Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I want to underscore a very, very important point highlighted by that poster up there. It is very, very clearly spelled out in Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance. I would highly recommend every American purchase a copy of this book and read it. If they read this book, Al Gore wants the price of oil to go up. He wants it to go up dramatically. He would like the American consumer to pay substantially more for a gallon of gasoline. I would wager that the current price of $1.50 to $1.80 per gallon is not high enough for Al Gore, because he would like the price to be so high that people would stop driving and that people would start using mass transit. He would like to get them out of their cars. That agenda is very, very clearly spelled out in that book in black and white. I would assert that if any Republican had ever written a book with the outrageous assertions that are put forth in that book, that that Republican candidate for president would be excoriated by the American news media; that every single outrageous statement in that book would be attacked and questioned. That candidate could not go anywhere in the Nation where a reporter would not come up to him and ask him, how could he make these outrageous assertions? Let me just read what that says there: ``Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change, these are all forms of appeasement designed to satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary.'' How outrageous a statement can we find? It is disparaging of public opinion. He says, ``designed to satisfy the public's desire,'' as though that is something we are not supposed to do; as though we are supposed to have some higher knowledge and calling and that we are somehow supposed to ignore them, the people who are literally our bosses, and that we are to do what we think is necessary or what he thinks is necessary, a wrenching transformation of society. What is that wrenching transformation? He wants to get every single one of us out of our cars. He further goes on to claim that the internal combustion engine is one of the single greatest threats to the human race. How much more outrageous a statement could anyone ever have? I thank the gentleman from California. He has all of the quotes up there. Within the context of the SEI, the Strategic Environmental Initiative, a plan of the Vice President's, it ought to be possible to establish a coordinated global program to accomplish the strategic goal of completely eliminating the internal combustion engine over, say, a 25-year period. What will a Gore presidency mean? It will mean the implementation or an attempt to implement that program right there, spelled out in Earth in the Balance: to completely eliminate the internal combustion engine. Let me just say that if there were a good replacement for the internal combustion engine that was totally pollution-free and was affordable, I think every American would support that. Who would not want to be able to avoid gas stations? Who would not want to drive a car that does not spew fumes? But the reality of physics, the reality of modern science today is the internal combustion engine is the only affordable way for people to get about, and God forbid we have a situation where politicians from Washington are trying to completely eliminate the internal combustion engine, let alone no one other than the President of the United States. I just want to wholeheartedly congratulate the gentleman from California on bringing these issues to the forefront. These are the issues that we should be debating, what are the underlying philosophies and beliefs of the candidates. I certainly thank the gentleman, and I would be more than delighted to do this again with the gentleman from California.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I certainly commend the gentleman for bringing this Special Order to the floor this evening. One of the things that I have noticed in my 5 years of experience here on Capitol Hill, having left my previous vocation as a physician and taken up the role of legislator for the people of my congressional district is the nature by which so many of the more outrageous blunders and outrageous statements that come from the Vice President are essentially ignored or passed over by the major media outlets in the United States, the electronic media and many of the printed media outlets, newspapers such as the Post, The New York Times. One area that is very, very significant in my congressional district is the mismanagement by the Vice President of the space station program. The space station program is a program that was redesigned by the Clinton-Gore team in 1993, and in that process, they brought the Russians in as critical partners where we were now suddenly dependent upon the Russians for critical elements in space station construction. The Vice President was intimately involved with this program. Over the years, subsequent to 1993 he had a series of meetings with the prime minister, Mr. Chernomyrdin at which various phases of space station progress were negotiated, along with other scientific enterprises that the United States was supposedly cooperating with the Russians on. There were many people, including the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the Republican Chairman of the Committee on Science, who warned at the time that this approach and this strategy that the administration is pursuing is risky, is dangerous, and could lead to significant delays in the space station program, significant cost overruns, tremendous amounts of additional costs and, indeed, could ultimately lead to the failure of the program in its very important mission. Well, now here we are, 7 years later, and lo and behold, all of the warnings of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) at that time have come to pass, and indeed, we have a situation where instead of saving $2 billion as was originally put forward by Clinton-Gore, the space station program is probably going to cost $4 billion over and above what it was originally projected to cost. We have gone from a savings of $2 billion to an overrun of $4 billion, a $6 billion swing. What is equally egregious is the program is now 2 years behind schedule and indeed, it is uncertain as to whether or not it is ever going to be able to get back on track. What is even more disappointing is that the Vice President's fingerprints were all over this, and he has yet to put forward his proposal to get this program back on track.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this legislation to ban the partial-birth abortion procedure. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do so and to oppose the motion to recommit. I first learned of this procedure in 1993 when I was still practicing medicine. After a long day of seeing patients in my office, I opened the American medical news and saw this procedure first described, and I was shocked. I was shocked by not only its flagrant violation of the sanctity of human life, but its brutality. I have worked in neonate to intensive care units and I have seen firsthand with my eyes how premature babies respond to pain. When it is necessary to draw blood and needles are placed in their arms, I have seen them draw back, writhe in pain and cry out. Dragging an unborn baby, feet first, partially out of the womb is a brutal violation of the privacy of that child. But to then stab that baby in the back of the skull is, in my medical opinion, not only barbaric, it is excruciatingly painful for these poor, unfortunate souls. Apologists for this procedure claim that it is necessary in situations to protect the health of the mother or in birth defects. But in the original articles describing this procedure, the developers, McMahon and Haskell admitted that the vast majority of the mothers are healthy and the babies are free of birth defects. Of the small number that did have birth defects, the majority of them were cleft lip and cleft palate, clearly a nonlethal, surgically correctable defect that has no justification for subjecting these babies to a painful and violent execution. I say to my colleagues, I believe that nations of people are judged not by their economic or military strength, but how they care for the weakest in their culture. Nobody is weaker than an unborn child.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time previously allotted to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like this afternoon to talk about NASA and the recent report regarding the Mars program, as well as a recent poll taken by the Zogby Organization. As most Americans know, NASA and its efforts to put a man on the moon and our space shuttle from become an integral part of America's history, and as well American culture. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that NASA and its exploits in space is a tremendous motivating factor for young people to study math and science. Indeed, there is an entire generation of Americans who now work in areas of high technology, science and mathematics who were originally naturally motivated to get involved in that arena because of the space race and the tremendous attraction of space. Indeed, when I travel around the United States and talk to teachers, one of the things I hear over and over again when I tell them where I am from, which is an area of Florida that includes Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral, when I tell them that, they invariably tell me that one of the things that helps them in motivating their kids to take an interest in the study of math and science is the space program and talking to them about the applications of our space program to the future. Indeed, a recent poll that was released by the Zogby Organization bears up a lot of what I am talking about. This chart I have to my left here gets into this. They asked the following questions, and they had other questions, but I want to focus on these two statements. The first statement is: NASA and space exploration in general is a total waste of taxpayer dollars. The second statement is: the exploration of space is vital to the future of the United States and the world no matter what the cost. I was very surprised, because amongst young people ages 18 to 29, by a ratio of almost 5 to 1, they supported the second statement rather than the first statement, which contends that space exploration is not important. When we look at people ages 30 to 39, almost the same ratio, 5 to 1, support NASA. Even amongst the older generation, people over the age of 50, it is about a 2 to 1 ratio. It averages out, as I show here, to about three to one actually support the ongoing investment in space. I know that NASA had a tough year last year in some of its areas. Certainly they had tremendous success, as well. There was the recent x- ray mapping mission involving the shuttle, which was a huge success. The Hubble repair mission, as well done by the shuttle, was a huge success. But as everybody knows, they had some failures on two probes that were supposed to go to Mars. I think what we need to do is certainly reassess and reevaluate our whole Mars program and how we are going about that. It was originally proposed that this new approach would be called faster, better, cheaper. The idea in mind is that you do not build a probe to Mars that takes 7 years to build, that costs $1.5 billion, you build several smaller probes. This way, in case you lose one, the mission of exploring Mars can still move ahead. I would assert that the fundamentals behind that philosophy were very, very good. It makes a lot of sense to have several smaller probes rather than one big one, because, indeed, in the past we have lost some of these big probes, which are very, very costly. I would assert that the goal or the mission of faster, better, cheaper needs to be redefined to what it was originally intended to be, maybe something like smaller, swifter, and smarter. I believe that the intent was a good one to send multiple smaller probes, rather than one large probe. I believe that the reassessment that is going on in the Mars program will ultimately end up yielding better value to the American taxpayer. If we are ever going to send people to Mars so that we can explore that planet, or indeed, even some day colonize Mars, it is critical that we send unmanned probes first to learn more about Mars. Clearly, this poll shows us that the American people are still behind a strong effort to explore space. We are a Nation of pioneers. That is in our spirit. It should always remain in our spirit. I believe we need to reassess what we are doing with Mars and move ahead with the same kind of focus, indeed, where we are trying to get better value for the American taxpayer and gain knowledge of outer space.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of this amendment, and I would encourage not only all of my colleagues on my side of the aisle to vote for it but as well my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If we oppose this amendment and believe that if we just leave the money there in the Treasury that the debt will still be reduced, we are assuming that as we go through the whole process of negotiating within the House and then with the Senate on conferences, and then as we sit down and negotiate with the President and go through all 13 appropriations bills, that this money will somehow still be there in the end and, therefore, we do not need to pass this amendment. I really question that. And I have to respectfully disagree with the gentleman on the other side of the aisle. I think this is an extremely important amendment. We had $26 billion extra come into the Treasury, and the debate before us today is, yes, we are going to be spending quite a bit of it shoring up our national defenses, something I consider to be extremely important; and, yes, we have other very important priorities; but, yes, when we vote for this amendment and approve this amendment in the House, we are saying that we recognize the tax burden to pay the interest on the debt is too high; that the responsibility of saddling our kids with ever- increasing amounts of debt is wrong, and that we are going to take some of this money and retire some of the public debt with it. My only regret is that we are not giving another $4 billion back to the hard-working taxpayers, who essentially have been overcharged and that is why we have this money. But I think this amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania is an extremely important amendment. I agree with the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) that we need to be doing this some more as we go through the appropriations process and setting more of the money aside for debt reduction.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Naval Ordnance Test Unit (NOTU) in Florida's 15 Congressional District is celebrating its 50th birthday this year, and I want to extend my congratulations to the men and women who work at NOTU today, and to those who have supported its vital mission in the past. In 1956, NOTU became the site for all test firings of the Fleet Ballistic Missile Program, launching first from land and then from submerged submarines a continuous series of Polaris, Poseidon, and, today, Trident missiles. Although NASA and Air Force space launches are the most publicized, the Navy is the largest user of the Eastern Range at Cape Canaveral, conducting over half of the missile firings on the Range. NOTU's anniversary happens to fall in the same year as the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Submarine Force. On October 12, 1900, the U.S. Navy commissioned the first submarine, the U.S.S. Holland, so this year is even more special for the people of NOTU. I'm pleased that there is an effort underway in Congress to honor this important national achievement, and I am a proud cosponsor of House Resolution 397 that does just that. But it gets even better--this year is also the 50th anniversary of the first launch from Florida's Space Coast. Bumper 8, a captured German V-2 rocket, was launched on July 24, 1950 at 9:28 a.m. We'll be celebrating all three of these important anniversaries on April 1 in Florida, one of several events planned, and I want to thank everyone involved--including NOTU, the 45th Space Wing, NASA's Kennedy Space Center, the aerospace industry, and a very supportive community-- for their hard work during this important trio of anniversaries. NOTU continues to be a vital part of Florida's Space Coast. They have played a role in the rich heritage of Florida for half a century, and I know they will continue to serve this nation with honor for another half century and beyond.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have a crisis in this country, and I rise in support of using all of the tools at our disposal to end this crisis. I rise in support of the American people, the American family, and the American worker. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000. We need to pass the Oil Price Reduction Act to officially hold the Clinton-Gore Administration accountable for the oil crisis that they have created. Any spike in the oil prices dramatically affects every family in the country. When the price of transportation rises--all prices rise. Nothing, not a loaf of bread, not a home computer, not a gallon of milk can get from their points of production to the home without using petroleum to fuel the machines to get it there. Families in the Midwest and the northeast have been forced to readjust their budget to ensure that they could afford heating oil during the mass cold spells this winter. Now families are looking to take a vacation, and have to take another look at their wallets to make sure they can afford it. Even if they can make the trip, many will be forced to change the duration or possibly the destination of their vacation. How did we get this point? According to the Congressional Research Service, OPEC decided at a meeting in March 1999--more than a year ago--to drastically scale back petroleum production. Today the American people are feeling the brunt of the OPEC cartel's decision. What does the Clinton-Gore Administration say about this? Well, let me tell you, on February 17, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson told some consumer groups and industry leaders in Boston, ``We were caught napping. We got complacent.'' Later that same day, on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, he reiterated, ``Everyone was caught napping. Secretary Richardson, you knew a year ago that OPEC was cutting production. That's not napping, that's hibernating. That's a slumber that would give Rip Van Winkle a run for his money. It is the responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy to ensure a stable supply of affordable energy. Look at the Department's own website where it states: ``The Department of Energy is working to assure clean, affordable, and dependable supplies of energy for our nation, now and in the future.'' On accepting the position of Secretary of Energy, on August 24, 1998, Secretary Richardson stated: ``One of my highest priorities at the Department of Energy will be to let the American people know the many ways in which we serve them and to determine how we can serve them better. I want the American people to know that the Department is their public servant and that we are working for them.--August 24, 1998.'' Napping while OPEC cut production in order to push gas prices over $2/gallon is not the sort of thing we had in mind. It seems that only in the past month, the Clinton-Gore-Richardson team got engaged in this issue. One of the principle responsibilities of the U.S Department of Energy is to ensure a stable supply of affordable energy. The Administration has failed miserably in this respect, and the American people are paying the price, literally. The average family will have to pay out between $500 and $1,000 extra this year, just to fill their tank with gasoline. This will cut into the family budget significantly. This bill before us will force the President to determine the oil pricing practices of the OPEC countries. We have known that they have been involved in price-fixing. It's not legal here in the United States--so why would the Administration tolerate price fixing among other countries? We give these OPEC countries millions of dollars in federal aid and defense assistance each year. We protect them and their citizens every time they have a Middle East squabble. We are the first to assist them in their times of need. And how do they thank us? By consorting among themselves to ensure the highest price for their oil exports to the United States--and the Clinton Administration sat idlely by until the American people saw what was in store and got outraged. While giving the President ample time to pursue a diplomatic remedy to this crisis, this Act ensures that, should OPEC nation's continue price-fixing to the detriment of the U.S. economy, we will scale back or even revoke our federal assistance to these nations. This is a fair and prudent process. A process which has been well within the authority of the Clinton-Gore Administration since OPEC's decision to cut back production a year ago. This increase in gas prices over the last 12 months, is the largest increase in U.S. history, the average cost for a gallon of gas to the American family is $1.54, and our national oil inventories are at the lowest level in four years. Mr. Chairman, we are in a time of crisis, I look to the Members of this body to pass the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000 and force the Clinton-Gore Administration and Secretary Richardson to wake up from their hibernation, smell the coffee, and take firm action against those who have been permitted to hold the American people hostage to higher gas prices.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to recognize Mr. Jack King and his son, Chip King, a Navy fighter pilot. Jack is a public relations manager with United Space Alliance in my district, and is well known in the space program as the ``Voice of Apollo.'' It was Jack's voice that millions of Americans heard chronicling our early adventures in space. And, appropriately, his son, Chip, is also in the aerospace business. He's flying F-14s, and he recently flew a Sports Illustrated correspondent to give the public a taste of flying jet fighters. That flight was reported in the September 1999 edition of the magazine, and I will submit the full text of that article for the Record. This is a great story about a father and son working in one of the industries in which our nation leads the world--aerospace. We need to work together in Washington to ensure fathers like Jack continue to work in our space industry, and that sons like Chip continue to faithfully serve in defense of our nation. [From Sports Illustrated Magazine, Sept. 20, 1999] On a Wing and a Prayer (By Rick Reilly) Now this message for America's most famous athletes: Someday you may be invited to fly in the backseat of one of your country's most powerful fighter jets. Many of you already have--John Elway, John Stockton, Tiger Woods to name a few. If you get this opportunity, let me urge you, with the greatest sincerity. . . . Move to Guam. Change your name. Fake your own death. Whatever you do, do not go. I know. The U.S. Navy invited me to try it. I was thrilled, I was pumped. I was toast! I should've known when they told me my pilot would be Chip (Biff) King of Fighter Squadron 213 at Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach. Whatever you're thinking a Top Gun named Chip (Biff) King looks like, triple it. He's about six- foot, tan, ice-blue eyes, wavy surfer hair, finger-crippling handshake--the kind of man who wrestles dyspeptic alligators in his leisure time. If you see this man, run the other way. Fast. Biff King was born to fly. His father, Jack King, was for years the voice of NASA missions. (``T-minus 15 seconds and counting. . . .'' Remember?) Chip would charge neighborhood kids a quarter each to hear his dad. Jack would wake up from naps surrounded by nine-year-olds waiting for him to say, ``We have a liftoff.'' Biff was to fly me in an F-14D Tomcat, a ridiculously powerful $60 million weapon with nearly as much thrust as weight, not unlike Colin Montgomerie. I was worried about getting airsick, so the night before the flight I asked Biff if there was something I should eat the next morning. ``Bananas,'' he said. ``For the potassium?'' I asked. ``No,'' Biff said, ``because they taste about the same coming up as they do going down.'' The next morning, out on the tarmac, I had on my flight suit with my name sewn over the left breast. (No call sign-- like Crash or Sticky or Leadfoot--but, still, very cool.) I carried my helmet in the crook of my arm, as Biff had instructed. A fighter pilot named Psycho gave me a safety briefing and then fastened me into my ejection seat, which, when employed, would ``egress'' me out of the plane at such a velocity that I would be immediately knocked unconscious. Just as I was thinking about aborting the flight, the canopy closed over me, and Biff gave the ground crew a thumbs-up. In minutes we were firing nose up at 600 mph. We leveled out and then canopy-rolled over another F-14. Those 20 minutes were the rush of my life. Unfortunately, the ride lasted 80. It was like being on the roller coaster at Six Flags Over Hell. Only without rails. We did barrel rolls, sap rolls, loops, yanks and banks. We dived, rose and dived again, sometimes with a vertical velocity of 10,000 feet per minute. We chased another F-14, and it chased us. We broke the speed of sound. Sea was sky and sky was sea. Flying at 200 feet we did 90-degree turns at 550 mph, creating a G force of 6.5, which is to say I felt as if 6.5 times my body weight was smashing against me, thereby approximating life as Mrs. Colin Montgomerie. And I egressed the bananas. I egressed the pizza from the night before. And the lunch before that. I egressed a box of Milk Duds from the sixth grade, I made Linda Blair look polite. Because of the G's, I was egressing stuff that did not even want to be egressed. I went through not one airsick bag, but two. Biff said I passed out. Twice. I was coated in sweat. At one point, as we were coming in upside down in a banked curve on a mock bombing target and the G's were flattening me like a tortilla and I was in and out of consciousness, I realized I was the first person in history to throw down. I used to know cool. Cool was Elway throwing a touchdown pass, or Norman making a five-iron bite. But now I really know cool. Cool is guys like Biff, men with cast-iron stomachs and Freon nerves. I wouldn't go up there again for Derek Jeter's black book, but I'm glad Biff does every day, and for less a year than a rookie reliever makes in a home stand. A week later, when the spins finally stopped, Biff called. He said he and the fighters had the perfect call sign for me. Said he'd send it on a patch for my flight suit. What is it? I asked. ``Two Bags.''

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the Small Business Tax Fairness Act and increasing the federal minimum wage one dollar over three years. The nearly 3 million small business owners and their employees in the state of Florida deserve this tax fairness package, which will save American small businessowners $45.3 billion over the next five years. Let's remember that most Americans work for small businesses and strengthening them will help us create good jobs here in America. Liberals who oppose this package use outrageous language to describe our proposal which will help not only the owners of small businesses and farms, but their employees. The Small Business Tax Fairness Act continues the Republican commitment to rework the tax code to provide tax fairness to all hard- working Americans. Tragically, owners of mom and pop stores, restaurants, and farms have been unfairly saddled with these tax burdens for decades. They are called ``rich'' because of their holdings; but almost all of them would agree that those holdings are necessary tools and materials for the success of their businesses. For example a tractor and a plow can easily cost upwards of $50,000. Helping farmers to purchase new farm equipment may be labeled as a tax cut for the rich by liberal opponents of this bill. But, because of their narrow vision and interest in partisan rhetoric they fail to acknowledge and see everyone who benefits. I can guarantee you that the benefits flow to American workers who manufactured the tractor, the truckers who shipped it, the miners who mined the raw materials, and those who work in the factory where the tires and other components are made, The tax relief package clearly is good for all Americans. With regard to estate taxes, as someone who represents Florida, I know about the loss of farm land and open spaces. Estate taxes force too many families to sell the farmland to developers just to pay the taxes. I have seen it time and again in my congressional district where families have been forced to sell citrus farms in order to pay estate taxes when a parent dies. The bill provides some tax relief that will help farmers and their families keep the family farm. The bill also encourages savings. We have the lowest savings rate in American history. Our bill helps Americans save money for the future. It helps make pension plans more portable so that Americans workers who have placed money in a company pension plan can move to another job more easily without losing all that they have put in a pension plan. This will help all American workers and their families. We provide Americans with a tax deduction for the purchase of health insurance so that they are not impoverished when faced with a serious illness. I am disappointed that the liberals have labeled as a ``tax break for the rich,'' a bill that allows the uninsured to fully deduct the costs of purchasing health insurance premiums. I think we should be about helping the uninsured, not sticking it to them. We also authorize HUD to designate 15 ``renewal communities'' in both urban and rural areas. This will help these economically depressed communities recover. We also increase the business meal deduction to 60%. This will spur economic growth. It will help the waiter, the waitress, and the cook who will have more customers. Not only does our package spur economic growth by providing this tax relief, but it provides a reasonable increase in the minimum wage. As in the base bill, I support raising the minimum wage by a dollar over the next three years. The phased-in wage increase will help employees and it will give those small businesses who operate at the margins an opportunity to adjust so that they can remain competitive and ensure that jobs are not lost. I would ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, last night ABC's 20/20 brought something very important to the public's attention, the trafficking of babies' body parts and organs. Even today the House Subcommittee on Health and Environment is holding a hearing on this issue. As a physician and a Congressman, I find this practice disturbing, disgusting, and, of course, highly immoral; but the truth of the matter is that this is currently going on in our country. Evidence has shown us that private companies and even public universities buy and sell baby organs for the sole purpose of experimentation. It has been brought to my attention that they pay as much as $150 for skin, $990 for a brain, and $325 for a spinal cord. To make it worse, companies are making special syringes for abortion doctors so that they can prolong the abortion procedure itself and keep the baby alive long enough to get more money for these parts. This practice is illegal. It is against the law. It is outrageous, and it boils down to human exploitation and death. I encourage my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, later today, the House of Representatives will pass H.R. 5, the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act. This Act will eliminate the current tax law which penalizes senior citizens between 65-69 who continue to work. The Senior Citizens Earnings Test taxes senior citizens up to 33 percent of a senior's Social Security benefits. One of the most egregious elements of our tax code is the continued over-taxing of American senior citizens who want to continue working. Repealing this tax on working seniors was the first bill I cosponsored when I was sworn into office in 1995, and, finally, I think we see light at the end of this tunnel. I would like to thank Speaker Hastert for his leadership on this issue for more than a decade. This Social Security Earnings Test has two adverse effects: it discourages seniors from working and for those who do work, it takes away a portion of the Social Security benefits they have earned. With today's labor shortage, this policy is greatly outdated and needs changing. The Senior Citizens earnings tax penalty takes $1 of working seniors' Social Security benefits for every $3 they earn over a federal imposed income limit. Seniors earning more than $17,000 are subject to the earnings tax. In 1999 there were over 4 million working senior citizens, at least 800,000 of them lost some of their Social Security benefits because of the earnings test. By repealing this tax penalty, the ten year benefit to senior citizens would be about $23 billion. Seniors can use this extra money for helping with their grandchildren's education, a trip to visit their family or other loved ones, a car, medical expenses, and prescription drugs. Republicans have ended 40 years of raiding the Social Security Trust Fund to fund pet projects by tax and spend politicians. Repealing this seniors' tax builds on that commitment to senior citizens by making sure they get the benefits they have worked for, even if they choose to continue working. In Florida, over 80,000 seniors could be able to take advantage of this tax fairness package. This bill ensure that they get the money they have earned as well as the Social Security benefits they deserve. A similar bill introduced in 1998 as part of the plan to abolish the Social Security earnings limit only received support from 19 House Democrats. This year the President has indicated his willingness to sign such a bill, but he did not include it in his recently submitted FY 2001 budget. The measure enjoys support from such groups as AARP, United Seniors Association, and the 60 Plus Association. Let's do the right thing and pass this bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill. All I can tell my colleagues is what I saw in practicing medicine for 15 years before coming here to the Congress. I had patients who lived together out of wedlock, many of whom said they did so because their taxes would go up if they got married. Now, I have examined the Democratic substitute and amongst other things, it provides no marriage penalty relief until the public debt is paid off. I would like to quote from Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor, and I believe someone who would be properly labeled a liberal Democrat. He said, ``It would be one thing if the born-again, fiscally austere Democrats were speaking out of strong conviction backed by sound ideas. But the conviction is paper thin. Eliminating the national debt has not been a plank of any Democratic economic program in living memory, and most Democrats who are now talking greatly about its importance have never uttered the words, `eliminate the debt,' before.'' Robert Reich, thank you for speaking the truth.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, space program supporters often compete among themselves for programs and funding. I want to do my part to bring everyone together to work towards a common goal, and I recently had an opportunity to visit NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston. My district includes Kennedy Space Center, which is a traditional rival for funding with the Johnson Space Center. But I went to Texas to build bridges between our great States, and I want you to know that the people in Houston were very cooperative and great to work with. I want to thank the Clear Lake Area Economic Development Foundation, Boeing Corporation, GB Tech, United Space Alliance, Lockheed Martin and Barrios Technology for giving me an overview of the local aerospace industry; and I want to especially thank Johnson Space Center Director George Abbey for his hospitality during our trip. Our human space flight program is the crown jewel of our Nation's space exploration and development efforts; and I am confident that, working together, key States such as Texas, Florida, Alabama, California, as well as Nevada and Washington, can help build the political support for a stronger space program.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his yielding. I definitely want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh) for the leadership he has provided on this critical issue. We have had several Members of our Republican Conference who have led the charge, so to speak. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) is one, and the other one that comes to my mind is yourself. The Tax Code, as everybody knows, is very complicated and so is knowing how to repair it so that it is not a Tax Code that encourages people to live out of wedlock, how do we repair it to make sure it is not a Tax Code that discourages marriage. I first became interested in this subject actually years before I got elected to the U.S. House when I was still practicing medicine, and I had people coming in my office who I knew were living together physically as husband and wife, but they had different last names, not because the wife chose to keep her maiden name, but because they had actually not married. Some of these individuals were senior citizens, which was another thing that amazed me. They knew when I talked to them about this issue, they knew they were setting a bad example for their grandchildren, living out of wedlock together, but always it was the same story. ``If we get married, our tax burden would go up so much, that we live together out of wedlock.'' To me, in my opinion, this is a moral issue. This is an example of how our laws in Washington encourage a bad thing. It is actually morally wrong to have a Tax Code that discourages marriage and encourages people to live out of wedlock, especially people who say they would like to get married, they want to get married, but they do not do so because of the code. One of the biggest reasons why we have so many features in our Tax Code like this is this desire on the part of so many liberals in this city to create a Tax Code where tax breaks and tax benefits phase out if you make above $60,000, or above $50,000, or above $80,000 or above $100,000, this desire to always tax the rich. One of the consequences of that is if you get two working people who come together, they are immediately in this tax bracket where all of their tax benefits or breaks disappear and they are better off not getting married. One of the things that has been shown repeatedly by psychologists is that one of the things that is most critical and most helpful to the proper intellectual development of a child, growing up in a family, in terms of are they going to stay off of drugs, are they going to have good academic performance, are they going to do well in school, is a healthy, stable, married family environment, that they have a mother and a father in the home, and that every social scientist and every politician who follows these statistics, they all go around saying that we need to encourage marriage and we need to do what we can to support marriage in the United States, but yet they will stand by idly and do nothing about this problem. I want to address this proposal by the President. This proposal by the President is a day late and a dollar short, as far as I am concerned. No, it is not a day late, it is 8 years late; and it is not a dollar short, it is about $10 or $20 billion a year short. His proposal just does not go far enough. It is going to help some people, true; but for an awful lot of people, they will continue to have the same choice put before them. It will be get married and pay higher taxes or live together out of wedlock. The Republican GOP plan is real marriage penalty relief. The President's plan is, again, the same sort of status quo. The marriage penalty will remain for millions of Americans. Actually, the difference is about 17 million Americans. Our proposal is easily paid for. We are looking at close to $2 trillion of surplus over the next 10 years, and this proposal is going to cost $180 billion over the next 10 years. Essentially one-tenth of the surplus would go to correcting this measure in our Tax Code. It is a good plan. I believe the President should sign this. I commend again the gentleman from Indiana for his work in this area. I believe ultimately the President will sign this once the public begins to see and analyze the features of this bill and how it really would be good for our Nation to get rid of these problems in the Tax Code.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I rise in support of this rule and the legislation it deals with. This bill before us today is about helping create American jobs. I represent the town of Vero Beach, Florida, the home of Piper Aircraft. Let me share with my colleagues what has happened to this company and their employees over the past 15 years. In 1988, Piper had about 3,000 employees and produced more than 500 aircraft per year. Just 3 years later, in July of 1991, Piper Aircraft was forced into Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the workforce had declined from 3,000 to 400. What happened? Why did 2,600 Americans lose their jobs? Yes, 2,600 Americans lost their jobs. They lost their jobs because of excessive lawsuits. The courts held Piper liable for every aircraft that they had produced since 1937. Piper may not have seen an aircraft since it was sold and left their facility since 1940, yet they were being held liable in courts, even if the plane had been significantly altered or had been poorly maintenanced for 50 years. This was wrong. Yet it was happening. Piper could not purchase liability insurance. No one would insure that kind of liability. Piper had to pay for lawsuits and settlements out of their own pocket. This led to their having to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the loss of jobs to more than 2,600 Americans. Around this same time, a French airplane manufacturer made significant gains in providing aircraft to the U.S. market. Aerospatiale gained a significant share of the U.S. market because U.S. manufacturers of small aircraft had been forced into bankruptcy. Our liability laws had resulted in the destruction of jobs here in the U.S. and the creation of jobs in France. I believe our business in Congress should be to create U.S. jobs, not jobs for foreign competitors. In 1994, the Congress passed legislation limiting liability to 18 years for aircraft produced in the United States. What has this done for Piper Aircraft? These liability limitations have resulted in the creation of over 1,000 jobs in Vero Beach, Florida. Today, 5 years after Congress passed that liability limitation, Piper now employs 1,500 people; and I believe they will continue to grow in the years ahead. This year, Piper will again produce 500 aircraft, four times what they had produced 5 years ago. Liability reform creates jobs. Do we want to create more jobs here in America by establishing reasonable liability limits? H.R. 2005 will do this for the rest of American industries like the reforms that were passed in 1994 and have worked so well. If Members want to create more jobs here in the United States, support this rule and support the underlying bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Will the gentleman yield for a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I rise in strong support of this resolution. I can speak on this issue from personal experience. I have several people on my staff who are graduates of Catholic schools, including several who went through Catholic elementary school, high school, and college. As well, I can also speak that my father was a graduate of Catholic schools, and my sister went to Catholic school as well. My parents actually wanted to send myself and my two sisters, younger sisters, to Catholic school, but like so many working class families, they could not afford it. That is why I feel so strongly that we in this Congress should be doing everything we can to enable parents, working class parents, to have the ability to choose the educational environment for their kids that they would like, a choice that unfortunately today is primarily reserved for wealthy people and people who end up having to sacrifice a great deal. I know my parents sacrificed to send my sisters, and I have met many people who sacrificed a great deal to send their children to Catholic schools. Why do they do that? Children who go to Catholic schools, they are much more likely, 95 percent of them graduate. There is a higher percentage of them who get into college. As well, there is a lower incidence of drug abuse. There are just so many amazing things that the Catholic schools have been able to do. What is most amazing is that they actually do it with less money. They have demonstrated very clearly that they can do a better job with less, and that is why we in the Congress should be doing everything we can to encourage Catholic education in America for those who would choose to send their children there. Most importantly, we should be encouraging school choice so that not just wealthy people can choose where they send their kids to go to school, and people are not forced to make incredible sacrifices, but that every American, working class, poor, would have the ability to send their child to the school of their choice. Yes, if we had an educational system in America that was like that, I believe millions more would choose Catholic education, because Catholic education has demonstrated clearly in that marketplace that they can do more with less. They can produce kids that are better equipped to go out in the world and be productive citizens. Therefore, I am extremely pleased to be able to rise and speak in support of this resolution. I encourage all my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, is it not correct that we are supposed to be debating the resolution before us today?

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago we made a commitment to the American people to lock away every penny of the Social Security surplus so that Washington big-spenders could not keep raiding the funds to spend on government programs. Now, we have the opportunity to meet this commitment if only President Clinton will stop playing partisan games with the retirement dollars of hard-working Americans. When the President says, we cannot trim waste 1 percent from the massive Federal budget in order to protect Social Security, I cannot help but question his priorities. Paying for more wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars, or protecting Social Security. The choice is simple. As we close in on a final budget, let us be very clear on one thing: we will not go home until every penny of the Social Security Trust Fund is protected and we are not going to raise taxes on working Americans, and we are going to keep the budget balanced. We have more time than money, and we will use whatever time is necessary to get the job done.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me this time. Madam Speaker, when I was first elected to Congress and later appointed to serve on the Committee on Banking and Financial Services I was very surprised to learn that the laws governing the financial service sector of our economy were relics of the Depression, that the Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1933 and that for years the Congress had been unable to pass important and badly needed new legislation to modernize the laws governing the banking, insurance and securities industries in the United States. Well, tonight we are finally getting that job done and modernizing those laws. This may not be a perfect bill but it is a good bill. It is a good bill because it will make it easier and less expensive for the public to access banking and financial services. Our international competitors in Europe and Asia long ago adopted more modernized changes to the laws governing their financial service sectors. We now in the U.S. will have modernized ours, and in doing so we will improve the competitiveness of the American economy and allow it to continue its place as the most competitive economy on the globe. Much credit goes to the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Leach) and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) for this bill, as well as all of the others who had significant input in this effort, to include the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve, particularly Chairman Greenspan. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes on the rule and vote yes on final passage of this legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, well, if we wanted to distill this down to the final issue, it is should one of the options be available to a doctor to go in and kill a patient if the patient has determined that their life is not worth living anymore. And if my colleagues think that is a very good law, then perhaps they should not support this bill. I think this is a cruel hoax. I think anybody who would hold out and say killing them is the best way to go is wrong. I can manage the patients. If they cannot handle them in Oregon, send them to me and I will retire from the House and take care of them in Florida. I mean, this is absurd to say we have to ultimately have the ability to just do that and say bye-bye.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address two of the criticisms of the bill that have been brought up. Number one, somebody rose and said there is nothing in this bill that will help people with pain. There are two titles in this act. The second title which encompasses most of the bill deals with extensive training so that physicians will get better training on how to manage pain. That is really the problem. That is why people suffer. There are a lot of doctors who are not well trained in how to manage these cases. Now, the issue that has been brought up as well by the last two speakers, that there will be this gray zone and you will give a few pills and the DEA will start scrutinizing you, in practical effect that never happens. Indeed, under the Oregon statute, which is essentially the focus of all this discussion, you have to register with the State that you are going to execute somebody. It is quite clear what the intent is there. There is not a gray zone at all involved. I believe if Members take the time to read it as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) said, this is an excellent bill, an extremely well crafted bill, one of the best ones I have ever seen.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the substitute. I would like to make it quite clear to all of my colleagues what the substitute does. Both bills have funding and authorization for more education for physicians so that they will more aggressively treat patients with pain. I think the gentlewoman from Connecticut one-ups the authors of the original bill. She has got $19 million in there and a website, et cetera. But she very strategically does not have the language that addresses what is going on in the State of Oregon, and I will again reiterate what I said earlier. When you hold out suicide as an option, it is a fraud. You can take care of these patients. I practiced treating these people. I took care of them. In proper hands you can manage their pain. You can treat their depression. And to say that in some cases we cannot handle those things and therefore you have to allow them to commit suicide to me is a hoax.