Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I appreciate the gentleman's commitment and I look forward to working with him on this matter of critical importance to our Nation and my constituency at Kennedy Space Center.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment primarily for the source of the gentleman's offset. I understand the passions that some people may feel on the issue of public housing, though I would just assert at this time in the debate that the reasons for poverty extend far beyond a lack of sufficient funding from the Federal Government. The offset that this gentleman used is coming out of the space station program, which I am very familiar with. All the space station elements are being checked out at Kennedy Space Center. Most of them have been built. The foreign elements are arriving. They are ready to go up on the shuttle. And the budget for the space station is extremely tight. There is not elasticity that we can just come in and make this kind of cut and they will continue to march on. What will happen, if this goes through, is we will slow down the progress on this thing and we will end up adding to more cost overruns for the space station. Let me just finally add that this bill already has almost a billion dollar cut in NASA, and about $250 million of it comes out of mission support. What is mission support? Well, it funds the salaries of all the people that are working to support programs like this, space station. So we have very, very serious problems with the bill as it is in the NASA account, and to come along at this point and take another offset out of space station I have to very, very strongly oppose. I think the gentleman from New York has done a very generous job in trying to do his best with HUD, and he should be commended for that, not criticized for that. If anything, he should be criticized for underfunding NASA and not for underfunding HUD.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I just want to make two brief points. The gentleman from South Carolina who spoke in support of this amendment mentioned the $100 billion price tag on the Space Station. I just want to again reiterate for my colleagues a point I have made previously in this debate, and that is that that $100 billion includes the construction cost of the Space Station, all of the shuttle mission costs, and all of the research that is going on there. The gentleman's earlier assertion is akin, I would say, to someone who was going to purchase a house for $75,000 to say that they were actually spending around $300,000 because that is what it would cost for the cable bills and the electric bills and for the purchaser's food and clothing over the next 30 years. The actual construction cost on the Space Station is about $24 billion. I agree that is a lot of money, but it is money that has already been spent. We are ready to roll. And for the sake of abbreviating the debate here, we have had this debate for many, many years, I will conclude and again encourage all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Roemer-Sanford amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would shift $445 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development Capital Fund Account to NASA which is funded at a woefully inadequate level in this bill. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would simply result in bringing the budget for HUD's Capital Fund Account to a level equal to the budget request submitted by the Clinton administration over the past 2 years. While the funding level of HUD's Capital Fund in the bill before us is equal to the administration's request, it is important to note that last year's Congress provided $445 million more than the request of the administration for this account. My amendment shifts this $445 million to partially restore NASA's budget. Specifically, my amendment would shift $92 million to human space flight to fully restore this account in the fiscal 1999 level. My amendment would also fully restore NASA's Mission Support Account to last year's level by increasing the amount in the bill for this account by $241 million. Finally, my amendment would add $112 million to the Science, Aeronautics, and Technology Account and partially restore this to last year's level. Mr. Chairman, I am committed to fully restoring NASA's budget; and I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman of the subcommittee in restoring NASA's funding. Now, I understand the concern of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), the chairman of the subcommittee, about my amendment; and, for that reason, I understand his point of order and I will withdraw my amendment. But I am looking forward to engaging the gentleman from New York in a colloquy later and working with him in the process of restoring the NASA fund. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for his comments and his support for this pilot program. I have received very positive feedback from veterans, my constituents who have been served under this program, and I look forward to the continued delivery of services in this way, and I thank the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, I believe there are some powerful arguments on both sides of this issue. I recognize that the subcommittee chairman has a significant challenge. I rise in support of the amendment. This is a tough decision, I will agree to that. EPA does a lot of important work. But I remember reading a quote from John Kennedy once where he said one of the things that amazed him about the Presidency was that the decisions that percolated up to his level were all the tough decisions. This is a tough decision. But I think the gentleman's offsets are reasonable. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and speak in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. It is a tradition here in the House of Representatives to take up the Roemer amendment every year in the VA, HUD bill. I began debating the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) and his supporters, his dwindling number of supporters for his amendment, back in 1995 when I first got elected, both in the full Committee on Science, in the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, on the floor of the House. I commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his persistence in clinging to the idea that America should not be creating a permanent human presence in space and taking the next step that we should be taking in the process of human exploration of the universe. But, clearly, the will of the House has been consistently in opposition to this. Indeed, in many ways, I am very pleased he is offering the amendment again, because each year we get more and more votes against the amendment. There is a reason for that, Mr. Chairman. The reason is, number one, NASA is one agency that has been doing more with less. It is one of the few agencies in the entire Federal Government that has actually been responding to the demands of the Congress, and that is to reform and become more efficient. There is probably no better program than the Space Station program. Many people like to point out the so-called cost overruns in the Space Station program. The vast majority of those cost overruns are being generated by some of the problems that the gentleman alluded to, the problems with the Russians. But here are some things we need to consider about the Space Station. Number one, most of it has been paid for already in terms of construction. We are now at a point where we are ready to launch most of the elements. We are waiting for a Russian element; and when that element is on orbit, we will be in the process of constructing it, and then permanently putting a crew up there. I think one of the most important aspects of this is that it has excited school children all over the country. When I talk to teachers anywhere I go, they all say the same thing to me, that the thing that they find motivates their kids more than anything else to study math and science, which is so critical to the future of our Nation, is when they use examples from space. Let me talk about one other issue. We all know the incredible scientific breakthroughs that accrue to the entire human race from our human space exploration program. Everybody is familiar with some products like velcro, for example, something we see everywhere, a spin- off from NASA. Before I came to the U.S. Congress, I worked as a medical doctor. I am a physician. I can tell my colleagues that I used to see the impact of NASA in prolonging lives, in improving lives, the new prosthetic devices using materials that are direct spin-offs of our space program, in imaging technologies, in MRI and CAT scanning, in materials that are used for pacemakers and cardiac catheterization. Indeed, there are entire books published by NASA called spin-offs that are just filled with page after page of our investment in science and technology through our NASA investment. So here we are today. We have got Space Station elements stacked up and ready to go at Kennedy Space Center. We have got the Japanese ready to deliver their element. The Europeans are ready to deliver their section. The Canadians have already delivered theirs. This is the greatest scientific and engineering undertaking in human history. Much of it has already been expended. I say to my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and let us proceed with the program, and let us make sure that we have a future. This country was founded by pioneers. The pioneering spirit dwells in the hearts of all Americans. The place where that pioneering spirit is fulfilled is within NASA and the work that the men and women of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are doing on a daily basis. So I encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Roemer- Sanford amendment and continue our effort to explore the universe.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill providing tax relief for working Americans. For years, I, as a private citizen, saw the politicians in Washington not only spending all of the money that comes in, in terms of the Federal withholding, but as well spending the Social Security surplus, and additionally then spending even more than that. And as we all know, we ran huge deficits. All the years that I was working in my medical practice in Florida, I kept seeing the reports coming back from Washington, $100 billion, $200 billion, $300 billion of red ink. Now, I have been in this Congress for 5 years, and I have been very proud to be part of turning things around. We have been able to successfully stop the business of spending more money than what comes in every year and have been able to produce balanced books for the first time in 25 years. And then we were finally able this year to do something that I have been asking for and fighting for since the day I arrived, which is to set the Social Security funds aside and to not spend those monies as has been done year after year. Unfortunately, our Social Security lockbox is still being played with by the minority in the other body, but, hopefully, we will ultimately get that enacted into law. And, yes, we are beginning the process today of taking some of the money and saying, no, we do not want to keep it in this city but we want to return it back to working Americans. Because, after all, it is their money. And what are some of the things we have in this bill? Well, tuition tax credits, so that it will be easier for parents to send their kids to college. We have adoption tax credits for special needs kids. In my State in Florida and every State of this country, there are kids with special needs sitting in the social systems waiting to be adopted. We also have a provision in this bill that would make it possible for people to deduct the cost of having their elderly parents living in the home rather than sending them into nursing homes. And, yes, we have capital gains relief. I happen to believe that is the best thing to help perpetuate this robust economy and creating new jobs. Because when we cut capital gains, it is the best thing to cause people to invest money in the economy. And, yes, we have a reduction or an elimination of the death tax or the inheritance tax. In my district, it is causing the break-up of family farms, of orange groves, of cattle ranches. These things are being sold off for development or being sold off for agribusiness. And by doing this, we can allow it to stay in the family. This is a good tax bill, and everybody should be supporting it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, we are all familiar with the purported purpose of the Legal Services Corporation, which is to help the needy when they have problems with an eviction or some other legal action and they do not have the financial resources to turn to an attorney and get the legal assistance that they need. Indeed, that is a purpose for the Legal Services Corporation that I believe I support and the vast majority of the Members of this House would support. Certainly the people who will rise in opposition to this amendment would agree to that, that if that were the purpose, the sole purpose of the Legal Services Corporation, then there would be unanimous support for the Legal Services Corporation, and there would be no call for reducing their funding. But the fact of the matter is that the Legal Services Corporation has engaged in a lot of other legal activity other than what they purport to do. Indeed, I believe they file legal briefs challenging our welfare reform legislation that this body passed and the President ultimately signed, which I believe most Americans today would now say has been a fabulous success. I could go on and on and list all of the various left-wing causes that the Legal Services Corporation has decided to sign up to over the years. Now, I have had their members come into my office and say we are getting away from that, we are going to just strictly apply ourselves to the bread and butter issues of helping those poor people with the legal representation that they needed. Frankly, I had seen a trend in that direction in my State. But now we have reported to us by their own IG and the GAO that they have been falsifying their records of caseloads for the last I do not know how many years, and that they are not actually representing the number of people that they are supposed to be representing. Indeed, we have been informed that they are actually doing about half the amount of work that they have been claiming to the Congress that they have been doing. I have been here for 5 years now, and this to me has been one of the most outrageous misrepresentations of any agency in the 5 years that I have been here. I must say it is probably one of the worst in this century. I applaud my colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations. They did the appropriate thing. The data comes in and says, no, the Legal Services Corporation is doing half the amount of work that it is supposed to be doing. Therefore, we will cut their appropriation in half. We will fund them at the level that they are actually doing. Therefore, I strongly encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. Support the committee mark in this area. It is the right thing to do, and it is the right thing to do for all of the working people in this country who get up every morning and work very, very hard and typically do not have enough money at the end of the week to pay all of the bills that they need to pay. We are entrusted with the sacred responsibility to be able to take the hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayers and spend it appropriately; and to give an agency that has been falsifying their records an amount of money consistent with their falsified volume to me is absolutely unconscionable. I urge my colleagues in the strongest way to vote against this amendment and support the original committee mark in this area.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor to comment on the remarks of my colleague from the other side of the aisle, who criticized Members for support of H. Con. Res. 107. This resolution rejected the conclusions of a recent article published by the American Psychological Association that suggests sexual relationships between adults and children might be positive for children. We passed that resolution 355-0 with 13 Members voting present. My colleague stated, ``I wonder how many of us read the study before we were willing to vote to say that the methodology was flawed. I wonder how many of us were technically competent to make that decision.'' I am a medical doctor and I read the meta-analysis in question. This study is based on bad data, as well as, outdated and irrelevant information. The authors cast aside studies by highly respected child- abuse researchers and instead relied heavily on non-published, non-peer reviewed studies. Sixty percent of the article relies on one study conducted in 1950 which did not even focus on physical sexual abuse. Two of the authors have advanced pro-pedophilia arguments in other forums. One author published an article titled, ``Male Intergenerational Intimacy'' which questioned the taboo against man-boy love. Another article by the author was published in Paidika--The Journal of Pedophilia which advocates the legalization of sex with ``willing'' children. There is nothing untrue or unsubstantiated about these facts. Yes, the APA does a lot of good work with regard to child abuse. To their credit, the APA now recognizes the problem with publishing this article and they are making changes in the peer review process to ensure that future articles consider the social policy implications of articles on controversial topics. It is an interesting argument that my colleague makes about Members not having the technical expertise to vote on the legislative proposal. Using this reasoning, each Member of Congress would have to recuse themselves for 95 percent of all votes because they deal with matters outside their expertise. That is a ludicrous argument and I would suggest to my colleague that a Member does not need to be trained as a psychologist to understand that pedophilia is wrong. Pedophiles know that if society cannot demonstrate harm to victims of childhood sexual abuse they will be well on their way to ``normalizing'' pedophilia. Hear what one pedophile wrote about the APA study. ``For several years now studies have been slowly chipping away at the harm myth. But this study is a major hammer-blow. It represents what is really known about sex with boys, and the conclusion couldn't be clearer: When a boy and a man consent to make love with one another, the experience is positive, or at the very least, neutral. There is, simply, no harm. . . . The genie is absolutely out of the bottle now and nothing in the world will be able to stuff it back in.'' Frankly, I am surprised that anyone would defend this study. My colleague even quoted scripture and implied that those who condemned the article on pedophilia were guilty of lying. I think it is appropriate to remember what the Bible said about people who harm children. ``And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.'' I applaud my colleagues who reached across party lines to protect children from those who would exploit them by normalizing pedophilia.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan recently testified in a way that my colleagues will never ever hear quoted by the other side. In fact, none of the mainstream newspapers appear to see fit to publish this portion of his remarks, save, of course, for the Wall Street Journal editorial page. Chairman Greenspan said that he would delay tax cutting unless, and here is the key part, ``unless, as I've indicated many times, it appears that the surplus is going to become a lightning rod for major increases in outlays. That's the worst of all possible worlds, from a fiscal policy point of view, and that, under all conditions, should be avoided.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, Chairman Greenspan is saying get the money out of Washington before the liberals spend it. Give it back to the people. He goes on from there to say, ``moving on the tax front makes a good deal of sense to me.'' Those are the actual words of Chairman Greenspan, not the spin of the White House or the distortions of those on the other side who are forgetting to include the critical portion of the Federal Reserve Chairman's remarks.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tiahrt amendment to the D.C. appropriations bill. This amendment will prohibit Federal and District funds from being spent on any program to distribute hypodermic needles for the purpose of illegal drug injection. When we had this debate several years ago, I did take the time to read the bulk of the studies on this issue. The studies in my opinion in no way make it clear that these programs work. There are studies that show that these programs are actually bad. Each side can pull out the respective studies and quote from their studies to make these kinds of assertions. The District of Columbia is not some hamlet in Maryland that we are talking about. We are talking about the capital of the United States of America. I consider this town to be as much the possession of every person in the United States as it is the people who live here year round, and I believe it is very, very appropriate for us to set some standards. This is a good amendment. The needle exchange programs, I believe, encourage the use and they send a very, very bad signal to our youth. There are studies that show obviously it plays a role in the passage of infectious diseases. I strongly encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in support of the Tiahrt amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the Smith amendment, and I ask my colleagues to vote for it and vote in opposition to the Greenwood amendment. This is much clearer this year, and it is pretty straightforward. If my colleagues think taxpayer dollars should go to fund organizations that are going to try to overturn pro-life laws in foreign countries, then they do not want to vote for the Smith amendment. If my colleagues think that it is an inappropriate use of the taxpayer dollars of working Americans, vote for the Smith amendment; vote against the Greenwood amendment. It is not confusing this year. It is very straightforward.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Republican tax package. For all too many years, hard-working Americans have seen more and more of their money going to Washington, D.C., going to wasteful spending, going to programs that take the tax dollars that those hard-working Americans worked very hard to obtain, and squandering them on programs that do not achieve their directed purpose, but in many ways, make matters worse. Now, we all support making sure that priority programs that help the poor, help the needy, help our senior citizens get the funding that they need. That is why this tax cut package protects all of the money in Social Security, sets aside the Social Security surplus for the first time. After more than 30 years of liberal Democrats spending the Social Security Trust Fund dollars, we, the Republicans, are setting that money aside. Then, in the end, we still have some money that we can return back to hard-working families in America. Mr. Speaker, it is the right thing to do. If we leave the money in this town, it will get spent. We have to get the money out of this town in order to get it back in people's pockets.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, if love and communication are the seeds of a good marriage, then open discussions are a good thing. It is this same principle that highlights the importance of the Regulatory Right-To- Know Act and why it must be approved. The more we know about the burdens of Federal regulations imposed on American families, the better our decisions will be. This bill gives policymakers, lawmakers, regulators, and the public a valuable tool for evaluating the benefits and burdens that new regulations impose. Either way, it provides an honest and open accounting of our votes. This effort is bipartisan, and it is built on the principles of openness and accountability. The public has the right to know its government has considered every factor when it imposes new regulations on Americans. To do anything less would be irresponsible. I urge all my colleagues to support the Regulatory Right-To-Know Act.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise acknowledging the difficult task the chairman of the full committee and subcommittee have, as well as our ranking members, but I must rise in support of continued funding for procurement of the F-22. Basic knowledge of warfare states that one must have undisputed air superiority before introduction of ground troops. Achieving air superiority is the first order of business for any joint force commander. Opponents of the F-22 say that the current stable of fighter aircraft will be able to handle any foreign opponent aircraft. This argument does not address the growing sophistication of the surface-to- air-missiles that are currently available on the market today and their cheap availability. The F-22 will stand a much better chance against such threats than the F-15 in the future. I support continued funding of the F-22 and the full procurement. The Secretary of Defense has come out in support of this position and the Air Force has made it their number one modernization priority.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, all the liberals who now claim to be so concerned that the budget surplus not go back to the taxpayers and instead go towards debt reduction, a national debt many of them helped create, do have an option. They are perfectly free to take the money that they get back in tax relief in the years ahead and return it back to Washington. Yes, send it to Washington and trust the politicians to use it for debt reduction. Yes, I am sure that is exactly what they will do, all those liberals who say that they are upset that people could get back a little bit of what they have earned, a little bit of what belongs to them. Why is it that all those middle-class families whom the Democrats call rich will feel quite qualified to spend it right, as the President so famously said? The choice is send the budget surplus to Washington or give it back to the people who labored long and hard to earn it in the first place. That is our choice. Washington versus the people. It is no surprise which side the majority of Democrats are on.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, 30 years ago today history was made. For the first time homo sapiens took their first steps on a new world. Thirty years ago today, American know-how and technological might was demonstrated in a way that benefited every human on this planet. Thirty years ago we aimed higher than ever and accomplished that goal. The names Michael Collins, Buzz Aldrin, and Neal Armstrong will forever be etched in the edifice of human history, next to the names of Columbus and Lindbergh. We all know the phrases, ``The Eagle has landed,'' and ``That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.'' Most of us can remember where we were at the time when the Eagle did make that landing. The magic of television helped us all feel like we were part of what was going on on the Moon. I remember well where I was. I sat in my living room with my mother and father and my three sisters, each of us glued to the television set in disbelief that we had actually lived to see people, humans, setting foot on another planet. Our efforts into space have an uncanny ability to unite all people and excite the imagination like nothing else. One of the privileges that I have had in serving in this position is the opportunity to travel and meet many teachers, and they all tell me, the thing that they find that most excites their young students to study math and science is our space program, particularly our manned spaceflight program. As we all know, today in America the majority of the new high-paying jobs are being created in high technology industries like the computing industry, and those jobs are dependent on America producing young people ready to go into the workplace with skills in math and science. Indeed, the computing industry is so big that it is generating jobs for artists, for marketers, and for other people who do not traditionally study in the sciences. Many of these jobs are dependent on motivating our kids. There is nothing that motivates our kids more than our space program. Today I am proud to say that the shuttle Columbia is now preparing to leave the Earth later this week on a mission to deploy a new space- based telescope, a telescope that will aid in our understanding of our place in the universe. Madam Speaker, we should be proud of our space program, and on this day, the 30th anniversary of the first manned lunar mission, we should continue and remember to support our space program to the fullest extent possible.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the other side. It is a simple question, and I guess that I will not get an answer, it is so simple. My question is this: Why is a tax cut a threat to our balanced budget but additional spending is not? Whenever the Democrats propose new spending programs, which is just about every day Congress is in session, not a word is spoken about what that will do to the deficit. No mention is made of fiscal discipline or of tough choices that have to be made to get our fiscal house in order. But as soon as tax cuts are offered by the tax cutting party, that is the Republican Party, of course the other side immediately pulls out their half-serious arguments about blowing a hole in the deficit and about how Democrats have been the party of fiscal discipline all these years. In a word, it is nonsense. Spending good; tax cuts bad. That is their world view, and their rhetoric reflects it. So, again, I ask the question: Why are tax cuts a so-called threat to our balanced budget, but new spending is not?