allowing natural gas only wells at a distance closer than 100 miles, particularly in those States that want to permit natural gas wells closer to their coasts. The current Federal moratorium on offshore drilling bans natural gas wells not only along the Florida coast, but also along southern, central and northern California; Washington; Oregon; and the North Atlantic, including Virginia. The State of Virginia has indicated that it would like to permit drilling off of its shore. The Democrat Governor of the State has asked for the ability to allow drilling off of Virginia's shore. The Republican legislature of Virginia has asked the Federal Government to remove the barrier to drilling off the coast. The Federal moratorium in the Interior and Environment Appropriations bills stops this policy asked for by the State of Virginia. Additionally, with regard to Florida, I would like to clarify some confusion on this issue. Some have suggested that without the Federal moratorium rider on the Interior bill drilling would be allowed within 3 miles of the Florida coast. That is just simply not the case. The Presidential moratorium would remain in place protecting Florida. Additionally, President Bush has pledged to ensure that Florida is permitted to maintain at least a 100-mile protective buffer. Moreover should the Presidential moratorium be removed, the Congress must enact legislation directing the Department of the Interior on where to permit Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases. This is not a one step process. Some have suggested that allowing natural gas wells will do little to address the energy costs in the United States. This claim simply is not based on sound economics. As many of my colleagues know, over the past decade there has been a dramatic increase in the use of natural gas to produce electricity. Switching to natural gas for electric power generation has been a very quick and cost effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According a 2005 report from the Florida Public Service Commission, in 2003, 26 percent of Florida's electric power was generated using natural gas. By 2013, just 6 years from now, the FPSC projects that over 50 percent of Florida's electric power will be generated using natural gas. The cost of natural gas for electric power generation has more than doubled since 2002 from about $3.00 per thousand cubic feet to more than $7.00 in 2007. Clearly, Florida is increasingly relying on natural gas to meet our everyday energy needs and ensuring a longer term affordable supply of natural gas will make Florida consumers' power bills more affordable. When you consider this growing reliance on clean burning natural gas along with price increases we have seen, it is clear that Florida consumers will continue to pay higher costs for electricity if we don't expand our natural gas supply. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that Florida has an adequate protective buffer while looking to meet our constituents' long-term clean energy needs.