Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I have just handed to the gentleman's staff exact copies from the web site of this agency that without a doubt proves they are doing that. So based on the gentleman's statement, I would expect his support for this amendment because we took it off their web site today.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have to really hand it to the Democrats. They already have their line memorized and ready to repeat over and over again. Republicans propose tax relief that largely excludes upper income people from benefiting; again, tax relief for everyone except the rich. And what are the Democrats saying about it already? Yes, ``Tax cuts for the wealthy.'' Any tax relief, tax relief at all, is immediately labeled by the other side as tax cuts for the wealthy. It is an insult to the millions of middle class taxpayers who would benefit from tax relief to be demonized by liberals who oppose tax relief everywhere and anywhere. Of course, it is an insult to those who are carrying most of the load, the people who are paying the most in taxes. In America, the issue is not whether upper income people need a tax cut. Of course they do not. But in America, it is an issue of freedom. It is their money. It does not belong to the government, and it does not belong to liberal politicians in Washington who want to spend it on more wasteful government programs.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Chairman, we have heard that we should should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. We have some people, I believe, who would like to make the perfect the enemy of the very, very, very good. We are about to set history here. This body has attempted to pass and enact into law reform of our financial services industry for I understand a decade and a half, and we have a product that the vast majority of stakeholders agree on. The medical privacy provisions happen to be something that I am very interested in as a physician, and I believe the language in this bill is pretty good. Can it be made better? Yes. As a matter of fact, we put provisions in the language that say if the administration passes regulations that are stronger, these provisions expire. We have language in there that says if this body enacts legislation signed by the President that is stronger, these provisions expire. So to oppose this bill now, at this point, when we have an extremely good product here, a very, very good product on this to me is a tremendous disservice. I believe that all of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle should support this, because this is extremely good for America.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to my Democratic colleagues who are demonizing yet another entire industry; this time the pharmaceutical industry, the companies who produce life- saving drugs and truly miraculous drugs which allow us to live longer and healthier lives. Sometimes one just has to wonder if liberals have worked a single day in the real world, the world of commerce, the world where jobs are created and results are the only thing that count. For many drug companies, we can break down how much money goes into the manufacture of a pill: 2 percent for ingredients; 5 percent for labor; 3 percent for distribution; 5 percent for profits and the remaining 85 percent research, development, taxes, regulation and litigation. Price controls have been tried many times. They never work, never work. Every time they are tried, they are a miserable failure. They lead to shortages, inferior products, black market and goods which never make it to the market. I despair at the thought that this lesson has never been learned. Let us not try price controls.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a practicing physician for many years, I have always been aware of the fact that if a minor child came to see me in the emergency room with an illness or a injury, I could not treat that child without the consent of a parent, I could not give pain relieving medications, I could not stitch a laceration. Indeed, I could be prosecuted for assault by treating a child without the consent of a parent. But, amazingly, in many States those same minor children, a minor female who cannot get basic medical care without their parents' consent, can have an invasive surgical procedure legally, an abortion, a surgical procedure with the attendant risks of hemorrhage, infection, sterility and, yes, even death can legally be obtained in some States. What is even more disturbing is that in the majority of cases these minor children have been impregnated by men over the age of 18, a crime called statutory rape in most States. Now many States have correctly addressed this problem by passing legislation requiring the consent of a parent, and those laws have been upheld in the courts, but, unfortunately, many States have not passed these types of legislation, and what has developed is the unconscionable situation where minor females are being carried across State lines without the knowledge or consent of their parents for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. This bill correctly addresses this problem by making it illegal to circumvent State laws by carrying a minor child across State lines, and I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation and vote for its passage.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the Members of Congress the increasing tension in the Kashmir region, between India and Pakistan. Several weeks ago several hundred armed Afghani and Mujahideen infiltrators, backed by Pakistan, crossed the line-of-control (LOC) into the Kargila and Drass regions of Kashmir, India. Mr. Speaker, this invasion runs counter to the Lahore Declaration, which is aimed at developing peaceful relations and cooperation between India and Pakistan. The agreement, signed last February, reiterates the commitment of both India and Pakistan to solve their differences and oppose terrorism in the region. It is particularly disturbing to me that the government of Pakistan appears to have provided the armed infiltrators into Kashmir with support, both military and financial. This is deeply troubling in view of efforts to secure peace in the region. This aggression against India should be undone so that stability can be restored. The infiltrators should immediately withdraw and Pakistan should respect the LoC and reaffirm and adhere to the commitments made in the Lahore Declaration. I encourage both countries to pursue a diplomatic solution and refrain from action which might escalate the fighting even more. I call on the Administration and my colleagues in Congress to fully support an immediate withdrawal from India. India and Pakistan should be taking positive steps toward resolving the crisis in Kashmir, and resume substantive bilateral talks.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this morning we hear the hue and cry of big government liberals everywhere, and what are they languishing over today? Not once, not twice, but three times yesterday the Supreme Court struck down overreaching Federal laws and uplifted the concept of State federalism. This was like a punch in the nose to those who relish more and more federal laws. They are now staggering under the blow. Mr. Speaker, what is their nose bent out of shape about? The Supreme Court shifted power from the Federal Government back to the States. More importantly, it said that the Federal Government has no business in usurping State sovereignty by placing layers and layers of Federal statutes on them. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Supreme Court rightly halted decades of presumption and arrogance by the Federal Government, and they are right moving the powers back to where it belongs, outside the Beltway and back to the people. Three cheers for the checks and balances.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 33, the Flag Desecration Constitutional Amendment. Our nation's flag is a sacred symbol of our country's liberty that so many men and women in uniform have fought and died to defend. As the symbol of that liberty, the flag deserves, better yet, demands our greatest respect. Additionally, the flag of the United States of America is a symbol of the perseverance of American values. It is greatly disturbing that it is sometimes burned or otherwise desecrated as an act of protest. It is disgraceful that some individuals would desecrate the flag that our nation's veterans have fought so valiantly to defend. It is also disheartening that we would even have to debate this issue on the floor of the House of Representatives. Madam Speaker, as we draw near to the new millennium, it is important that we finally enact protections for our flag. I believe that this Congress is committed to doing everything we can to ensure the flag that signifies the very liberties and responsibilities that we hold dear.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in full support of the McIntosh amendment. The value and overwhelming good that will amount from this amendment certainly justifies its approval here now. I have met with teachers in my Congressional district in Florida and have listened carefully to what problems they have in their classrooms. In fact, my mother was a teacher, so I am very aware of how important this amendment is for teachers and other educational professionals. They must be empowered to assume full leadership in the classroom, without the anxiety of facing frivolous lawsuits. The McIntosh amendment protects our teachers from just that: excessive and frivolous lawsuits. There is absolutely no reason why our public school teachers should walk into their classrooms day after day and fear lawsuits, all because they are exercising their right, in fact their duty, to maintain order and discipline in their classrooms. The idea that teachers in my district are even restrained from exercising authority over students, better yet unruly and disruptive students, is an outrage. Our teachers should be empowered to maintain control of the classroom, without fearing the backlash of liability lawsuits. This amendment will help protect the majority of students and it will enhance the learning environment. The McIntosh amendment is carefully crafted to protect our teachers from lawsuits when they are taking steps to maintain order in the classroom. It creates a standard for education professionals by giving them limited immunity from civil liability. Now we are not talking about protecting teachers when they are part of a criminal activity or violations of State or Federal civil rights laws. I am talking about when a teacher is unable to take necessary disciplinary action against an unruly student just because they are nervous or fearful about a potential lawsuit from parents or overzealous attorneys. Mr. Chairman, we need to pass this amendment, and I want to conclude by pointing out that this amendment does not preempt State laws when those State laws provide the teachers with greater liability protections than the language in this amendment. It sets a minimum standard, and I believe this is an appropriate action for us. I encourage its approval.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I am particularly pleased with the feature calling for a uniform system of ratings for video games. While some media companies have taken action to address this problem, such as Disney, which has removed violent video games from their theme parks, there are many companies that, I believe, are going in the opposite direction, such as the manufacturer of the video game Duke Nukem, advertised on the Internet with the teaser quote: Learn what you can do with pipe bombs, unquote. The players of this game not only learn to shoot people, but in particular, they learn to shoot women and doing other things that I cannot even speak of on the floor of the House of Representatives. I do not believe that we can rely on industry to police itself in this arena and that action is necessary, and it is for that reason that I rise in strong support of the amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the McCollum amendment. I think we all agree that there are multiple factors playing a role in youth violence and we are going to be trying to address several of those over the course of this day as we debate this juvenile justice bill. We are all familiar with what some of those issues are. Certainly violence in the media is a factor. We have seen more than 3,000 studies on this issue, the majority of which have concluded there is a relationship. Drugs is a factor and certainly dysfunctional families. Indeed, one of the highest correlates of youth violence in any community is the incidence of fatherlessness in that community. We are going to try to address some of these things. Obviously, the issue of fatherlessness in the community we cannot address, but I do rise in support of this amendment. There are several features of this amendment that I think are good. It gives prosecutors rather than the courts the discretion to charge a juvenile alleged to have committed a felony. It makes fines and supervised release available. It also, very importantly, provides that the records of these juvenile proceedings will become public records and available to the community. This is a very, very important factor. The amendment is a big one. It has a lot of features, but I think we need to take a comprehensive look at the problem that we are trying to address, which is the terrible problem of youth violence, and look at all these different areas. And, yes, there are some weaknesses in our criminal justice system, but the McCollum amendment here is a good amendment that tries to shore up those weaknesses and strengthen the underlying bill, and I encourage my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), for including antitrust protection to the entertainment industry in order for them to establish a set of guidelines to help protect children from harmful behavior. I was working on introducing a bill to provide this type of antitrust protection, and I was extremely pleased to see the chairman include this in his amendment. The National Association of Broadcasters had a code of conduct that they abided by until it was abandoned by the broadcasters in 1983. Since then standards which broadcasters find acceptable have deteriorated. Eighty percent of Americans have expressed concern about the increasingly graphic portrayals of sex, violence, vulgarity and programming that sanctions and glorifies criminal, antisocial and degrading behavior. The Hyde amendment will permit the entertainment industry to work collaboratively to develop a set of voluntary programming guidelines. This system worked well for decades. It was not perfect, but it did put the impetus on Hollywood to refrain from exploiting the American people and producing products that are directed toward the prurient interests of our young people. Hollywood has cast aside responsibility in recent years, and it is time that they respect traditional values. The reestablishment of a code of conduct will enable the American people to know clearly where the entertainment industry falls on this issue.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I understand that the work of this committee is very difficult, that we are operating under very tight budget constraints and priorities have to be set. But it is really the will of the People's House that sets the ultimate priorities. That is the way the Founding Fathers intended it. If you support this amendment, you will not be helping China's missile program. You will be helping immediately to expand our domestic capacity by 20 to 30 percent. You will promote more satellites being launched from U.S. soil. It is a very, very modest amount of money. I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the amendment.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, today Congress takes definitive action on addressing the recommendations in the Cox Report. My amendment addresses the issue that was the catalyst for the establishment of the Select Committee--the transfer of missile technology under the commercial satellite launch agreements. One of the principle reasons American satellites were being launched from communist China is due to the fact that our national launch ranges (the Eastern and Western Range) could not accommodate these launches-- they simply did not have the capacity. This is because our ranges are operating under a tight budget with outdated equipment and they are unable to reduce turnaround time. Turnaround time is the amount of time it takes to reconfigure the range from one launch to the next launch. With the appropriation of $7.3 million for an additional crew at the Eastern and Western range will cut turnaround time in half. This will lead to a 20% to 30% increase in American launch capacity. This will immediately translate into 9 more launches taking place from American soil rather than from countries like China. Providing this funding is the most important thing we can do in the short-term to reduce launches from foreign soil and keep them in the U.S. Adoption of this amendment will have a direct and immediate positive impact. This is probably the best bang we will get for our buck in addressing the issues raised in the Cox Report. This is not the long-term solution. It is a short-term action we can take today that will have a positive impact toward stemming the flow of critical technology to China. Due to the fact that range upgrade money has been raided again and again, our ranges have fallen into disrepair. This has reduced the launch capacity of our ranges, meaning that they cannot accommodate the launch demand. Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) program was to be completed in 2003. Because of excessive diversions of these funds, RSA will not be completed until 2006. The failure to adequately fund our ranges also means we have delayed the efficiencies we had hoped to achieve. This means the savings we had anticipated seeing because of the range upgrades is also delayed. My amendment will help to stem the flow of American technology going overseas by ensuring that our national launch ranges are robust and capable of handling the demand of both government and non-government launches. Unlike many other military installations, Cape Canaveral Air Station (Eastern Range) and Vandenberg Air Force Base (Western Range) provide vital, one-of-a-kind services to the United States. Nowhere else in the entire United States can military, civil, and commercial assets be launched into space. Over the past few years, I have devoted a considerable amount of my time to issues relating to our national ranges. I cannot over-emphasize how important this is for our national security interest. My amendment also directs the Secretary of Defense, through the Defense Science Board of the Department of Defense to conduct a study of our space launch ranges and requirements and report back to the Congress by February 15, 2000. This study is critical as the ranges' unique position requires the Air Force to manage them and make them adaptive along two tracks. The first track has been and will continue to be the development and testing of national security launch systems and assets. There are and will continue to be numerous national security payloads that will be launched from the ranges and it is imperative that we maintain these critical national security assets. The second track--a more recent mission--includes commercial space ventures. As these dual purposes continue to mature, Congress and the Department of Defense must assess how best to operate the ranges. Specifically, we must set forth a plan for managing the ranges in a manner that best accommodates the ranges' critical role in meeting our national security needs while accommodating a growing commercial market. The study requested in my amendment would provide the Congress with additional insight on how to move forward on this matter. I would like to address the various aspects of the ranges that the Science Board is to review under my amendment. First (subsection A), the board is to assess anticipated military, civil, and commercial space launch requirements. This assessment will help us better understand the current and future users of the launch ranges. This study is to estimate the number of military payloads, NASA and other civil payloads as well as the number of commercial launches. This is important as we try to determine how to ensure that the range is more user friendly to all of these customers and to determine how we can best accommodate the growing demand for launch services. Second (subsection B), my amendment directs the board to examine the technical shortcomings at the space launch ranges. This recognizes that fact that the equipment at our ranges is antiquated and has deteriorated. It is simply too old to be operated efficiently and hinders the expansion of range capacity. We must move forward with modernization in a manner that improves the ranges with interests of all parties in mind. Third (subsection C), the study is particularly important as we seek to gain efficiencies. The Joint Base Operations and Support Contract (JBOSC) is generating significant savings for the Air Force and NASA. Also, NASA established a contract with United Space Alliance (USA) to operate the Space Shuttle program. Similar consolidations and new contractual arrangements could help the Air Force operate the ranges more efficiently and increase our domestic launch capacity. The study should examine ways that will help the Air Force reduce its long-term costs and involvement by enhancing the likelihood that some components and operations at the ranges can be commercialized, privatized, or contracted out for better management, efficiency, and range scheduling. Finally (subsection D), the study is to assess the costs associated with being able to meet the domestic launch needs of military, civil, and commercial users at the ranges. This review should include an assessment of the costs that the military might incur if they were to upgrade the systems in order to accommodate the increased launch demands. Also, the assessment may include an assessment of the costs to the private sector and/or state agencies if they were to assume some of the operations as the ranges. The study shall examine the use of and/or procurement of government space launch assets by commercial or state launch entities. Such study should also include an assessment of the likelihood, willingness or ability of industry or a state agency to assume any operation and/or costs associated with them. In conducting this part of the study, the board should receive input from industry and state agencies that might be interested in any such contract. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the Cox Commission report in recommendation No. 24 recommended that it is in the national security interests of the United States that we expand our domestic launch capacity. My amendment addresses this issue. I would like to point out that we have no other proposal being put forward to address that. The Air Force in its IPT report indicated that with $7.3 million--I say million dollars, not billion dollars-- you can increase the domestic launch capacity of the United States by 20 to 30 percent, a remarkable achievement with such a small amount of money. Indeed, the other body has already funded this priority in their appropriation bill. Now, the Air Force in their unfunded priority list listed this as one of their priorities. I believe it was their fourth priority. I believe it is the responsibility of this body to decide what are the priorities. I believe that we need to ask ourselves what are we going to do to address the issue of all of these launches going overseas and going overseas particularly to China. This amendment is very, very simple. It authorizes the $7.3 million. It additionally calls for a study to be conducted by the Secretary of Defense to look at how we are going to offer our launch ranges to these commercial users in the future years. I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment if they want to do something to address this particular recommendation in the Cox Commission report. I think it is also well worth pointing out that many of the other recommendations in the Cox Commission report, which we are ultimately going to try to implement, they are going to cost millions and millions more than this recommendation. Indeed some of them will cost hundreds of millions. Some of them may actually cost billions of dollars. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Chairman. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this amendment. I bring a somewhat unique perspective to this debate in that not only prior to coming to the Congress did I practice medicine, but for many years prior to coming to the Congress I practiced medicine in the military. I was actually in the Army Medical Corps at the time when pro-life President Ronald Reagan passed an order that said we were not going to have abortions in military hospitals anymore. It was very interesting for me at the time, I was a medical resident, to see the reaction to that order. It was sort of a sigh of relief. Everybody that I spoke to, the doctors and nurses, were very pleased that they were going to take that very, very controversial issue and move it out of the military hospitals. Some people have been arguing that this is a constitutional right. There is no constitutional right to have an abortion in a military hospital. Indeed, the reason all of those doctors and nurses, even many of whom considered themselves to be ``pro-choice'', liked getting it out is because they did not like to have anything to do with it. It is one of the most fascinating things to me, when I talk with my medical colleagues, many of whom say, you know, I am pro-choice, but they always follow it with this. They say, I would never perform an abortion, I would never assist in an abortion. The reason why they say that is they know exactly what an abortion is. It is the taking of an innocent human life. It has a beating heart. It has brain waves. Those are the things that I used to use to make a determination as to whether or not somebody was dead. This is a very, very controversial issue. Even if Members do stand on the pro-abortion side of this issue, Members have to acknowledge that it is so incredibly controversial within the population in general that this would be something that we would be well served as a Congress to keep outside of Federal facilities, outside of Federal hospitals. To say that the women will pay for the abortion, we all know that that issue is just part of the story. Having that infrastructure, having those medical professionals there, it represents a certain amount of Federal support. For the millions and millions of pro-life Americans, I think certainly if Members are pro-life, they should vote against this amendment. I think if Members are undecided, they should vote against this amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and as Yogi Berra said, ``It's like deja vu all over again.'' We are having this argument now and it is the same set of arguments as we had last year when the Coburn amendment passed the House, I believe by a margin of 223 to 202. I would encourage all my colleagues to vote in support of the Coburn amendment. I believe very strongly that this is a very reasonable and prudent amendment. As has been very, very clearly stated by the gentleman from Oklahoma, when these pharmaceutical companies, medical schools, individuals put in these applications for new drug approval, they put down what its indication is. And the Coburn language is very specific. We had a ruling from the Chair on this issue last year. If the specific indication is to induce chemical abortion, under the provision of his amendment they will be barred from doing that. Now, I practiced internal medicine for 15 years prior to coming to the House. I still see patients occasionally on weekends. I have had the unfortunate experience of diagnosing people with cancer; indeed, the even more unfortunate experience of seeing many of my patients die. And I would not support any amendment that in any way would interfere with the new development and approval of drugs for the treatment of cancer. And I think it is very disingenuous for anybody to imply that this amendment would have that kind of an implication. This amendment is very, very clear in its language. It is very, very well targeted. I would also like to point out that what we are talking about today is very, very significant. The FDA has been around for years, and it has safeguarded the American people from the introduction of many potentially dangerous drugs. A great example of this is thalidomide, a drug that was introduced in Europe and produced terrible birth defects. But our American Food and Drug Administration never approved that drug and, thus, prevented millions of American babies from being born with such a type of malformation. The Food and Drug Administration has never had a drug application before it where the specific intent of the drug was to lead to the death of an unborn baby. Now, abortion, obviously, is a very controversial issue. Every time these issues come up, the arguments are very, very impassioned. And they should be because it is an issue of life and death. We all know that the baby in the womb has a beating heart. At 40 days it has detectable brain waves. Those are the criteria that I used to use when I practiced medicine to make a determination as to whether or not somebody was dead or alive. So this is a very, very significant issue. And to have the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviewing a drug and approving a drug where its intended purpose is to kill the unborn baby in the womb, I think, is very, very inappropriate. I think it is very, very appropriate for us to speak on this issue. So, therefore, I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Coburn amendment. I just want to touch on one additional issue that has come up in the course of this debate, and that is the reported possible link between abortion and breast cancer. My colleagues, I have reviewed the studies on this issue and the studies are very, very compelling that there really is a link. The statement released by the NCI, I believe, is a very disingenuous statement. It really sincerely ignores the facts on this issue. If my colleagues actually take the time to read the studies, it is very, very bothersome to me that there are a lot of people within the cancer research community that are turning a blind eye to this issue. Now, finally, let me close by saying the President of the United States once said in a speech that he wanted to make abortion safe, legal and rare. There are lots of us who hold that abortion is never safe for the unborn baby in the womb, and I do not think anybody would argue with that. Some people may want to turn a blind eye to the humanity of that child in the womb, but it is never safe for the child in the womb. Might I also say that there has been absolutely no effort on the part of the administration to truly make abortion rare. Indeed, in trying to push through something like this, we are in many ways trying to facilitate abortion, trying to make it easier, make it more common. And I do not think we should be going in that direction. I applaud the gentleman for introducing this amendment, and I encourage everyone to support it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me, and I rise to express my disappointment in this rule. I read, as many Members did, with intense interest the Cox report. In particular I was very interested in the section on the proliferation of missile technology to the Communist Chinese primarily through them launching our satellites from China, and I was very pleased that the Cox report included language that said expansion of U.S. launch capacity is in the national security interests of the United States. Further, it went on to say it is the national security interests of the United States to increase this launch capacity in the summary, and it is in one of the recommendations. But this bill does absolutely nothing to address this issue. Mr. Speaker, I had an amendment that was not made in order that was attempting to address this issue simply by implementing something that the Air Force itself recommended in one of its own studies, and that is to add additional personnel at a launch range that would allow them to increase the capacity at the range, and I was extremely disappointed that this was not made in order, and I am extremely concerned that we, as a Congress, are not doing anything about this problem. We are complaining and getting very concerned about the proliferation of U.S. technology through the Communist Chinese going to all of these rogue nations like Iran and Iraq and North Korea, but here we are. We have a bill before us that attempts to do absolutely nothing to address this very, very critical issue. We have U.S. satellite manufacturers building U.S. satellites and then going to Communist China to launch those satellites, and one of the reasons they do that is they cannot actually get it scheduled at places like Cape Canaveral, and my amendment simply would have called for the expense of a very modest amount of money, $7 million, that would have dramatically increased the capacity at the launch range, and I am extremely disappointed that that amendment was not made in order. Another feature of my amendment, which is something that is another extremely critical issue, is the Air Force has for years been raiding the accounts that are used to modernize the launch range. We still have equipment at these ranges that operate on vacuum tubes, and my amendment simply would say: Stop raiding this account, let us modernize the launch range and make sure it is operating efficiently and at low costs. Mr. Speaker, I am extremely disappointed in this rule. This is truly a national security issue, the proliferation and the transmission of U.S. technology to the Communist Chinese. We are not doing anything about it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 1295, the Social Security and Medicare Safe Deposit Box Act of 1999. We must move this bill forward. For decades politicians in Washington have voted to spend the Social Security surplus on new and larger government programs. When Republicans took control of the Congress in 1994, we promised to put a cap on government spending and to protect Social Security. We were submitted to a relentless attack by those who wanted to expand the size and scope of government. But our efforts have paid off and the American people are better off because we have a real balanced budget for the first time in decades. When we take all of the Social Security Surplus money and set it aside in the lock-box, we still have a few dollars left over. Social Security is much safer today that it was four years ago because we have balanced the budget. Had we not presevered in our efforts to balance the budget no one would be here today talking about a Social Security Trust Fund lock-box. This debate would be impossible. I am pleased that the Republican Budget Resolution that we passed earlier this year committed us to passing a lock-box. We are doing that today with the passage of H.R. 1295. The greatest objections to this bill are coming from those who have voted over the past years to use the Social Security Trust Fund money to pay for larger government. They know that after today it will be more difficult to do so because they can no longer secretly dip their hand into the Trust Fund to pay for their new program. The bill will force fiscal discipline on Washington. In order to create a new federal program, politicians who propose new Washington programs will have to say how they are going to pay for their new program because they can no longer dip into Social Security for the money.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, when I was sworn into office, I took an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Each of us has taken that same oath, and I rise to remind us of our oath of office and reflect on the words of the Constitution. Article IV, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.'' Clearly, the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Congress and only the U.S. Congress the authority to make all rules and regulations over Federal lands. This authority is not given to the President, it is not given to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. No one in the State Department or the Department of the Interior is given this authority. The Constitution does not give this authority to the United Nations, UNESCO or any other body. The authority to establish rules and regulations over Federal lands is reserved to the U.S. Congress and only the U.S. Congress. What does H.R. 883, this bill, require the Government to follow? The U.S. Constitution. The bill requires the specific approval of Congress before any area within the United States is subject to an international land use nomination, classification, or designation. Is this so offensive? H.R. 883 requires the consent of Congress before the Secretary of the Interior may nominate any property in the United States for inclusion in the World Heritage list. I believe this is certainly consistent with Article IV, section 2. H.R. 883 specifically prohibits Federal officials from nominating any land in the United States for designation as a biosphere reserve. Such designations are left to Congress to determine. The bill requires the Congress to reconsider for designation as a biosphere reserve those sites that have already been designated as biosphere reserves by previous administrations. It restores to Congress the authority to choose to redesignate or not redesignate these sites. This is a process that should have been in place all along. H.R. 883 prohibits Federal officials from designating any land in the United States for a special or restricted use under any international agreement unless such designation is specifically approved by law. I call on all of my colleagues to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the constitutional authority of this body. A vote for H.R. 883 is a vote to preserve the authority of this body. A vote against H.R. 883 is a vote that quite frankly, in my opinion, is inconsistent with Article IV, section 2, and the oath that we have taken. ``The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.''