Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this legislation. I come to this debate today, not only as a legislator, but as well as a physician. I practice internal medicine. About once a month, I see patients. For 15 years prior to coming to the Congress, I practiced internal medicine full time. One of the aspects of that for me was I had the opportunity to manage many patients with chronic pain and many patients, unfortunately, who were terminal who had, in many instances, metastatic cancer, with disease in their bones, and there was a lot of pain associated with their condition. One of the experiences I discovered was that, with time and attention from the attending physician, it is possible to manage these patients quite successfully so that there is not suffering. Indeed, one of the things that I discovered was that the patients who suffered with severe pain, whether they were terminal or whether they had severe pain from a chronic disease and they were not necessarily terminal, the patients who were suffering were the patients who were being managed incorrectly. Their physicians essentially were incompetent, and that is why they were suffering. That, in the hand of a competent physician, these patients can be managed correctly, and that their pain can be dealt with. Their nausea as a complication of their pain medicines can be dealt with. Indeed, even if they were severely depressed as a complication of their illness, one could manage them with medications. There is a whole plethora of drugs available. Now, the reason why some people believe that physician-assisted suicide is necessary is, in my opinion, the false assumption that there are these cases that we cannot manage and, therefore, we have to euthanize these people. I argue today, before all my colleagues, that that is a very, very cruel and bogus hoax. In competent hands and in compassionate hands we do not have to resort to the extreme measure of managing a patient like we would Fido or Rover, and simply just put them to sleep; that we are essentially at the limits of what doctors can do. My colleagues, there are narcotic pain relieving drugs not only available in pill form, there are medications available in suppository form, there are medications available that are transcutaneous patches of narcotic pain relievers, there is even a lollipop that doctors can use that has a pain reliever in it. I have never seen a patient that could not have their pain managed. And the people who would resort to this are people who are lazy or perpetrating a hoax on their patients.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the issue of domestic violence. Mr. Speaker, our homes should be a safe haven where wives, husbands, and children are free from the fear of violence. In most homes in America, this is the case, but for far too many women and children this is not the case. The need to address this issue is something on which we can all agree. I am pleased that increasing attention has been called to this issue and that there are numerous community organizations that have taken an active role in addressing this issue in their communities. Indeed it is in local communities where law enforcement and community organizations have gotten involved that we have seen the greatest success. In fact, this weekend in my congressional district the Domestic Violence Coalition of Indian River County, Florida will be hosting a seminar on domestic violence in order to raise awareness and provide training for those who are committed to bringing this travesty to an end. At this seminar a host of community organizations along with law enforcement and local governmental agencies will make presentations directed toward raising public awareness and sharing professional expertise on domestic violence. This Congress is due to consider the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. This act provides funding for some very valuable programs like domestic violence hotlines, shelters, law enforcement, and related training among other programs. I fully support the reauthorization of these programs and am pleased that many of the organizations participating in this event, like the Sebastian River Junior Woman's Club, support efforts to reauthorize and improve the effectiveness of this law. Mr. Speaker I would also like to take this opportunity to bring to the members attention, related legislation that I have recently introduced in the House. My bill (H.R. 3088) would address one of the most heinous acts of violence to women in our society, sexual assault. Today, in many states the victims of sexual assault have no right to inquire into the HIV status of their assailant until after conviction of the assailant, and sometimes not even then. My bill would give the victims of this crime the right to know the HIV status of their attacker immediately after bringing charges. Medical studies indicate that if anti-HIV drugs are begun within 48 hours of exposure to the HIV virus, the infection of the victim can actually be prevented. That is why it is so important that the victims of sexual assault be able to request the HIV status of their assailant as quickly as possible. It is literally a matter of life and death. As a physician, husband, and father, I am deeply troubled that this is not already law in every state. For too long the rights of victims of sexual crimes have been sacrificed for the rights of criminals. No longer will the victims have to wait weeks, months or years for the crime to be fully adjudicated before they can find out if they have been exposed to HIV. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this bill as we seek to arrest the scourge of violence in our society.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of Mr. Armey's amendment to H.R. 2, The Student Results Act. This ``Safe and Sound Schools Amendment'' to Title I of ESEA is designed to help children whose schools fail to teach and protect them while in their care. This amendment could not have come at a better time. Many of our nation's public schools are in a state of emergency. Thousands of children are trapped in failing schools, and we need to provide them with a way out to gain a better education. Unfortunately, many of the children that are trapped in these failing public schools are from lower income families. We need to provide our children with the opportunity to choose another public or private school that is excelling and will provide them with the best education possible. We can not sit back and keep our students in schools that are not working. The district I represent, the 15th district in Florida, has unfortunately been in the pathway of the many hurricanes that have been sweeping up Florida lately. When natural disasters of this kind happen, the federal government does not hesitate to send relief funds to the victims. This is a necessary and right practice. In turn, it is also necessary to provide relief to our future, our nation's children, when they are trapped in failing schools--when they are victims of an academic emergency. The Safe and Sound Schools amendment establishes a well needed 5-year pilot program designed to create a national school choice option for elementary school children, grades 1-5, that are trapped in these failing schools. It is morally wrong to force them to stay in failing schools in the hope that one day these schools might improve. Eligible students, in schools that are ``academic emergencies'' could apply for $3,500 in relief funds that will help defray the costs of attending any qualified public, private, or parochial school in their area. The investment in our children is the best investment we can make. There is no need to keep our children in failing schools that are not providing them with a good education. This is a great pilot program that will benefit everyone, students, parents, and the future of our country.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill for many reasons. This bill represents the tax increases proposed by the President in his 2000 budget. We are currently engaged in a debate with the White House over whether or not the President's billions of dollars in new Federal programs will go forward. We have several choices in Washington. The first option is to say yes to the President's spending plan and renew the raid on the Social Security surplus to fund them. This is a nonstarter. The Republican- controlled Congress has made it clear that we will not allow Social Security to be raided. The second option is to increase taxes and fees so that more money can be taken out of the pockets of working Americans to pay for the President's programs. This too is a nonstarter. The Republican Congress has made it clear that we believe that the Federal Government already takes enough money out of the pockets of the American people and we are committed to lowering taxes, not raising them. The third option is to exercise fiscal discipline and set spending priorities, recognizing the reality that ``we can't have it all.'' The President doesn't see this as doable. He just cannot say no to more spending. Mr. Speaker, today's decision is about whether or not we are going to permit the Clinton-Gore administration to raise taxes and user fees to pay for larger government. By voting this bill down, we will be sending a strong message to the President that we will not raise taxes. There are several taxes that would be particularly harmful to my constituents that I would like to address. With respect to Medicare, the President has proposed a host of new fees on those who provide medical services to our senior citizens. This is on top of significant curbs on reimbursements to providers that have already been implemented over the past few years. I am very concerned over new user fees the administration has proposed on Medicare+Choice plans. Just last year more than 300,000 seniors nationwide were forced to give up their Medicare+Choice plan because the reimbursement rates were so low that providers could not afford to serve seniors. Just last week a major Medicare+Choice plan in my congressional district was forced to raise membership fees because of lower reimbursements from Medicare. Last year every Medicare+Choice plan in Polk County in my congressional district folded because they could no longer afford to offer care to seniors because the reimbursement rates were so low. Now the administration has proposed to impose higher user fees on these plans. This is no way to expand access and choice for seniors and will only result in fewer seniors having access to Medicare+Choice plans. In addition the President proposes costly user fees that will be passed on to average Americans that travel on our Nation's skyways. The 15th district of Florida has witnessed dynamic, almost explosive amounts of growth in the aviation industry. This success has not been easy. It has taken years of hard work and could easily have the rug pulled out from underneath it by new user fees (i.e., taxes) that will cause the price of flying to increase. This issue is of such a major concern that my constituents have taken the time and energy to fly up to visit me to share their serious concerns about user fees. I have heard from scores of my constituents who work for Rockwell Collins expressing their concerns about how these user fees could harm the ability of private pilots to own and fly their own planes which would have a devastating impact on their employment and industry as a whole.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in support of the conference report. Though I voted against the original VA-HUD bill as it left this House, I tend to support this conference report. My concern at that time was that, though the original bill had good funding for veterans care, it significantly underfunded the NASA account. I am very pleased to see that the NASA funding problem was corrected in this bill. I want to commend the gentleman from West Virginia and the gentleman from New York for their very, very hard work. They had a very, very difficult job. I really want to commend all the members of the conference committee on both sides of the aisle. I believe that this is a bill that Democrats and Republicans on both sides should be able to support.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, Mr. Chairman, and I rise in support of the Goss-Coburn-Shadegg substitute. Mr. Chairman, I came to Washington from my medical practice in 1995, feeling at that time that the managed care industry had placed the bottom line ahead of quality of care, that insurance company and HMO bureaucrats were practicing medicine, and that they needed to be held accountable, as accountable as I was when I practiced medicine. However, I also felt that our society had become too litigious, that we had too many lawsuits. I believe that this substitute before the body now strikes the right balance between these two conflicting needs. It allows for the maintenance of quality through strong internal and independent external appeals processes, but it still reserves the right of individuals to seek redress in court for their injuries. I feel that it is the piece of legislation that we should be enacting.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on last Friday, October 1, my hometown suffered a grave loss. A paratrooper, Army Sergeant Jason Pringle, died while serving this country in Kosovo as part of the Army's elite Company A, 1-508th Airborne Battalion Combat Team. Jason, a 24-year-old army medic had served this Nation since his graduation from Palm Bay High School in 1993. I never had the opportunity to meet Jason, but I wish I had. He was a fine young man with a bright future. I, too, served in the Army in its medical corps, and I met many young people like Jason during my service, and it was always a privilege. It is tragic that this has happened; that the state of the world is such that we have to have our brave men and women all over the globe. It is tragic that a father has lost his son, a mother has lost her child. To Jason: Thank you for giving the greatest gift, your life, for our continued freedom and the freedom of others.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Norwood-Dingell bill, H.R. 2723. I am very supportive of the provisions in this bill which strengthen patient protections and restore the doctor-patient relationship. I am also hopeful that the final bill that we send to a House-Senate conference will include not only the Norwood-Dingell patient protections, but also provisions that will make health insurance more affordable for the growing ranks of the uninsured. Our failure to address both of these issues will leave the job perilously half done. I fully support the strong patient protection standards included in H.R. 2723, many of which were included in my Access to Specialty Care legislation from the last Congress. Particularly, I am pleased that the bill provides for a strong internal and external review process. This will help reassure patients that medical decisions about their coverage have received full consideration, not only by an internal board of medical experts, but also by an external board of medical experts. The bill also ensures that patient have access to the care they need in a timely manner. In addition to providing timely internal and external reviews, the bill ensures that patients' emergency room expenses are covered. For a patient to be second guessed by a health plan administrator after an emergency episode is unreasonable. H.R. 2723 ensures that patients have their emergency health care needs taken care of. It also ensures that they have greater access to the specialty care that they need. This is critical for ensuring that patients have access to the type of provider that can care for their special needs. In addition to these provisions, I am pleased that the bill ensures that women can designate an obstetrician or gynecologist as their primary care provider. Also, I am pleased that we ensure that parents can designate a pediatrician as the primary care provider for their children. These provisions make perfect sense and they will be of significant help in emphasizing preventive care. The bill will also ensure that health plan enrollees will have access to full, easily understandable language on what medical services are covered and not covered. Information is the key to empowering individuals to make informed decisions on their health care. Consumers should have a right to know before they sign up with a plan exactly what is covered and what is not covered. I am pleased with provisions that will ensure that no one gets between the physician and the patient. The patient must have the assurance that their physician is not influenced by any third party when making decisions about their health care. Toward this end, the bill eliminates gag rules that in the past have limited the free speech of doctors when talking with their patients. Additionally, the bill ensures that the insurance companies are no longer permitted to offer perverse incentives that would encourage health care providers not to provide care. Finally, H.R. 2723 includes liability provisions to hold medical decisionmakers accountable. While I agree that the current system in which the people who make medical decisions to deny care are often not held accountable, I am concerned that the provisions in the Norwood- Dingell bill go too far. I fully support provisions to hold health plans accountable for the decisions they make; however, we must ensure that we do not open Padora's Box by turning the Patients' Bill of Rights legislation into a Lawyers Right to Bill. Any liability legislation must impose caps. We must recognize that allowing trial lawyers and their clients to walk away with multi-million dollar awards will raise everyone's premiums. The costs of multi-million dollar lawsuit awards will be passed along to everyone in higher premiums to health plan enrollees. That is why I believe it is critical that if the final bill includes liability provisions, we must insist on reasonable caps on damages. While caps may not be in the best interest of the trial lawyers, it is important for average American citizens in ensuring that insurance premiums are more affordable.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Goss-Coburn-Shadegg- Thomas bill. And let me explain why, should that not pass, I intend to vote for the Norwood-Dingell bill. But first I would like to make a few general comments regarding how we got into the problem that we are in today in the United States with managed care. A health care plan in the early 1960s, a plan that we all grew up and became used to where there was very little interference in the doctor- patient relationship cost a family of four a few hundred dollars a year. But along came developments like MRI scanners, CT scanners, third-generation cephalosporins, new surgical procedures to treat glaucoma diabetic retinopathy, all good things that prolonged life, improved the quality of life, reduced disability but significantly increased costs. The pressure of the cost burden on our health care system led many health care economists to look at the perversity in our health care system, where the doctor was not responsible for costs, nor the consumer; the patient was responsible for costs. Both parties were really not regarding costs at all. Now, what should have been done was exploring alternatives that actually introduced a true marketplace in health care, which is along the lines of some of the reforms we are trying to establish, but instead what was established was managed care, HMOs. I would like to say, in defense of those entities, while it is true that there are problems in HMOs and people are being injured and are dying, the system that they replaced was a system where people were injured and were being killed, and the body of information on this is out there. It is abundant. Many economists looked at the issue that there were perverse incentives that caused providers to provide excessive care in some areas such as Cesarian sections, there is abundant data to show that there were too many Cesarian sections; and, yes, there were people who had unnecessary complications; and some people, unfortunately actually, died from it. Now, I believe it is entirely in order for us to try today to address the problems, the perverse problem in the HMO field, where there is an incentive not to provide care. Now, I would like to point out to my colleagues that I met with officials from the AMA several months ago; and at that time, they said to me that they thought that a health care reform package that had a good internal and external review, without any litigation language, would be sufficient; and that is because their primary interest was quality of care. I believe the people at AMA, that is their real interest, in preserving the quality of care. Unfortunately, some of the leaders of the underlying Norwood-Dingell-Ganske bill had come to the conclusion at the same time that I was having that discussion with the AMA that our leadership on this side of the aisle was so determined not to pass any type of reform that they went over to the other side of the aisle and agreed to a proposal that introduces a tremendous amount of new litigation. If someone asked me what is the real solution to the problem that is at hand, it is to open up insurance companies and HMOs to litigation because they are practicing medicine. Today, when I make rounds at the hospital, third party payers can come in and say, ``No, Dr. Weldon. If you want to send a patient home in 2 days, we do not agree; they have to go home now. No, they cannot go home on that antibiotic, they will go home on this antibiotic.'' That is practicing medicine, and I believe they should be held accountable for that, in all the facets which they are practicing medicine. There should be reasonable caps and limits on punitive damages and on pain and suffering claims. The other side of the aisle refuses to agree to any of that language, and the President of the United States refuses to agree to any of that language. The bill we are primarily talking about right now, the substitute with the name of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) on it, tries to institute some reasonable limits on litigation, reasonable limits on litigation that I feel most of the Republican supporters of the Norwood-Dingell bill actually want to see in place; maybe not this language. My hope is that as we move from the House to a conference committee, that we will finally have a product that places patients first and the doctor/patient relationship first and that does not open up American courts to more and more litigation.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I believe strongly that any discussion of improving the quality of care for those with health insurance must also include a discussion of ways to make health insurance more affordable. Earlier this week, the Census Bureau released the latest figures showing that nearly one million additional Americans were added to the ranks to the uninsured last year. We must take steps to ensure that these Americans have greater access to affordable health insurance. There is no doubt that the managed care reform legislation that we are considering today will result in higher insurance premiums for Americans. There is significant difference of opinion about how much those premiums will go up. Will it be one percent, three percent, or ten percent? Study after study has indicated that with every one percent increase in insurance premiums 300,000 additional Americans lose their insurance. That is why I believe it is so critical that these issues be considered together. H.R. 2990 will expand insurance options for uninsured Americans. I am particularly pleased that the bill provides a 100 percent deduction for health insurance premiums and long-term care premiums if the taxpayer pays more than 50 percent of the premiums. This is long overdue. For too long, Americans who pay for their health insurance out of their own pockets have not had the same opportunity to deduct these expenses as do large corporations. This bill fixes that problem. I am also pleased that the bill provides families with an additional exemption ($2,750) if they care for an elderly family member in their home. This is important in helping families who have made a decision to care for an elderly family member in their own home, rather than placing them in an expensive long-term care facility. Association Health Plans (AHPs), which are encouraged in this bill, will play a critical role in helping those who work for small businesses have access to affordable insurance. This is the largest segment of uninsured Americans. AHPs enable small employers to pool together to obtain the economies of scale, purchasing clout, and administrative efficiencies enjoyed by employees of larger firms. H.R. 2990 expands Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) to increase access to health care services and patient control of health care expenditures. It (1) allows both employers and employees to make contributions to MSAs: (2) makes MSAs a permanent health care choice under the law; (3) eliminates the cap on the number of taxpayers (currently 750,000) that may benefit annually from MSA contributions; (4) reduces the minimum deducitble to $1,000 for individual coverage and $2,000 for families; and (5) allows MSA contributions equal to 100 percent of the deductible; The bill also allows for the creation of HealthMarts, which are private, voluntary, and competitive health insurance ``supermarkets'' that transfer choice within the current employer-based health insurance market from small employers to their employees and dependents. HealthMarts are similar to the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) which gives federal employees greater choice among a host of different plans. They will be established and run by private sector partnerships consisting of providers, consumers, small employers, and insurers. Finally, the bill permits Community Health Organizations (CHOs) to offer health insurance coverage in a state in which they are not licensed under certain conditions. This change is designed to make it easier for providers to form health care networks to meet needs in medically under served areas. Again, I believe that this bill, combined with patient protection legislation will play an important role in improving the quality of health care and giving Americans greater access to affordable insurance plans.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Surprisingly enough, when a pregnant woman is the victim of a Federal crime, any resulting injury to her unborn child goes unpunished. This measure is long overdue. H.R. 2436 establishes that if an unborn child is injured or killed during the commission of a Federal crime of violence, then the assailant could be charged with a second offense on behalf of the second victim, the unborn child. Twenty-four States already have laws that explicitly recognize unborn children as victims of criminal acts, 11 of these throughout the period of their in utero development. It is high time that we have the same protection provided for unborn children at the Federal level. Now, extremist defenders of the abortion industry will try to make this bill look like it is taking away the right of a woman to abort her child. This is not true. H.R. 2436 does not permit the prosecution of any woman who has consented to have an abortion, nor does it permit the prosecution of the woman for any action in regard to her unborn child. What this bill does, however, is protect unborn children whose mothers are physically assaulted, beaten, maimed, or murdered. What we are saying in this bill is that if someone's wife or sister or daughter or friend loses her unborn baby because the child died in the uterus when the mother was being beaten or killed, the perpetrator of the crime should be held responsible. Our country desperately needs this Federal law. Last month in Little Rock, a woman who was 9 months pregnant was severely beaten by thugs allegedly hired by her boyfriend. Sadly, they accomplished their goal and the baby was killed. Under Federal law, the crime would be against the woman only. There is no accountability for the killing of the child who was 3 days away from being born. Yet another example. Ruth Croston was 5 months pregnant when, on April 21, 1999, she was killed by her husband. She and her unborn daughter died after being shot at least five times. The husband was prosecuted in Federal Court for domestic violence and using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime, but no charges, no charges were brought for the killing of the unborn baby girl, and this brutal act goes unpunished. The absence of Federal protection of these unborn children is nothing short of a tragedy. The list of tragic stories goes on and on and on. This is exactly why we need this bill to be passed in the House today and signed into law by the President. H.R. 2436 enables the Federal Government to recognize that when a pregnant woman is assaulted or killed within its jurisdiction, and her unborn child is harmed or killed as a result of the crime, there are two victims, the woman and the child.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, stop the raid. Stop the raid on Social Security. That is our simple message, and that is what Republicans are now fighting with Democrats over as we finalize our work on the national budget. Since 1967, Democrats have been using the Social Security Trust Fund as a slush fund, but now Republicans want to put an end to this bizarre practice. Many seniors I talk to in my congressional district tell me that the Federal Government has been doing this for all these years, and it is wrong. Why has it been done? It has been done simply because liberal Democratic politicians in Washington were able to get away with it. For 40 years, Democrats controlled this body, and they never put one thin dime of the Social Security Trust Fund aside. Republicans now, with a slim majority, have been able to convince the President of the United States of the virtue and the goodness of the Social Security lockbox provisions which will put an end to this raid on the Social Security Trust Fund. Let us stop the raid. Let us pass our Republican budget.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues for yielding and for indulging. Mr. Chairman, I rise to announce to my colleagues that at present, in the basement of the Rayburn Building, we have 45 young children from all over the country who are the victims of terrible tragedies in their homes who have been burned. These youngsters were brought here by the International Association of Firefighters. It is part of a week-long camp to help them get reoriented into their lives. I would ask Members, if they have some time, to stop by B369 in the Rayburn Building to say hello to these children and to see the tragic consequences of what fire does to young people, but also to see the spirit of these young people as they press forward, working with the IAFF to rebuild their lives.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if Republicans want to provide tax relief to American families, the liberals are outraged. What about the national debt, they shout? But when it comes to more Washington spending, suddenly, the liberals are silent. Not a word is spoken by the liberals about the debt when more spending and bigger government is being debated. Suddenly, it is as if the national debt never existed. This feigned concern about fiscal discipline and the national debt by the same people who have spent the past 40 years expanding government and accumulating that debt is obviously insincere. Tax relief never, but more government spending, sure. That is the pattern and we see it day in and day out. The less revenue the Government takes in, the less social engineering, the less redistribution of wealth and the fewer new Government programs the left can oversee. That is why they hate tax relief so much.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report on S. 1059, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. I am pleased that the bill restores readiness and quality of life for our men and women in uniform. In particular, I am pleased that the bill continues to reverse the Clinton-Gore Administration's neglect of our military. The current administration like none other has eroded morale, training, readiness, equipment, and quality of life. This bill reverses many of these trends and I commend the conferees for their actions to fulfill these commitments to our troops and military retirees. This bill continues to add to the procurement budget to ensure that our troops are the best equipped. We add $2.7 billion above the Clinton-Gore Administration's request for weapons' procurement, which will build on the $15 billion in procurements additions we have made over the past four years. I am also pleased that the bill increases military pay by 4.8 percent, .4 percent more than requested by the administration. The move to restore retirement benefits to encourage good men and women to make a career out of the military is something I have been very supportive of and am pleased that this matter is addressed in the bill. While I am very pleased and supportive of these and many other provisions in the bill and will vote for the bill because of these provisions, I am very concerned that the conferees chose to drop an amendment that was adopted by the House on a 303-115 vote. This amendment would have increased the capacity of our national launch ranges by about 20 to 30 percent. In other words, by choosing to spend only $7.3 million in additional money at our national launch ranges we could have prevented about nine satellite launches a year from leaving U.S. soil and instead going to China or Russia for launch. I cannot understand why the conferees, and most notably the Armed Services Committee staff, chose to reject this modest proposal, a proposal that was supported by the Air Force, by NASA, and by a large majority of the space industry and its various associations. It was short-sighted of the committee and I am committed to having Congress revisit this issue until our launch infrastructure resources are properly attended to. China and Russia have clearly demonstrated that they cannot be trusted with advanced technology. Just yesterday, this very House voted for a bill taking very strong action against Russia for transferring dangerous missile and weapons technology to Iran. The decision by the conferees to reject the House bill's provision that would have kept launches of U.S. built satellites on U.S. soil runs counter to the passage of the Iran Nonproliferation Act (H.R. 1883). Furthermore, the Chinese government has proven to be no more responsible in handling advanced technology. It was the launch agreements that the Clinton Administration signed with the Chinese that lead to the Cox-Dicks Select Committee on China. It was this very decision to allow increased export of U.S. built satellites on Chinese vehicles that led to the transfer of advanced missile technology transfer to the communist military government in China. All my amendment says is let us maximize the use of our own launch facilities first. This is the best way to curb the transfer of advanced missile technology.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak out in support for all of those people who are now working to prepare for the probable arrival of Hurricane Floyd. Hurricane Floyd is a Class Four, possibly Class Five, hurricane right now, which represents an extremely powerful and strong storm. The last hurricane that was a Class Four to hit the United States was Hurricane Andrew. I had the opportunity to go down into the devastated area after Hurricane Andrew came through south Florida as part of a program involving the Florida Medical Society. I went into the area to work in a clinic, and I was able to see firsthand the devastation wrought by this powerful storm, and it is for that reason that my heart, my concerns, my prayers go out to all those people who are being now asked to respond to this devastating storm, and in particular those people who are being asked to evacuate. Emergency management personnel are now calling for the evacuation of many of the barrier island communities such as the community of Indialantic in my congressional district. Additionally, the storm is projected to go up the coast and come very close to Kennedy Space Center, and I had the opportunity to visit Kennedy Space Center today and review there with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and the Senate Director, Roy Bridges, the preparations that are underway. At Kennedy Space Center right now is about $8 billion worth of space station hardware that is being prepared for launch on the space shuttle. Obviously, all the space shuttles are there as well. And the crews are doing a great job in getting ready, and boarding up the buildings and preparing the equipment for the arrival of this storm, and I would be very happy to yield to my colleague from Orlando, Florida (Mr. McCollum).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I, too, would ask that all Members keep the communities not only in coastal Florida, but as well Georgia and South Carolina in the path of this devastating storm in their thoughts and prayers. We have great emergency management personnel that are preparing the communities and getting ready for the arrival of Hurricane Floyd; and we certainly do hope that the winds carry it out to sea further up north into the cooler waters of the Atlantic where it could be downgraded into a tropical storm and then ultimately perhaps just become a rain storm.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I simply rise at this point to speak directly to the issue of what we are doing in this veterans budget under the leadership of the subcommittee chairman. We are increasing veterans health care spending by $1.7 billion. That represents an increase of almost 10 percent. One of the concerns that I actually have with this very generous increase is I do not know if the VA will be able to spend all this money efficiently. I would not be surprised if they have some of the money left over. That is a huge increase for the agency to absorb. By giving them these additional funds, there will not be any hospitals closed. If anything, what will happen is the badly underserved areas like the district that I represent, the whole State of Florida, and what the gentleman from California is saying is that, no, a 20-percent increase is necessary and anything short of a 20- percent increase is underfunding. Frankly, I believe that position is ridiculous and the chairman of the subcommittee has clearly spelled out that the veterans organizations are behind this. I think this is a very clear statement that the Republican Party, the Republicans in Congress, support our veterans and we are giving a very, very generous increase in this budget to veterans affairs. And to hold out a pie-in-the-sky number of, no, $3 billion and anything short of that is underfunding I believe is ludicrous.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, the Washington Post editorial page has editorialized yet again against the Republican tax cut proposals. Hardly a week goes by without the Washington Post and other liberal publications warning against the idea of letting Americans keep more of their hard-earned money. To me that is a pretty good indication that it is exactly what we need to do. Of course, the same crowd that called Ronald Reagan's tax cuts dangerous, foolish, and irresponsible are now singing the same tune today. They are the same people who just 2 years ago said that it was impossible to cut taxes and balance the budget at the same time. And, of course, they are the same crowd that could not praise President Clinton enough for raising taxes by a record amount. See, Madam Speaker, some people really do not believe that people can spend their own money better than Washington can, and they really hate the idea that people should be able to keep more of the fruits of their hard-earned labor and reap the benefits of saving and sacrificing and realizing their dreams, and of course they are against tax cuts.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage the subcommittee chairman, my good friend from New York (Mr. Walsh), in a colloquy regarding the NASA provisions in the bill before us. I acknowledge and respect the fact that my friend from New York was given a very difficult budget allocation. Being fiscally responsible, by definition, is not an easy proposition. Millions of Americans know that they do that every year with their family budget. Nonetheless, as we attempt to prioritize each title and agency within each bill, we need to take a step back and look at what we have wrought. I remain very concerned about the adverse impact this bill would have on NASA and its ability to lead the world in space exploration and technology development. The Human Space Fleet account is funded at $92 million below last year's level. Mission Support is at $241,800,000 below last year's level. And the Science, Aeronautics and Technology account is $678,200,000 below last year's level. These are far-reaching reductions that would have significant impact on the NASA team and the science it does for a long time to come. I am sure the chairman would conclude, as do I, that NASA's work should be a priority with this Nation because of the huge benefit and payoff we as Americans receive from such an investment. At the core of that investment is man's interaction with space, our need for revelation and new discovery. Human involvement in space is a mere 40 years old, not even a generation. We cannot extinguish this noble quest in a manner that might be questioned by others after us. While the usual debate over NASA funding includes much technical and scientific discussion, I must stress that NASA has a value that goes beyond the temporal. NASA has a unique ability to inspire our children. Every time I talk with a teacher about space, they always stress to me how much of a motivator space exploration is to their children. I think this is an outstanding tribute of what a value science is to our Nation. Would the chairman of the subcommittee agree with me that NASA has been and will continue to be a significant national priority and that NASA will continue to be a priority with him and with this Congress, and would he also agree that minimizing NASA's budget reductions as much as possible during conference will be a priority with him? I would urge and ask the subcommittee chairman to do all that he can between now and conference to address this budget shortfall.