Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make it very, very clear that this Member supports the States having a say in this. And to imply that anybody in this Chamber is anti-gaming I think is to me inaccurate, to say the least. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 48.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this amendment be limited to 30 minutes, 15 minutes on each side.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very simple. It assures that the integrity of a law that the U.S. Congress passed, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or IGRA, is preserved and that States have the right to ensure that their concerns are fully adjudicated in the courts. My amendment ensures that the States of Florida and Alabama have the right to have their cases fully adjudicated in the Federal courts before the Secretary of the Interior allows tribes to set up casinos in States that do not allow casino gambling. Under IGRA, in order for Indian tribes to engage in casino gambling, tribes must have an approved tribal-State compact. However, in April of 1999, the Department of the Interior set forth a process whereby Indian tribes may bypass State governments and appeal to the Secretary of Interior to allow them to set up a casino. This is the subject of a court case. My amendment simply states, let the case run its full course before the Secretary approves a casino operation in a place like Florida or Alabama, which do not allow casinos. Florida and Alabama have filed suit against the Department arguing that the Department does not have the authority to issue these regulations in the first place. These regulations trample on the rights of States, and what could be worse, deny the States their full day in court. On three separate occasions the people of Florida have voted against allowing casinos in their State. Now these regulations would establish a way for the tribes to bypass the will of the people of Florida and open casinos. This is not a bipartisan issue. My amendment is supported by the Republican governor of Florida and the Democrat attorney general. I believe and the State of Florida believes the Department of the Interior has exceeded its authority granted under IGRA by issuing a regulatory remedy on a matter that both Congress and the Supreme Court have stated should be determined by the States. My amendment would simply ensure that the State of Florida has the right to have its case fully adjudicated prior to the Department publishing procedures which would allow Indian tribes to open casinos in Florida. What specifically does my amendment do? My amendment says that the Department may not publish procedures prescribed under the April, 1999 regulations. Publications of these procedures would permit the tribes to open casinos. My amendment allows the Secretary to go right up to that line, but may not cross it unless the courts have ruled in its favor. Why is this amendment needed? Some correspondence from the Department indicates that the Secretary will not issue these procedures until the case has been decided. I am pleased to have in my possession a letter from the Secretary dated June 14 in which the Secretary says he will not publish those procedures until the courts have decided whether or not he has the right to do that. I appreciate the Secretary's letter, which I believe is an endorsement of the language in my amendment. They say the same thing. I am nonetheless compelled to offer this amendment, however, because we will have a new administration in 6 months, and we will have most likely a new Secretary of the Interior. The next Secretary is not bound by Secretary Babbitt's letter. The new Secretary will be bound by the legislation passed by this Congress. That is why the adoption of this amendment is needed. It will ensure that the policy I am advocating and that the Secretary supports will be followed. I am very appreciative of the Secretary's support, and I certainly support him in this position. To reiterate, my amendment maintains the status quo of IGRA. It ensures that tribes can still use the current Indian Gaming Regulatory Act process to engage in class 3 gaming. It preserves the right of Congress to pass laws and major policy changes. It continues incentives for tribes and States to pursue legislation to remedy differences over IGRA. It prevents the Secretary from bypassing or short-circuiting States' rights, and it protects States' rights without harming the tribes. It does exactly what the Secretary is calling to be done. My amendment does not do the following: this amendment does not amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Weldon amendment does not affect existing tribal-State compacts. The amendment does not limit the ability of tribes to obtain class 3 gaming as long as valid compacts are entered into by the tribes with the States pursuant to existing law. I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in this Chamber we will soon be discussing the very important issue of prescription drug coverage for America's senior citizens. I am pleased that the House leadership has developed a bipartisan plan that will provide American seniors with comprehensive prescription drug coverage. No senior should have to choose between food for their table or their prescription drugs. As a physician, myself, I know the importance of these drugs to the health of our seniors. Many of these drugs cost a lot of money. It takes years to develop them, sometimes even decades; and then after they are approved by the FDA, it can take months to promote them amongst physicians for their proper use. Unfortunately, today while many excellent prescription drugs for arthritis, stroke prevention and high blood pressure are critical to the health of seniors, many of them cannot afford them. Our bipartisan plan will ensure that voluntary, affordable and comprehensive prescription drug coverage is available to all seniors. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Kempfer family lives and works on the lands of Deer Park Ranch, which has belonged to the family since 1889. Today I salute Ray Jennings Kempfer and honor the life of this young man who was born January 15, 1974, and died in the early hours of April 3, 2000. The cause of his unexpected and untimely death is still unknown. Ray is the son of Reed and Charlene Kempfer. Reed and his brother Billy are the great-grandsons of William Hopkins who pioneered the ranch. Ray recently completed his Masters in Reproductive Physiology and graduated with honors from the University of Florida, and following the family tradition took his place on the ranch. My condolences go out to the family, local ranchers, and the community that were shocked by his untimely death.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, for the past year, I have been investigating the scientific research regarding a possible link between the Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) vaccine and a type of autism, known as autistic enterocolitis. I have met with the directors of the Centers for Disease Control and National Institutes of Health officials to discuss this matter. I have also met with researchers that have identified measles virus in the intestines of children with autistic enterocolitis. I have become very concerned about a lack of interest on the part of the CDC and NIH to fully examine this issue. I am a strong proponent of vaccines. Vaccines save thousands of lives in America each year and have spared our nation from the scourge of disease that plagued our nation in the early part of the 20th Century and that still plagues many parts of the globe. Recent reports (MMWR Weekly, April 4, 2000) of measles outbreaks in unvaccinated populations in developed countries like the Netherlands, indicate how important it is to ensure confidence in our vaccination program so that children are vaccinated against diseases. This confidence is maintained by seriously considering all scientific research related to vaccines, even if such research indicates that we may need to make adjustments in the vaccine schedule. While some may argue that a quick dismissal of such studies is needed to ensure confidence in the national vaccination program, such action may actually lead to the opposite effect and undermine confidence in the program. I believe that the federal agencies responsible for our nation's vaccination program must remain ever vigilant in fully examining any research related to questions about vaccines to ensure that confidence is maintained. This means giving serious consideration and independent review to any credible study related to vaccinations. Recent peer reviewed studies reveal that there may be emerging an atypical phenotype of autism (autistic enterocolitis), in which normal development is followed by developmental regression with a simultaneous manifestation of chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. One hypothesis is that this may be related to a trivalent vaccine for Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR). It is important that the appropriate federal agencies give these studies a full and independent review to determine their validity. Specifically, symptoms described in the study include ileal lymphoid modular hyperplasia with chronic enterocolitis, immune and metabolic derangement combined with a regressive developmental disorder. Most important is the localization, quantitation and sequencing of measles virus genome in affected tissues in the gastrointestinal tract. The hypothesis, suggests the possibility of a gut-mediated autism associated with the trivalent vaccine, whereby damage to the gut may lead to damage to the central nervous system at a sensitive time and thus the onset of the development disorder. It is the combination of these vaccines in a single dose that may cause an adverse effect, according to the researchers. They do not indicate a similar concern when the measles, mumps and rubella vaccines are given in a monovalent form at different times. I appreciate the chairman's and the committee's willingness to include language in the bill recognizing the research on the MMR/Autism issue by Dr. Andrew Wakefield of London, England and Professor John O'Leary of Dublin, Ireland. I further appreciate their inclusion of language in the report directing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to: . . . give serious attention to these reports and pursue appropriate research that will permit scientific analysis and evaluation of the concerns that have been raised through all available mechanisms, as appropriate, including an attempt to replicate the molecular evidence of persistent measles virus infection in children with autistic enterocolitis. This research should be pursued in a way that does not cause undue harm to the Nation's efforts to protect children against vaccine-preventable diseases. This language will ensure that the NIH works to replicate the work of Dr. Wakefield and Prof. O'Leary and others who have raised concerns about the trivalent vaccine and incidence of a regressive form of autism. Just last year the CDC took action to remove the Rotavirus vaccine when evidence was presented indicating adverse reactions in several children. It is this type of decisive action and willingness to fully review our vaccine schedule when questions are raised that builds confidence in our vaccine program. The CDC and NIH should pursue the evidence presented in the MMR/Autism arena with equal vigor. It is the best interest of our national vaccine program and the safety of our children that the NIH and CDC attempt to replicate this work in a timely manner. If such independent studies were to fail to demonstrate Dr. Wakefield's and Prof. O'Leary's findings, this would serve well to bolster public confidence in the safety of the MMR. Certainly, if the research were to verify Dr. Wakefield's and Prof. O'Leary's findings, this would be an important scientific finding that policy makers would need to know and should know at the soonest time possible. There are acceptable alternatives to the MMR, including separating the vaccine and giving it at different times. In order to secure public confidence in our national vaccine program. I believe it is critical that public health officials fully examine any research that calls into question the safety of vaccines. It is also important that this research be done independent of the government vaccine officials or vaccine manufacturers.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remind my colleagues that today is National Sudan Day. Today there are activities going on in major cities across the United States focusing attention on the ongoing genocide in Sudan. The Congress needs to make sure that everyone, especially the administration, knows about and acts upon the horrific killings, evictions, and enslaving that is going on, brought about by Sudan's Islamic fundamentalist regime. The regime is on a deliberate campaign of genocide against the black Christians of southern Sudan. Eyewitnesses have given House and Senate testimony about slavery, torture, rape, mutilation, and killings of Christians. Mr. Speaker, myself and other House Members have been taking action to bring this genocide into the limelight and to focus our efforts on stopping the brutality. I encourage my colleagues to continue to pressure the White House and the U.S. State Department to take an active part in stopping the genocide in Sudan and bringing the issue to the forefront of American foreign policy.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Elimination Act, of which I am a cosponsor. We in the House of Representatives are poised to continue our commitment to tax fairness for all hard-working Americans by voting to repeal the Death Tax. The Death Tax ranges from 37 to 55 percent and can even get as high as 60 percent in some cases. The Death Tax Elimination Act (H.R. 8) would phase out the tax over the next ten years on the death of an American. Since 1994, Republicans have been committed to balancing the budget, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and providing tax fairness to all hard-working Americans and their families. To date we have passed the Repeal of the Marriage Penalty, Small Business tax fairness, the Repeal of the Seniors' Work Tax, ended the 100 year ``tax on talking,'' and today we can get rid of the Death Tax. Americans pay taxes their whole lives, then at their death, Uncle Sam wants to get some more--sometimes taking over half of the poor soul's legacy. I have talked to farmers and small business owners in my district who are extremely worried at what the Death Taxes will mean to their children and grandchildren. These hard-working Americans have worked a lifetime to build a farm or business only to have it stripped and taken from their children by the Death Tax. The death tax is one of the most immoral taxes on the books, because it taxes farmers and small business owners twice. First these hard- working Americans pay all of their taxes throughout the years, then the federal government taxes the value of their property again at the time of death. No American should be forced to pay up to 55 or 60 percent of their savings when they die. I'm proud to be part of the effort to repeal this tax. Let's bury the death tax once and for all. Let's pass this repeal and end the tax on death.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to announce my intent to vote for this bill and to thank the chairman for including report language encouraging the National Institutes of Health to fund appropriate research to further explore the findings of Dr. Wakefield at the Royal Free Hospital in London on the safety and possible side effects of the MMR vaccine. As a physician myself, I consider maintaining the safety and public confidence in our vaccine program to be of vital importance to the health of America's children; and I applaud the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter), for his interest in this area. I am looking forward to working with him in the months ahead on this issue, and I too congratulate him on his years of service to his constituents and this body.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, seventy-five years ago this month a very special place in American history was founded. That special place is the town of Cocoa Beach, Florida. We all know that America was created out of the spirit of frontierism. Bold men and women shook off the shackles of oppression and set forth to a new world of opportunity and adventure. Today we all know about Plymouth Rock and its significance in our nation's history. America is still the land of frontier explorers and furthering the promise of freedom and adventure. I am proud to represent a town that has been the Plymouth Rock to the stars, Cocoa Beach. Founded 75 years ago, what started out as a small, agrarian town enjoyed a pleasant, but sleepy existence. That solitude and quiet was interrupted with the introduction of the U.S. military's ballistic missile program after World War II. Suddenly, Cocoa Beach became home for many rocket engineers, scientists and their families who came to Florida to help the United States win the Cold War. That work was only a small taste of the exciting future which was to come. Soon the United States found that it was in our nation's military and economic national interests to have the capability to put people and objects into orbit. NASA was created and soon Cape Canaveral was selected to be the prime location for NASA's space launch activities. This resulted in Cocoa Beach's coming of age as a modern, thriving town on the cusp of a new age in human history. Through Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Space Shuttle and International Space Station, Cocoa Beach has been there through it all. Its dynamic people striving to lead the next age of exploration into the new frontier. Many feel that without frontiers and boundaries to push against, America stops being what America is all about. As long as we have cities like Cocoa Beach leading the charge into space, America's promise of freedom will continue into the stars.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in strong support of repealing the grossly outdated Spanish-American War phone tax. The 3-percent Federal excise tax on phone calls that was created in 1898 to pay for the Spanish-American War. At that time, it was called a ``temporary'' tax. Parents have to pay the tax every time their child calls home collect from college; grandparents pay it when they call their grandchildren; and sons and daughters pay it every time they call their mom on Mother's Day. This ``tax on talking,'' is a regressive tax, that unfairly adds to the tax burden of hard-working Americans. It also demonstrates how hard it is for the government to end a tax. Even though the Spanish-American War has been over for a century, and I have been assured that the Spanish threat has ended, the Federal Government has continued to collect this tax. President Ronald Reagan said, ``Government does not tax to get the money it needs; government always finds a need for the money it gets.'' It has taken a Republican Congress to find the courage to curb the growth of spending, balance the budget, and to continue to reduce the tax-bite on hard working American families. The Republican House is poised to repeal this unfair, regressive tax, but the latest reports from the Clinton-Gore administration indicate that they want to continue to make Americans pay it. Reagan was right, ``government always finds a need for the money it gets.'' Vote ``yes'' on this bill. The Spanish-American War is over.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the most important decisions I have to make as a Member of Congress each year, is how to vote on our nation's trading relationship with China. This year, many of my constituents have been engaged in this debate as they have called, written, or stopped by my office to urge me to vote in favor of, or in opposition to, normalizing trade relations with China. I have spent months and indeed years weighing the advantages and disadvantages of approving Permanent Normal Trading Relations (PNTR) with China. We have debated this measure ever since I began my service in 1994. As I reviewed the arguments on whether or not to extend Normal Trade Relations to China on a permanent basis, I have decided against PNTR for China. I plan to vote no for several reasons: 1. The worsening of labor and human rights situation in China; 2. The continued aggressive military statements and actions against a Democratic Taiwan; 3. The transfer of sensitive military technology by China to rouge nations; and 4. The failure of the current Administration to effectively monitor and enforce the trade agreements they have already signed with China, including launch quota agreements, which of course, are very important for our district. First, this is a vote of conscience. My staff and I have thoroughly reviewed the 1999 U.S. State Department Report on Human Rights Practices in China, which was released in February. The Report told the story of egregious civil and human rights abuses by the Chinese government against its own people. The Administration's Report said, ``The security apparatus is made up of the Ministries of State Security and Public Security, the People's Armed Police, the People's Liberation Army, and the state judicial, procuratorial, and penal systems. Security policy and personnel were responsible for numerous human rights abuses.'' The Report goes on to say, ``The [Chinese] Government's poor human rights record deteriorated markedly throughout the year, as the Government intensified efforts to suppress dissent, particularly organized dissent . . . The Government tightened restrictions on freedom of speech and of the press, and increased controls on the Internet; self-censorship by journalists also increased . . . The government continues to restrict freedom of religion, and intensified controls on some unregistered churches.'' In addition, violence against Chinese women is on the rise as the government continues to, as the Report states, ``induce coercive family planning--which sometimes includes forced abortion and sterilization; prostitution; discrimination against women; [Government] trafficking in women and children; [Government] abuse of children; and discrimination against the disabled and minorities are all problems. I believe that by voting in favor of PNTR, I would be giving my implicit support for these violations of basic human rights. There are some of my colleagues who believe that through engagement we can effect changes in China. There may be some merit to that argument and I do not fault them for that belief. I cannot, however, in good conscience, vote to extend this privilege to China at this time. They have shown an unwillingness to embrace basic freedoms. I am also deeply troubled by Communist China's aggressive militaristic threats toward a Democratic Taiwan. The Chinese government has threatened the democratically elected Taiwanese government. The Chinese have said in no uncertain terms that the recently elected democratic leaders of Taiwan have no role as China usurps Taiwan's independence under the Chinese umbrella of Communism and totalitarianism. Even before threatening Taiwan, China was engaged in a massive spying effort on the United States. In fact, the Congressional ``Cox Commission,'' produced a three-volume report outlining and detailing the military and commercial abuses and concerns the United States has with the Chinese government. Among the key findings of the bipartisan Cox China Espionage Report were: 1. That Communist China stole billions of dollars worth of American nuclear secrets that took our scientists decades of hard work to develop; 2. The Peoples Republic of China has stolen classified information on every warhead used for our ICBM and our submarine launched ballistic missiles; and 3. According to the unanimous judgment of the Committee, The People's Republic of China will exploit elements of stolen U.S. thermonuclear weapons designs on its new ICBMs as 2002. The Report goes on and on, like background for a Tom Clancy novel, threatening the very fiber of our cultural heritage. China has taken the technology they have stolen and shared it with rogue nations. They have encouraged the proliferation of nuclear weapons and missile technology by sharing these sensitive technologies with rogue nations. No longer are the American people safe from terrorists and the aggressions of our enemies. As many of these rouge nations have access to our top level military secrets. What is most disturbing is that the Administration knew about these security breaches as early as 1995, but failed to act because they were fearful of the repercussions and potential the political fallout. My first experience with our government's effectiveness or unwillingness to challenge the Chinese in their failure to live up to their agreements came in 1997, and was in relation to the launch agreements, known as the Bilateral Space Launch Services Trade Agreement. The Administration significantly expanded agreements with the Chinese and Russians which permitted U.S. satellite manufacturers to ship satellites to Russia and China for launch. These agreements permitted larger numbers of U.S. satellites to be shipped to China and Russia for launch in these countries. The Chinese signed an agreement stating that they, a non-market economy (NME), would not sell launch services at below market costs, in other words ``no market dumping.'' In probing this issue, I discovered that the Chinese were indeed allowed to ``dump'' launch services on the international market at below market costs. This was in violation of the agreement that they signed and it also was taking launches away from U.S. launch facilities at the Cape. Furthermore, our U.S. Trade Representative failed to respond to my inquiries over whether or not they were addressing this issue of dumping. It was not until I personally went down to their offices and went through their files that I discovered the fact that they were taking no steps whatsoever to curtail this problem. Furthermore, they never took any action to even discuss this problem with the Chinese. This is a very disturbing trend which I cannot envision will improve until we as a nation decide to look at China differently. We must always keep our national security, our economic security, and the security of basic human rights in mind in all our dealings with China. Thus far, we have not. Today I have outlined for you numerous abuses by the Chinese government. And, I understand that at some point there may be the tremendous economic potential to open our trading relations with the people of China. However, today I cannot support the Chinese government's repression of human and civil rights of the Chinese people; I cannot support their continued threats against Taiwan; and I cannot support their theft of American technology and military secrets. Until China can demonstrate a better track record in these key areas; I will not support Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in support of the fiscal year 2001 House transportation budget. Among the myriad of budget priorities supported in the measure, one is especially beneficial to my constituents in Indian River County. This bill will provide much needed funding for a state-of-the-art air traffic control tower at the Vero Beach Airport. The need for a new air traffic control tower at the Vero Beach Municipal Airport has been recognized as a safety-related need since 1988 by the FAA. A combination of factors, including traffic growth, line of sight problems, and tower structural and technical obsolescence problems, as well as a lack of radar at the airport, all point to an urgent need to replace the original tower, which was completed in 1973. I am pleased that the FAA is a partner in moving this project forward. It was first included in an FAA budget request in 1995, funding began in 1996, and construction was supposed to start in 1998 with completion in early 2001. All tasks, including the engineering, design, site work and environmental review phase, have been completed. Since then, however, the agency has repeatedly delayed funding the $5.2 million construction project. Most recently Vero Beach was informed that construction would not begin until 2002 with a completion date of 2005. This is unacceptable for an airport that is the second busiest general aviation airport in Florida and ranked in about the top 15 percent of towered airports in the country. Traffic has grown to nearly 240,000 operations annually and we'll see in only a few years that number increase to 270,000. And, in addition to regular airport operations, Flight Safety International operates a fleet of more than 90 aircraft and conducts about 90,000 hours of flight training annually. I have fought for the air traffic control tower at the Vero Beach Airport since my election to this office. I appreciate the dedication of former Vero Beach Mayor Arthur Neuberger, who has diligently worked and lobbied these very halls in search of the funds necessary for the upgrades at the facility. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Frank Wolf, and Chairman Young on there leadership on the transportation budget, and his understanding of the importance of this air traffic control tower to the people who fly in and out of Vero Beach Airport.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last week I introduced House Resolution 490, the Save Our Surplus for Debt Reduction and Tax Rebate Resolution of 2000. I am proud of this bill in that it does something that no other bill has ever done, it provides a midyear tax rebate to the hard-working American people. This resolution says that Congress will direct any additional on- budget non-Social Security surplus that may be announced as early as this week or next by the Office of Management and Budget be used only for rebates to taxpayers and paying down the national debt. Specifically, when the President introduced his budget in January, he projected a non-Social Security surplus of $19 billion for the current year. My bill does not address what should be done with that surplus. In fact, at this time, it is unclear whether that $19 billion will be used in a supplemental appropriations bill or for debt reduction. What my resolution deals with is any surplus in excess of that $19 billion. Specifically, if the OMB announces that the additional non-Social Security surplus is between $19 billion and $35 billion, my resolution would dedicate the entire amount over $19 billion to debt reduction. However, if OMB projects a budget surplus of more than $35 billion, my resolution would direct $16 billion be equally divided and returned to the American taxpayers, with the remaining amount being used for debt reduction. The latest speculation is that the on-budget, non-Social Security surplus will far exceed $35 billion, meaning that this tax rebate can happen this year. And I urge my colleagues to join me in this pursuit. My plan would result in a rebate of between $150 and $200 to each American household. Now, some of my colleagues may not think $150 is too much money or worth the effort. When dealing with the Federal budget and billions of dollars it might not seem like much money, but I can tell my colleagues that when it comes to the family budget, $150 is a lot of money. This is a prudent time to introduce and pass this common sense tax resolution. As the economy continues to grow and expand, and revenues into the U.S. Treasury have increased, we are in a time of legitimate on-budget surplus. There is a constant temptation by legislators to spend the money that comes to Washington. All of our current programs now are paid for. The big question is what to do with the left-over money. As Ronald Reagan said, ``Government does not tax to get the money it needs. Government always finds a need for the money it gets.'' Mr. Speaker, the money that comes to the U.S. Treasury from the American people is not the government's money. It is still the taxpayers' money, and their change should be returned. Democrat President Grover Cleveland talked about this in his second inaugural address to the Congress in 1886. President Cleveland said, ``When more of the people's substance is exacted through the form of taxation than is necessary to meet the just obligations of the government and the expense of its economical administration, such exaction becomes ruthless extortion and a violation of the fundamental principles of a free government.'' In short, Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers have paid the bills in full this year. We have balanced the budget, we have locked up the Social Security surplus, we have strengthened Medicare and, yes, we are paying down the national debt. Now, let us provide the American taxpayer with their needed rebate. Let us give them their change back. I urge my colleagues to join me along with the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and the majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and several other colleagues as cosponsors of this bill and move it forward this legislative session.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong support of H.R. 4386, the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. This measure amends title XIX of the Social Security Act to provide medical assistance for certain women under 65 who have been screened and found to have breast or cervical cancer by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] early detection program. In the United States, one out of eight women will develop breast cancer at some point in her lifetime. It is the second most common form of cancer in the country, afflicting three million women--including one million women who do not know they have breast cancer. Cervical cancer kills 4,400 women a year, and is increasingly becoming a nationwide concern due to a lack of proper education and research. The Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act will protect women who are diagnosed with breast and cervical cancer but do not have insurance to pay for treatment. Currently, the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program provides screening services for low- income women who have little or no health insurance. Treatment, however, is not provided through the program. Women who earn too much to be on federal assistance, but do not earn enough to afford private insurance are left without resources to cover the treatment they need to fight this dreaded disease. This bill will provide that much needed treatment. As a physician I have treated hundreds of cancer patients and the key to providing a successful remedy to their life-threatening illness is, when possible, prevention, otherwise early detection, followed by immediate treatment. This bill will offer much needed assistance to thousands of American women who need these vital medical resources. I am also very pleased with the provisions in this bill relating to the human papillomavirus [HPV] which affects at least 24 million Americans and is the principal cause of cervical cancer. H.R. 4386 makes cervical cancer prevention a priority. This bill requires the CDC to develop educational materials for health care providers and the public regarding HPV. And, it requires condom packages to include information stating that HPV is a cause of cervical cancer and that condoms do not prevent HPV transmission. Many sexually active Americans have been mislead to believe a condom will protect them; however, this is not the case with HPV. In fact, the American Cancer Society has stated ``research shows that condoms cannot protect against infection with HPV.'' Our young people need to know this and H.R. 4386 takes a big step toward informing them. This is a good bill and I urge all of my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on June 30, 2000, Sister M. Joseph Barden will be retiring after twenty-nine years of faithful service to an entire generation of America's youth. Since 1971 Sister Joseph has led Ascension Catholic School, in Melbourne, Florida as its principal. Since beginning her commitment to educating children in Catholic schools while living in Ardee, Ireland in 1957, Sister Joseph has touched the lives and influenced the hearts and minds of thousands of children. During her tenure at Ascension School, enrollment nearly tripled. Sister Joseph oversaw the renovation and construction of a brand new educational facility, and assisted the school in receiving initial accreditation in 1973 and continuing accreditation three more times. In 1985, the school received the ``Exemplary School Award'' from the United States Department of Education, while she continued to help and encourage her students to receive many local, state, and national awards. She initialized prekindergarten classes and ``Extended Care Programs,'' to increase the positive role that religious instruction and educational excellence has on our nation's youth. Sister Joseph enabled teachers and staff to offer at least twenty-four extra- curricular programs serving about four hundred students, encouraging them to use their special God given gifts and talents. Because of Sister Joseph, Ascension remains a school of excellence. The thousands of students, parents, faculty, and staff, as well as the general public, whose lives she touched, owe Sister Joseph a debt of gratitude. After nearly three decades of service, I want to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Sister Joseph Barden on her retirement from the school. God has richly blessed Sister Joseph's work, and I pray that He continues to bless her in her future service.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 4040, I rise in strong support of The Long-Term Care Security Act. This bill directs the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to solicit competitive bids from private insurers to provide long-term health care plans for federal workers, including military and civilian employees and retirees. This insurance may also be extended to include eligible spouses, children, adopted children, stepchildren, and stepparents. Employees who enroll in the group coverage must pay 100 percent of the premium and may choose to have the premium deducted from their pay, which is paid directly to the insurance carrier. It is estimated, however, that these employees, by getting a group rate, may realize a savings of between 15 and 20 percent on insurance premiums. It is important that we encourage Americans to prepare for their long-term health care needs. Too often Americans are unprepared for this need and the failure to have such coverage often forces families to deplete their resources. It is important that we pass this bill for the benefit of our federal employees and members of our armed services and retirees. This will help them in their efforts to provide for their families and their retirement security. In addition to the passage of this bill, I will continue to work to ensure that the costs of long-term care insurance are deductible from taxes. I am disappointed that we have not been able to get this tax relief signed into law, and I am hopeful that we can move this forward this year. This will benefit all Americans in preparing for needs that they may have in the future. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in passing H.R. 4040 and to commit to work to make these premiums tax deductible.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise today in support of H.R. 4055, authorizing full funding for IDEA. Before we even consider any new programs for education, we need to fulfill our promise to fund this program. In 1975, the Federal Government committed to providing 40 percent of the funding for IDEA, while 60 percent was to come from State and local governments. Under the Democrat-controlled Congress, IDEA was funded at a dismal 7 percent. Only 7 percent for 24 years. Today it is at 12 percent. This Republican Congress has nearly doubled the Federal commitment to these children, but much more needs to be done. Teachers in my district have told me over and over again how much difficulty they have meeting the IDEA requirements, and still these teachers are expected to perform with inadequate Federal funding. It is a disgrace that my State and all others have been forced to take money away from other programs to cover unpaid Federal shares of IDEA. Let us fully fund IDEA and free up State and local money to meet other needs, such as books, construction, and, yes, more teachers and technology in the classroom.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak about a piece of legislation passed on the floor of this House yesterday, Project Exile. Project Exile will send $100 million to qualifying States who require a minimum 5-year sentence for criminals who use guns. This will send a clear message to criminals that, if they use a gun, they will go to jail, and they will go to jail for 5 years. Project Exile will reverse the current situation and put criminals behind the bars of justice rather than law-abiding citizens of America being behind bars on the windows of their own homes. Today, the average gun felon is locked up for about 18 months then they are free to ravage our neighborhoods and our communities, our children's playgrounds, and our schools. I say, if they are going to do the crime, they need to do the time. Project Exile finally focuses prosecution on criminals rather than laying the blame on firearms. Laws on guns only affect law-abiding citizens. Criminals, by their very nature, do not obey laws. We need common sense enforcement of existing law. For decades, the anti-second amendment lobby has attacked gun manufacturers and law-abiding citizens, demanding laws and restrictions that further impede the inalienable rights of Americans to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property. The anti-second amendment lobby has used a series of lies and half truths to spew a message and strike fear in the hearts of America. David Kopel recently wrote an excellent piece in the April 17 issue of the National Review. He listed many of the prominent lies of the anti-gun crowd. I believe it is critical in any debate that we discuss the merits of any issue based on fact, not on myth. Today I want to correct some of the misinformation that is out there so that we can base our decisions on fact alone. The first myth is that, up to 17 children are killed every day in gun violence. I agree that even one child killed by a gun is one too many. Parents who choose to have guns in their home need to be cautious, conscientious, and aware of the gun, where it is, and absolutely certain that no child has access to it. However, this statistic that 17 children die of gun violence every day is not exactly a fact. For that to be true, one has to include 18- and 19-year-olds as well as even some young adults. Nearly all of the deaths that are counted in this statistic are members of gangs, those in the act of committing a crime, or, unfortunately, those committing suicide. The actual gun death rate for children under the age of 14 is less than the rate of children who drown in swimming pool accidents. The second lie is the so-called gun-show loophole. If any individual is engaged in the business of selling firearms, no matter where the sale takes place, whether it be in a store, his home, or a gun show, the seller must file a government registration form on every buyer and clear the sale through the FBI's National Instant Check System. To hear the President and Vice President say it, and other anti- second amendment people, one would think that 98 percent of crimes occur with guns that were bought at gun shows. In reality, according to the 1997 National Institute of Justice study, only 2 percent of guns used in crimes were purchased at gun shows. The third lie is that the average citizen is committing many of these gun crimes out there and that Americans are too ill tempered to be trusted with guns. But as my colleagues might guess, the facts tell a different picture. Seventy-five percent of murderers have adult criminal records. And a large portion of the other 25 percent have arrests and convictions as juveniles that are sealed under the cloak of youth offender protections, or they are actually teenagers when they kill. Another interesting note is that 90 percent of adult murderers have adult criminal records. Why do we pretend, when we discover that criminals commit crimes, why do we pretend to be shocked? Over 99 percent of the gun owners in America responsibly use the guns that they have for hunting or protection. Why does the liberal anti-second amendment crowd want to continue placing burden upon burden on the 99 percent of gun owners who are law-abiding citizens? With the passage of Project Exile: The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act, we are trying to protect law-abiding citizens from these hardened gun-shooting criminals, criminals who have no respect for life nor for any other individual. Americans for too long have been held hostage by the thugs and drug dealers, the robbers and the gang members, and the lawless and the outlaw. We must reclaim our streets and reclaim our communities and reclaim our American heritage. We need to move forward with other important legislation like this.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4051, The Safe Streets and Neighborhoods Act of 2000. This bill will authorize incentive grants to States which impose 5-year mandatory minimum sentences on convicted violent felons who possess firearms or on anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a violent felony. This program has proven its worth by imposing swift and serious consequences on armed criminals and produced results demonstrating that prosecution is prevention. A recent poll has shown that only 2 percent of Americans would like to see more gun control legislation coming out of this Congress, whereas a vast majority would like to see rigorous prosecution of criminals who commit crimes with a weapon. The recent case of Joseph Palczynski is an excellent example, after multiple convictions for violent crimes, some with a weapon, he ultimately killed four people and held three people hostage for many weeks in Maryland. That man should have been behind bars. This legislation is needed. I recommend its strong support. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen) The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 1 minute remaining, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I want to follow that, regarding Al Gore's assertions that George W. Bush's tax cut policies are risky. He is fond of using this term. He used this term to describe the Republican tax cuts policies in the past. The question I would ask the Vice President, which I believe people in the media should be asking him, is why is it risky when we want to give working men and women a portion of their money back, but it is not risky when Al Gore and Bill Clinton spend that money? Which gets to the heart of the issue that the gentleman is talking about. The only time they talk about saving money is when they are talking about not giving a tax cut. Why, why, why is it so risky to give working men and women some of their hard-earned tax dollars back to spend on their priorities: their kids' college educations, braces for the kids, saving money for the first home, getting out of an apartment? That is risky, but lo and behold, when they want to increase spending from Washington, when they want to keep that hard- earned money of those working families and spend it on what Al Gore thinks it should be spent on, then that is not risky. The answer to that is very, very obvious. This is empty rhetoric used as ploy to avoid the thing they despise the most, which is taking power and influence out of Washington, out of the hands of elected politicians, and giving it back to people; giving the money that they earned back into their own pockets and pocketbooks. I just applaud the gentleman for so many of the issues that he is bringing up. I was listening to the gentleman's presentation earlier. He brought up the whole issue of ANWR. I am very, very glad that the gentleman brought that up as it relates to what is going on right now in this country with the high gasoline prices, high fuel oil prices that many, many Americans are having to wrestle with, and the impact on their budget. We have millions and millions of barrels of additional oil available to us in Alaska. President Clinton and the Vice President are standing against exploiting those oil reserves for no rational reason whatsoever. I went up there to the North Slope, and people like the Vice President talk about the North Slope as though it is this pristine, wonderful place that we have to protect, teeming with wildlife. It is the most barren, moonlike landscape that Members could ever imagine, and the most amazing thing is that the people who live there see absolutely no problem with tapping into these oil reserves. The technology has gotten so good and so sophisticated that not only do we protect the environment but, as well, the environment is enhanced by the oil exploration efforts that are there. When I was there, because of the initiatives pursued, they now have ponds that were lifeless that were rendered deeper because they needed the gravel, and now the ponds are filled with fish. Those fish-filled ponds are attracting more grizzly bears. The roads that they build to drive on in the oil exploration efforts raise the ground up sufficiently that various birds can nest along the edge of the road, so we have a proliferation of birds as a consequence. Furthermore, the Holy Grail, the thing that they ballyhooed was going to get so disturbed, the caribou, it turns out that the herd is multiplying at a much more rapid rate. The size of the herd has increased dramatically because of the presence of the pipeline. So every single excuse that they use, and what is, I think, the greatest outrage in this whole affair is here we are today, again, the poor working stiffs of America who have trouble making ends meet, who run out of checkbook funds before the month runs out because they are paying more money for gasoline and for fuel oil, their lives could be made better if we were able to tap into those additional oil reserves there in Alaska. They are very close to the existing pipeline infrastructure. It entails putting in just a short segment of additional pipeline, and would allow us access to millions and millions of barrels of additional oil. The increased production would have the potential to lower the price of oil worldwide and significantly enhance the quality of life for every American, but yet the Clinton-Gore administration stands up and says, no, no, with these empty, irrational explanations for their opposition. Frankly, I applaud the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). This just further confirms in my mind that we are standing up for the needs of working men and women, and that we must continue to do so. It is very, very critical that we continue to speak on these issues. I am happy to yield back to the gentleman.