Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I commend him for arranging this special order to talk about some of the issues that our Vice President has promoted and some of his policy positions. Recently I had the opportunity in the Committee on Science, as we were marking up the NASA authorization bill, to offer an amendment cutting the funding to a satellite that had been promoted by the Vice President. The satellite was called Triana. The Vice President originally announced his concept for this on March 13, 1998 in a speech that he gave at MIT. He is quoted as saying, ``It will help us reach new heights of understanding and insight.'' All this satellite really is is a picture of the sunlit side of the earth that would be available on the Internet; interestingly, a service that is already available right now on several Internet sites. Simply what they do now is, they take several weather satellite images and combine them together to produce what Al Gore wants to spend $70 million producing and then maybe another $100 million launching into orbit. Now the Washington Post ran an article about the Vice President's speech where they stated, quote, that Gore almost literally dreamed up the idea in his sleep about a month ago, so that would have been in the middle of February of 1998, waking up at 3 a.m. one night, according to a White House official, and I would like to point out to my colleagues that there were a lot of people waking up at 3 a.m. around that same time in my congressional district, not because they were getting great wonderful ideas for new satellites that they could order NASA to go ahead and produce, but because they had gotten pink slips from NASA because they were supposedly short of money. Indeed, there were actually 600 people laid off because of a supposed $100 million shortfall in the shuttle budget. But then miraculously, after Mr. Gore proposed this idea, NASA, the agency that he to a certain degree has been ceded control over by the President, found tens of millions of dollars has been put towards this project. Now in my opinion not only was this satellite as proposed by Al Gore not necessary, as it is already available on the Internet, and not only was it a waste of taxpayers' money, but as well it is really bad science. As I understand it, there was really no peer review to indicate that this science project was really needed. Indeed the only peer review that actually occurred, according to my understanding of it, was the peer review of how to build the satellite. It is planned to be launched on a shuttle mission. This will take up space on the shuttle, space that could be used to deploy other more important research projects. As I stated, a lot of people were waking up around the same time that Al Gore was waking up worried in my congressional district whether or not they were going to have a job. But I would like to point out to my colleagues that I believe if Al Gore is allowed to fulfill his true environmental vision for America, there are going to be a lot of people waking up in the middle of the night because they do not have a job. We just heard tonight from the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) about his position on the internal combustion engine and his desire to totally eliminate the internal combustion engine. How many hundreds of thousands of jobs currently are involved in producing automobiles, selling automobiles in the United States, and he would like to eliminate the automobile? And I, for one, could tell my colleagues that there are a lot of good purposes that come out of the use of the internal combustion engine. Might I just mention that most ambulances run on the internal combustion engine, most fire trucks run on the internal combustion engine, and yet Mr. Gore would like to eliminate the internal combustion engine and probably put millions of Americans out of work currently in the auto industry, and they, too, will be waking up in the middle of the night, but not with brilliant ideas for new satellites, but instead waking up in the middle of the night because they do not have a job. Might I also point out that Al Gore is the biggest champion of the so-called global warming treaty that would call for the United States to eliminate 25 percent of its industrial production in order to come within these supposed caps on carbon dioxide elimination, something that the Chinese do not have to adhere to, most South American countries, African countries, Asian countries. It is believed by many economists that if we actually implemented this treaty that Al Gore wants us to implement, it could result in the loss of thousands of American jobs. And then I am so pleased that my colleague from Indiana mentioned the section in Al Gore's book on Taxol. I have taken care of cancer patients who have gotten Taxol, and what a great drug that has been, what a great tool it is in the hands of oncologists as they treat patients suffering from cancer, and to cite in his book that maybe we should not be harvesting this drug from these trees because we have to cut down three trees for every person we save, in my opinion it is shameless. When I got elected to the United States Congress and left my medical practice and realized that I would be coming to this town and having to work in a government under the authority of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, I got Earth in the Balance, and I read Earth in the Balance, and let me tell my colleagues it caused me to wake up in the middle of the night knowing that the second in command in this country had such values and opinions where he places the value of a tree over that of a person, and I highly commend my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) for calling this special order. Reading Earth in the Balance to me was a real eye opener. It clearly lays out the reality of Al Gore's true values, and might I point out that he stated those very clearly in his acceptance speech at the Democrat National Convention back in 1992 where he stated that he thought the thing that united all Americans together was the environment. Point of fact: All Americans support a clean environment, as I do, and there is plenty of evidence to indicate that the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are having their desired effect. Water quality standards are improving, air quality standards are improving, and there is not an environmental crisis. We are making good headway in this problem area. If there is an environmental crisis anywhere, it is in these Third World and Communist countries where they do not enforce any kind of environmental standards, it is not here in the United States, and for Al Gore to cite that the environment was the thing that unites all Americans in my opinion is a tremendous insight into what his true values are. Now I am not going to stand here tonight and speculate on what unites all Americans. We can have great debates about that, whether it is freedom that we all cherish, the right to free speech, worship as we wish, the right to start our own business. We could go on and on about what is it that unites us all. We are truly a diverse Nation. But to cite the environment as the thing that unites us all in my opinion is a tremendous insight into the distorted value system that this Vice President has, and I strongly would encourage all my colleagues and all Americans to read Earth in the Balance, particularly those that work in the automotive industry, to get a better understanding of the values of Vice President Al Gore.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding again, and I just want to amplify on what my colleague from Indiana was talking about. If you look at all these new areas where the Federal Government has gotten itself involved in in the latter half of the 20th century or the second half of the 20th century, a lot of what the Federal Government has done has really not had a positive effect, and the best example there is education. The Federal Government in the 1970s, really dating back to the 1960's, began to involve itself in the educational system, and concomitant with that actually educational performance standards in the United States have deteriorated. But the one area where the Federal Government has passed some laws that seem to have had a beneficial effect is in the area of the environment where we have had a good marked improvement in air quality standards and water quality with the implementation of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. What is very important about what my colleague from Indiana just said is we are not done with implementing the features of the Clean Air Act and I believe also features of the Clean Water Act, and there are governors and States and municipalities that are still working to adhere to that standard, and it is believed by many who are truly knowledgeable people in this arena that if we just simply allow them to continue, and my colleague is correct in that they have suspended action for the past 2 years because of this concern of a new standard, if we just leave them go, that water quality standards and air quality standards would continue to improve and actually get better. And I just cite all this to point out that to claim that we have this crisis when actually the air is better and the water is better, I know I did my medical school training at Lake Erie, and Lake Erie was a mess, and now Lake Erie is a clear lake, it is dramatically improved. I grew up on Long Island not far from New York City in the mouth of the Hudson River. The Hudson River was a disaster. It is now much better. There is still more clean up that needs to be done, but we are heading in the right direction. And for the Vice President to claim that literally the world is falling apart, that we have this absolute environmental crisis, I believe is absurd, and it certainly is absurd to entertain a serious discussion of a person with such extreme, extreme values be placed in the position of Commander in Chief of the United States, and I really thank the gentleman for yielding again. He has been very gracious in yielding his time.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this bill. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for crafting a bill that I think all Members should be able to support. In particular, I want to commend them for the funding that they have provided for authorized in this bill for ongoing improvements in the Shuttle and Shuttle upgrades. By enhancing the performance of the Shuttle, we can ultimately in the end have a manned space flight system that will perform more safely and more efficiently, clearly something that is in the interest of the American taxpayers. I am, additionally, pleased for the additional funding for the Space Station program. We now have a large amount of Space Station hardware in the Space Station Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center that is being tested and that is ready for launch. I would like to clarify my position on the issue regarding the satellite Triana and why I chose to introduce the amendment in committee calling for the elimination of this program. I certainly do not enjoy introducing partisanship into a bill that is normally considered to be a nonpartisan issue. But I want Members on both sides of the aisle to know that, in the fall of 1997, it was announced by NASA that they were going to have to lay off 600 people at Kennedy Space Center because of a $100 million funding shortfall. These layoffs did proceed to go ahead in the winter of 1998. And it was approximately around that time I believe that the President had his dream, the vision for Triana, and NASA was very quickly able to fund tens of millions of dollars to go towards this program and is now looking for the additional funds authorized to complete it. I personally felt to do nothing and say nothing about this, in light of what happened to the men and women who got laid off in my district, would be an insult. Now, some people may say, ``Well, congressman, if the Shuttle can continue to fly safely and efficiently with 600 fewer people, then we ought to go ahead and let that happen.'' But I want Members on both sides of the aisle to be aware that the Shuttle managers tell me the principal reason that they are able to continue to fly safely with that many fewer people is because the launch rates are way, way down to only maybe four flights a year because of the delays. And the Shuttle managers tell me that, as we go back up to eight and nine flights a year, as is hoped as the Space Station program gets back on track, that they may need to actually go out and hire additional people to keep the program flying safely. So I believe that, to me, it was really an insult to the working men and women out at Kennedy Space Center for the agency to be laying off hundreds of people on one day and then finding tens of millions of dollars to fulfill a vision for the vice president. I have a chart over there that I would like to show later that clearly spells out that we can right now, using current technology, produce an image of the Earth using existing satellite images. And this program was just not necessary and, therefore, I would encourage all my colleagues to support not funding it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, as we all know, the gentleman from Indiana has been a strong opponent of the Space Station program for years, and for many years traditionally introduced the amendment to kill the funding for the Space Station. He was consistently defeated by the will of this body. The people of the United States, through the expressed will of the Congress, have chosen to proceed with the construction of the Space Station. Now, today, as we speak, we do have two elements on orbit. We have much of the construction cost already expended, and most of the hardware is at the Space Station processing facility at Kennedy Space Center and ready to be launched. Now what was correctly pointed out by the gentleman from Michigan is that we do have significant delays caused by the Russians, and that has been something that I have been very, very concerned about, as have been many Members of this body. We are very, very close to obtaining the delivery of the service module. NASA has worked out a very, very successful program to work around any further Russian delays in the outyears of the program and to ultimately get them out of the critical pathway. I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment because of what it really is, and what it is is an attempt on the part of those who have tried to kill the space station for years to instead put forward an amendment that does not appear to do that but what in reality will do that. By putting this cap in place it would require very significant cuts in funding, and I can tell my colleagues as a Member who represents an area of the country where a lot of this work is done, this program is pretty much cut to the bone. They have really done a tremendous job, I believe, in getting it completed with the funding that has been available and that this particular amendment will essentially kill the space station program. I am told that there is nothing that motivates our kids more to study math and science in our schools than our manned space flight program, and I would encourage our colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I, too, like the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee, have expressed some very, very serious concerns regarding the management on the part of the Clinton administration and the NASA administrator regarding these continuing ongoing delays with the Russians. Nonetheless, I do not feel that this amendment, as it is currently crafted, is the proper way for us to address this problem. I have several concerns. As I understand my reading of this amendment, should this be enacted into law, there would be nothing that would prevent the Russians from essentially charging us $200 million, for example, to deliver the service module on orbit, or substantially more sums of money. As I understand it, that is the cost of the service module. If we add on the cost of launching it, I think the way this thing is crafted, it could not only put the Space Station program but, as well, the American taxpayers in a very, very precarious position. Additionally, I would like to also comment on the fact that as I understand the legal language of the international agreement, that we as the United States do not have the authority to discharge one particular partner from the international agreement. Essentially the only options that are available to us under the existing law would be for us to remove ourselves from the International Space Station, and therefore we would thus no longer be in partnership with some of our more reliable partners, such as the Japanese, the Canadians, and the Europeans. So in summary, though I think the intent of this amendment is a good one and that I share the concerns of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and as well I share the concerns of my very esteemed colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the committee chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the subcommittee chairman, I feel that this amendment, the way that it is crafted, it is a bad amendment. It is impossible to implement and as well could ultimately, the end result, lead to significantly increased costs to the American taxpayers. Then for that reason I would highly encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, not only those who support our manned space flight program and the Space Station program but as well those who support fiscal responsibility, to reject this amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let us face it. The Clinton administration sure does talk a good game about Medicare, but now there is even more evidence that the administration and their liberal defenders in Congress are only paying lip service to the seniors they claim to champion. First, they shot down, for political reasons, their own bipartisan Commission on Medicare Reform. They said, you can kiss Medicare reform goodbye in this Congress because the Democrats need to make it a political issue in the 2000 election. After all, what would an election be without Democrats scaring seniors with demagoguery about Medicare? Mr. Speaker, do not take my word for it. Just ask the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana in the other body about the Medicare Commission and why the White House will not even look at it. Now we learn that the administration is shortchanging seniors to the tune of $20 billion in this year alone from the Medicare program. Hard to believe? Well, ask the hospitals and the seniors if it is true or not. This administration is spending $20 billion less than authorized by law. Our seniors deserve better.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as an original cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 84 which would make fully funding special education one of the highest priorities in the Federal elementary and secondary education funding. It is imperative that we meet the objective of paying the 40 percent of the average per pupil expenses associated with educating children with disabilities. I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to not only support this resolution but as well to vote for the funding when we do the appropriations bills.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H. Con. Res. 82 calling for the removal of U.S. troops from their positions in connection with the present operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This has been a very troubled region for centuries. In recent years, the U.S. Department of State has reported that the civil war in Kosovo between the Serbian government and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) has heightened. In recent weeks, while the NATO attacks on the Serbian police and troops in Serbia's Kosovo province have increased, the Serb forces have heightened their efforts to remove ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Ironically, the President argued that airstrikes were needed in order to keep this very action from taking place. Unfortunately, the airstrikes only heightened these atrocities. Unfortunately, there are no easy answers. It now seems apparent that President Clinton's decision to begin a bombing campaign was not the right decision and that is why I opposed the resolution supporting U.S. military action before the NATO bombing attacks began. Indeed, the Washington Post has reported that many military leaders doubted Mr. Clinton's bombing strategy would end the civil war in Kosovo. Unfortunately, they have been proved right. As a Member of Congress I have the responsibility to ask the following questions, ``Is the situation in Kosovo in our national interest?'' If it is in our national interest I must ask myself, ``Am I willing to say to my constituents and my neighbors that I believe the lives of their sons and daughters in the military should be placed in jeopardy by sending them into battle in Kosovo?'' I say NO to both. We do not have a national interest in Kosovo and we should not risk the lives of our men and women in uniform.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Maloney amendment to the Local Census Quality Check Act. The Maloney amendment has nothing to do with local review and has everything to do with establishing a dictator of the census. Before a local community is allowed to review and comment on census data, they must ask ``Mother may I?'' For Members who may not believe me, let me read the amendment itself: ``Any opportunity for local participation under this section shall be provided in such time, form and manner as the Secretary shall prescribe.'' Let me read further from the Maloney amendment: ``The 2000 decennial census shall include the opportunity for local government units to review housing unit counts, jurisdictional boundaries and such other data as the Secretary considers appropriate.'' This amendment would be nothing more than a ``Mother may I'' amendment. Under this amendment, the rights of the local communities would be ceded to the Secretary of Commerce. This might be the norm in Third World dictatorships, but it has been soundly rejected by the United States. The Maloney amendment guts the very rights of local communities that this bill would protect. The Maloney amendment would force local communities to beg the Secretary of Commerce for permission to comment on census figures. We do not need a sovereign rule over local communities on this census issue. We rejected a sovereign 200 years ago. The Maloney amendment gives the Secretary the authority to dictate whether or not local governments have any meaningful input in the process. We all know the Secretary of Commerce has publicly opposed post- census local review. How fair a card will he deal to local communities? It is imperative that we have input and oversight from local leaders at every stage of the census. H.R. 472 is designed to improve the accuracy of the census. It helps pinpoint such problems as clusters of missed housing units or incorrectly displayed jurisdictional boundaries. H.R. 472 protects the rights of local governments to review data before the census is final. The Maloney amendment should be rejected because it denies local communities this right unless the President's political appointee gives his stamp of approval. Local governments know their jurisdictions better than Washington bureaucrats. It is time for the Democrats to stop putting politics before the truth and to protect the rights of our local communities. Make no mistake about it, the Maloney amendment is a muzzle on local communities, clear and simple. Reject the dictator of the census amendment. Vote ``no'' on the Maloney ``Mother may I'' amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in strong support of the underlying piece of legislation. I represent the area of Florida that includes Cape Canaveral and the issues of ballistic missiles and space technology and aerospace technology is of tremendous interest. I ran in 1994 originally for Congress in support of deploying a missile defense system. To those people who would say right now that we do not have something that is technically capable, I would say to them it depends on how one wants to define that. The Russians have had a missile defense system for 30 years. We currently have the Patriot system on-line. The technology is there. The debate is over how good it will work. In my opinion, we should deploy the best system that we are capable of deploying now. After seeing the Rumsfeld report and personally reading the Cox report, I would say we need to make a commitment to not only deploy the best system we are capable of deploying now but to plan on upgrading that system within the next 10 years to a better, more sophisticated system, because the threat is real and the threat is great. As parents, we are responsible for taking care of our kids and making sure they have good manners and making sure they get fed, but it would be very irresponsible if we left the front door unlocked and the window open every night allowing somebody to come in to rob, steal and commit mayhem. What good is it for us in this country if we are going to do all of these wonderful things for Social Security and for education in America and all of the other proposed good things that we are going to do while we leave New York, Los Angeles, Boston, Miami, Philadelphia and all the great cities of this country vulnerable? The Chinese have already said that we would not be willing to risk those cities in defense of Taiwan, and we already know, from reading the New York Times, that the Chinese have acquired the most sophisticated weapons systems. Support the bill. Support the rule.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. I rise reluctantly to speak in opposition to sending our the United States Armed Forces into Kosovo. If we look at the U.S. military, it is overwhelmingly apparent that the Clinton administration has placed our military budget and the needs of our men and women in uniform on the back burner while greatly increasing the number of overseas deployments. By reducing our national defense budget and failing to provide the funding necessary for training, equipment, and compensation, this administration is eroding morale and troop strength. I cannot, in good conscience, support sending our troops again overseas to support another overseas mission. It is not fair to our troops. It is not fair to our families. Let us review some of the facts on this issue. The number of active duty army divisions has been reduced from 18 to 8. Under the Clinton- Gore administration, the number of fighter wings has gone down from 36 to 20. Our naval forces have been reduced by 30 percent. Today our troops do not have enough ammunition. The Army is short $1.7 billion in ammunition, the marines $193 million. Too many of our men and women in uniform have gone too long without seeing their families, their wives, their husbands, children, and parents. This is having a terrible effect on morale and retention of a fine, qualified, uniformed service. This Administration's neglect of our troops has led to fewer troops reenlisting and more troops leaving the Armed Forces. Some of our men and women in uniform are actually on food stamps. This is an outrage. It is time for this administration to put its money where its mouth is. It is time for it to draw a line in the sand, and demand that we send the right amount of funds to support our troops, particularly if now we are going to send 3,000 more troops overseas to support another unending overseas deployment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct privilege of bringing to the Members' attention the fact that Spaceport Florida has successfully launched its second satellite. On Tuesday, January 26, 1999, I was pleased to personally observe as an Athena rocket left Florida's Spaceport to deploy the ROCSAT-1, the first satellite launched by the Republic of China, Taiwan. I am proud of the success of the government of Taiwan, Spaceport Florida, and involved commercial companies in this endeavor. The launch of ROCSAT-1 was accomplished with the cooperation of Taiwan's National Space Program Office, Lockheed Martin and the Spaceport Florida Authority. This is only the latest example of the Spaceport Authority's ability to successfully launch payloads into space and at a competitive price. I am hopeful that this successful endeavor between the Republic of China and Florida will lead to more exciting and profitable ventures that will benefit both parties. This is a proud moment for Taiwan and Florida. After personally viewing the historic launch, I can also say that I firmly believe that Florida's first rate launching capabilities are advancing and will strengthen our competitiveness. I am also pleased that Taiwan chose Florida as the place for launching their satellite. Florida has a proven track record of dependable launches and we added to that number on January 26. I hope this will be the first launch of many.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, several people on the minority side have risen today and quoted the scripture, ``Judge not, that you not be judged.'' Careful reading of this scripture makes it quite clear that the message is not that we should never judge or exercise judgment. Most scholars interpret this verse of scripture to mean that we should not condemn others for their faults and that we should forgive those who offend us. It has never been proposed by any reasonable person that this verse of scripture asserts that we are to let criminals go free or that our laws should not be upheld. Bill Clinton is not being judged by the Members here as much as he is being judged by the law itself. The preamble to the Constitution tells us that the Constitution was created for, among other reasons, to establish justice. To blithely forgive or ignore these offenses is to make a mockery of justice. Our laws state that to lie under oath, to encourage others to provide false testimony or to conspire to conceal evidence is a felony punishable by imprisonment. Indeed, the committee took testimony from two individuals who lied about sex before a grand jury. One received house arrest, the other actually went to jail. Every year in America, people go to jail for committing perjury. The Democrats wrote the statute creating the office of the Independent Counsel and Janet Reno authorized the expansion of the investigation into the matters before us. The findings indicate felony offenses that could send the average American to jail. President Clinton, when he signed the reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act in 1993 said that the act would ``guarantee the integrity of public officials and ensure that no one is above the law.'' To ensure that no one is above the law, the resolution must be approved and sent to the Senate for trial.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, it is with great sadness that I rise to speak in support of this resolution. I would like to confine my remarks to the issue of judgment. Several speakers on the minority side have risen today and quoted the scripture ``Judge not, that you be not judged.'' It is very appropriate that our members should be quoting this verse. For it tells us that when we appear before the throne of God, God will judge us by the measure we have used to judge others here on earth. Careful reading of the scripture, however, makes it quite clear that the message is not that we should never judge or exercise judgment. Indeed, in the same chapter of the Bible that my colleagues have been quoting, Jesus goes on to warn the people to exercise judgment and ``not cast pearls before swine'', and ``to beware of false prophets.'' Most scholars interpret this verse of scripture previously quoted about not judging to mean that we should not condemn others for their faults, and that we should forgive those who offend us. However, it has never been proposed by any reasonable person that this verse of scripture asserts that we are to let criminals go free or that our law should not be upheld. Bill Clinton is not being judged by the members here as much as he is being judged by the law itself. The preamble to the Constitution tells us that the Constitution was created for among other reasons to establish justice. To blithely forgive or ignore these offenses is to make a mockery of justice. Our laws state that to lie under oath, to encourage others to provide false testimony, to conspire to conceal evidence, or otherwise impede or obstruct an investigation is a felony punishable by imprisonment. Indeed, the committee took testimony from two individuals, one who actually went to jail, the other received house arrest for lying about sex before a grand jury. Every year in America people go to jail for committing perjury. Our laws do not specify that consensual sex is a subject that it is OK to perjured yourself about. When we think of the verse of scripture quoted, ``Judge not and you will not be judged'', I believe the important question we should be asking ourselves as members is how would we be voting on this resolution if Bill Clinton were a Republican. To my Democratic colleagues on the, I ask would you still be clamoring for censure, or would you be calling for resignation of impeachment? To my Republican colleagues, I ask a similar question: would you be calling for a ``no'' vote on this resolution or a motion of censure instead of impeachment? Pollsters tell us that if you bother to include the question in your survey, the issue that the American people are most concerned about in our nation is the state of America's moral condition with up to 87 percent indicating that something is wrong. The very essence of national morality and virtue is a citizenry that can exercise sound judgment. Sound judgment dictates that the President be impeached, and tried in the Senate. The only middle ground in this situation is acquittal in the Senate, not a meaningless unconstitutional motion of censure. The Democrats wrote the statute creating the office of the independent counsel, and Janet Reno authorized the expansion of his investigation into the matters before us. The findings indicate felony offenses that could send the average American to jail. President Clinton himself when he signed the reauthorization of the independent counsel act in 1993 issued a statement in which he said: ``It ensures that no matter what party controls Congress or the executive branch, an independent, nonpartisan process will be in place to guarantee the integrity of public officials and ensure that no one is above the law.'' To ensure that no one is above the law the resolution must be approved and sent to the Senate for trial. Statement by President William J. Clinton Upon Signing S. 24 (30 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 1383, July 4, 1994) I am pleased to sign into law S. 24, the reauthorization of the Independent Counsel Act. This law, originally passed in 1978, is a foundation stone for the trust between the Government and our citizens. It ensures that no matter what party controls the Congress or the executive branch, an independent, nonpartisan process will be in place to guarantee the integrity of public officials and ensure that no one is above the law. Regrettably, this statute was permitted to lapse when its reauthorization became mired in a partisan dispute in the Congress. Opponents called it a tool of partisan attack against Republican Presidents and a waste of taxpayer funds. It was neither. In fact, the independent counsel statute has been in the past and is today a force for Government integrity and public confidence. This new statute enables the great work of Government to go forward--the work of reforming the Nation's health care system, freeing our streets from the grip of crime, restoring investment in the people who make our economy more productive, and the hard work of guaranteeing this Nation's security--with the trust of its citizens assured. It is my hope that both political parties would stand behind those great objectives. This is a good bill that I sign into law today--good for the American people and good for their confidence in our democracy. William J. Clinton The White House, June 30, 1994.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if we walk out the door to my right, in the middle on the minority side, and go left, we will come to a large marble staircase. And at the top of that staircase is a large painting, a painting by Howard Chandler Christie entitled, ``The Signing. The Constitution of the United States.'' And in the center of that portrait is Ben Franklin. It is reported that he walked out of the Constitutional Convention and a woman approached him and said, ``What kind of government have you given us, Mr. Franklin?'' And his response was: ``A republic, if you can keep it.'' The challenge before us today is: Can we keep it? Because a republic is a Nation that is guided by the rule of law. Not the whims of a dictator or a majority that can trample on the rights of a minority, but the rule of law. I urge my colleagues to vote in support of this resolution. I, like everyone in this chamber, would like to get this process behind us. The best way to do that is to support this resolution. It is the right thing to do, it is the right way for us to keep the republic, as Franklin asked us to do.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Istook-Barcia-Manzullo amendment. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it, and vote against the Greenwood amendment. As many know, I practiced medicine prior to coming to the Congress, including working in emergency rooms. When I work in the emergency room, one of the things we always fear is the possibility that a minor child can come in with a serious illness and the parents will not be with them, and we will not be able to get parental consent. The reason why that is a very, very serious concern is if we stitch up a wound or give a drug and that child has a reaction to that drug, we can actually be prosecuted for assault. Indeed, a minor child cannot get an aspirin from a school nurse, nor, as was stated previously on the other side of the aisle, their ears pierced without parental consent in the United States. But there is one place in the United States today where a minor child can get medical care without parental consent, and that is in the Title X family planning clinics. It has been proposed or expounded that these clinics are somehow cutting down on the incidence of AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, or HIV. I would assert that all the research data indicates that since this program began that the incidence of all of those things has gotten consistently worse, not better. Indeed, I would assert that this policy established by this Congress has been a tremendous assault on the integrity of the family, and has played a role in the explosion of sexual activity. In closing, I would just like to say one additional thing. The data that has actually come out of the Alan Gutmacher Institute indicates that up to as many as 50 percent of these kids under the age of 18 are having sexual relations with a man over the age of 18, and in the vast majority of the States that is statutory rape. Indeed, in the case cited by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), it involved a teacher of 37 years having relations with a 13-year-old child. So I would encourage all of my colleagues to vote with the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) on his amendment. It is the right thing to do for the family, it is morally right, and the arguments being put forward by the opponents of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) are incorrect.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee for yielding time, and I rise in support of this legislation. I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and vote for this very important legislation. I represent the east central coast of Florida, the area that includes Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center. Years ago, most of the launches were for the government. But today the majority of launches from Cape Canaveral are for commercial satellites. These are telecommunications satellites that carry TV signals or telephone conversations as well as remote sensing satellites that can help American farmers better manage their crops and be more efficient and more productive. That is what this legislation is all about, being more efficient and more productive, the use of space for the betterment of mankind, helping to create better jobs, using our tax dollars more efficiently. This legislation will make it easier for everyone, from satellite or launch vehicle manufacturers to remote sensing and telecommunications service providers to better be able to do business in the 21st century. It will better enable American companies to compete in an increasingly competitive international marketplace. The space industry is an example of another industry that the United States essentially created, but like many industries that the United States has created, it is at risk of going overseas and no longer being in the United States. Therefore, this legislation is badly needed. In particular, I would like to mention the section of the bill that deals with the feature regarding the licensing of commercial space vehicles that reenter the atmosphere. Today the only space vehicle that regularly reenters the atmosphere is our Nation's space shuttle. But it is used for government missions and not for launching commercial satellites. There are several new launch vehicles in the developmental stage today, including the Lockheed Martin Venture Star that will launch commercial satellites and then return to earth, be refueled, refurbished and then launched again in a similar fashion to the way the space shuttle is handled. This legislation will better enable the government to license and regulate those types of launch vehicles. Again, I rise in strong support. I commend the chairman of the subcommittee and ranking member, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the full committee for their work that they have done in support of this legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we are all concerned about educating our Nation's children. For 30 years the Federal Government has been creating big Federal programs to try to improve education. It has resulted in lower scores and more bureaucracy. Federal education dollars should go directly to the classroom and to teachers, not to State and Federal education bureaucracies. By passing H.R. 3248, Dollars To The Classroom, we can send these dollars to teachers who know the names of our kids. The Dollars to the Classroom Act block grants 35 K-through-12 education programs and requires that 95 percent of these funds are made available to kids and teachers in the classroom. Under the Dollars to the Classroom Act, $800 million more will be spent directly on classrooms in America. That is almost $10,000 per school, $425 for each classroom. Just imagine what our teachers could do with an additional $425 to spend directly on their students' learning each year. Pass Dollars to the Classroom.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield again, in addition to speaking out in support of preserving the Social Security program and establishing honest budgeting and I think taking the Social Security Trust Fund off budget and stopping the process of borrowing the money out each year is part of what I consider honest budgeting, I think my colleague's speaking out in support of reducing the tax burden on working families and middle-class families is very important. And one of the items that my colleague mentioned I think is a particularly important issue, and that is getting rid of the death tax, the so-called death tax or inheritance tax. And another issue in my district is, I represent the east central coast of Florida, and I have a lot of suburban communities along the coast, but I have a lot of ranchlands, and I have a lot of these orange groves and citrus planters and cattle ranchers; and they are having a terrible time when they want to pass essentially the family farm, in Florida we call it the family grove or the family ranch on to the kids, the tax burden sometimes is so prohibitively bad that they literally have to sell the farm in order to be able to pay the tax bill because it frequently gobbles up a third of the land or a third of the valuation of the land. And this is just wrong. This is not the way our American tax code is supposed to work, where we are forcing family businesses to have to sell to pay a tax bill, a family ranch to have to be sold off or farm or orange grove or grapefruit grove. And I thoroughly support, and I was very pleased to hear my colleague bring up this issue of getting rid of the death tax, along with some of the other things he mentioned, the marriage penalty. And again, I just want to commend him. I was sitting in my office doing some paperwork, and I was listening to what my colleague was saying about Social Security, and I wanted to come down and personally commend him for the leadership and the direction that he has provided not only our class, the class of 1994 but, as well, the whole Republican Conference. My colleague has had an impact on these issues, in my opinion, far above any of the other Members, and I congratulate him for that.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to commend the gentleman for the leadership he has provided in the House ever since we came to Washington together. We were elected in 1994, a part of that freshman class that turned the majority over to the Republican Party. And as a member of our class, I think the gentleman has been one of the most articulate and outspoken Members on the critical issues of cutting wasteful spending, restoring honest budgeting to our government and, most importantly, protecting and preserving Social Security. And the reason why that last issue is an issue that is of tremendous interest to me is, I represent a district in Florida, it is the east central coast of Florida, and I have a lot of senior citizens in my district, many of whom are dependent on their Social Security check; and I think it is critical as we approach the close of this fiscal year that we look at the proposals that my colleague has on the table. And I am a cosponsor of the Social Security Preservation Act that my colleague have introduced. And I just wanted to ask the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann) a couple of questions if time allows. This process of taking the money that is in the surplus and how that is borrowed out as a non-negotiable Treasury note, was that the way the original Social Security Act was written under FDR back in the 1930s?

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. If the gentleman will yield for another question, as I understand it, another critical problem in Russia is the problem of corruption. I have been a student of this for years, and I have long been of the opinion that one of the things that has caused Latin America, Central and South America to lag behind the West in economic growth for decades is this very problem. In particular, it creates a problem for somebody who wants to go into business, whether it be a foreign investor or even a domestic entity. Not only do they have to deal with all these myriad levels of government and their various taxes, but, in addition to that, layered on top of that, is the unpredictable nature of demands for bribery and payoffs in order to be allowed to do business. In the course of going over there, does that issue come up in discussions? I personally think that is a major impediment in many countries towards economic growth. For a business to succeed, they need stability. You were alluding to that in the tax code. They need to know what their taxes are going to be. A key element of that stability is honest government. They cannot have government officials shaking them down and members of organized crime syndicates shaking them down in an unpredictable nature, because it obviously can have dramatic implications in terms of a business's profitability, their ability to reinvest profits into their business, to be able to grow their business, thus creating new jobs and prosperity. Did this issue come up? Was it discussed in the course of the gentleman's trips to Russia? Does the gentleman think, from what he has seen going over there as many times as he has, does the gentleman think they are taking appropriate steps in terms of dealing with the problem?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I again want to commend the gentleman for his efforts in this arena. It is an irony today to be in a situation as a Nation the United States is where our former Cold War adversary is essentially becoming an economic basket case, and I do believe that we as a body are going to have to wrestle with this issue, and the gentleman's comments at the onset of his Special Order tonight I thought were very, very well taken in that we are not going to be able to avoid trying to deal with this. The Russians still have a huge amount of nuclear capability, and obviously it is a large Nation with a large number of people, and to have the resurgence of a totalitarian form of government like they previously had under the Marxist-Leninist dictatorship totalitarian type of state would be potentially very, very bad for not only U.S. interests, but as well global interests, because as we all know, that government funded all kinds of revolutions and terrorist activities all over the globe for a period of 70 years. So there is a tremendous amount at stake for the United States to see to it that there is stability in Russia, and because of that, I think we as a Nation and we as a body, the United States Congress, the House and Senate, are going to have to deal with this issue. Obviously, from my perspective, representing the east central coast of Florida which includes Kennedy Space Center and home to the shuttle program and where we have many people working on the space station program, this issue is very, very critical to what is going on. Russia now has the ability to affect jobs in my congressional district, and the failure of the Russians to perform on the space station could seriously set back the program, which in turn can affect people's lives in Cape Canaveral and Merritt Island and places like Titusville, all of those communities that are around the space center where literally hundreds and thousands of space center workers work and raise their kids and go to school, their kids go to school. So I think it is very, very critical that we take leadership and to see the leadership role that the gentleman is taking on this issue, and I commend the gentleman for it and his willingness to try to make a difference. Let me just close with one other question for the gentleman. The gentleman's assessment of the President's visit over there, the impact, I made some inquiries and discovered that the space station program really was not discussed very much. It came up at the last meeting, and the extent of the conversation was, well, we will leave this problem to the experts in that area. I was very disappointed to hear that that was the extent of the President's discussion with Mr. Yeltsin, considering that this is claimed to be a priority for the administration, claimed to be a program that the administration wants to see succeed, obviously, as a cornerstone of our manned space flight program in the United States, but nonetheless it gets an ``also mentioned'' at the end of a series of meetings and turned over to others to try to work through the problem, when it is obviously a critical problem and it is not being dealt with.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend the gentleman for the work he has done on behalf of U.S.- Russian relations. I know that many of our colleagues are not fully aware that the gentleman speaks Russian and that he has gone over there, and in particular his interest in applying fundamental market principles and economic principles to the Russian system. I would agree with the gentleman wholeheartedly that the Clinton administration's policies in this arena have been a failure, and that the administration's pursuit of economic reforms has been very, very misdirected and very, very poorly handled. I was particularly interested in this issue because of the relationship between what goes on in Russia and the success of a program that is very important to the people in my district, and that is the International Space Station program. I know the gentleman sits on the Committee on Science with me and the gentleman has been a supporter of the Space Station program as well. We are really at a very, very critical stage in this program. The U.S. elements are being completed and are ready to be launched. The Japanese elements are nearing completion. Our colleagues in Europe, the French and Italians and Germans, have spent billions of dollars on their element. And the Clinton Administration, as part of its overall policy towards Russia, put the Russians in what is referred to as the critical pathway, where the whole success of the program is dependent on the Russians delivering to space their elements. Their performance to date on this program has been sorrowful indeed. It has actually been pathetic. They have repeatedly delayed their performance. They have not had the tax revenues to fund their elements for the Space Station, and it is driving the program into the red, it is causing the program to run behind, and these economic problems that the Russians are facing are seriously hampering the government's ability to collect taxes and to be able to afford to be a key player in this program. It is just absolutely truly amazing. Here we are today in 1998, where what was formerly one of the world's leaders in space now looks like they are going to be out of the picture completely if they do not financially turn their problems around. And I agree with the gentleman wholeheartedly that the administration's policies on dealing with the Russian economic problems have been very poor indeed, very bad, and that there really is no thriving domestic policy. I was wondering if the gentleman would just yield for a question, and that is what are the fundamental tax policies in the Soviet union or Russia now? As I understand it, they are suffering from the same problems in Russia that this country was facing in the late 1970's, before Ronald Reagan got elected, and that is the tax rates are very high. Indeed, it is actually much worse in their case, because the tax rates are so high that, whereas in the United States high tax rates in the late seventies played a role in dampening economic growth, in the case of Russia not only has it done that, but as well it has driven billions of dollars of the economy into the black market, and by some estimates more than 50 percent of the economic activity in Russia actually is occurring in the black market. In your course of going over there, were tax rates discussed? What are the tax rates? Are they punishingly high? Is it playing a role? Would indeed the Russian government collect more money in taxes, as the United States government did when it lowered taxes in the early 1980's under Ronald Reagan, stimulating economic growth and, therefore, though the rate was down, the amount of money that came into the Treasury was much greater because the economy grew dramatically, and so it was a win-win situation, the government had more money. Could that be applied? Could those principles be applied in Russia? Would the Russian government be well-served to try to lower rates substantially and get more of the economy out of the black market and into the taxable market?

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to draw the attention of my colleagues and the American people to a very important article that was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the July 30, 1998 issue, and in particular as well an accompanying editorial authored by Drs. Cohen and Fauci of the National Institutes of Health. This article is entitled ``Sexual Transmission of HIV-1, Variant Resistance to Multiple Reverse Transcriptase and Protease Inhibitors'' authored by Dr. Hecht as well as many others. Now, it may seem a little bit unusual for a Member of Congress to be rising talking about something like this article and this accompanying editorial, but let me just say from the outset that as many of my colleagues know, I am a physician and as well I did part of my training in San Francisco in the early 1980s at a time when the AIDS epidemic was just emerging as a critical national health problem. Additionally, after finishing my training and ultimately going into private practice in Florida, I had the opportunity to take care for many years of many AIDS patients. And so this has always been an area of tremendous interest for me, particularly as it relates to government spending, public health, and a lot of social phenomena that has occurred in this country over the last 30 years, in particular as it relates to the sexual revolution. There were many features of the sexual revolution that occurred in the United States. Having only 5 minutes, I would not be able to dwell on all of them, but I would like to touch on several of the critical features of the sexual revolution, one of which is that premarital sex and having sex with multiple partners, contrary to centuries-long taboos, was now considered socially okay, and indeed as well that homosexual sex and sex with multiple partners was as well considered okay, if it involved two consenting adults. As we are beginning to see in this country today, there are indeed some significant societal impacts of this revolution, particularly in the form of the explosion of sexually transmitted diseases and its consequences. For example, 20 percent of all Cesarean sections done in the U.S. today are done because of the presence of a sexually transmitted disease in the mother. This has significant public health impact. It has a significant cost impact for our government-run health care, programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and as well the sexual revolution in the homosexual community which led to the AIDS epidemic ultimately spilling over into the heterosexual community. What is very important about this article, I want to draw to Members' attention, is that we have seen in recent years the good development of the availability of multiple drugs for the treatment of AIDS. Unlike when I first started practicing where the people would develop AIDS and they would die very quickly, we now have this very, very good armamentarium of drugs that allow people to live for years and the death rate from AIDS has dropped off significantly. There has been in recent years a very, very ominous development of resistance within patients with AIDS to multiple different drugs that we are now using. The important feature of this article is that what they have documented in this article is there was a gentleman who had developed AIDS in 1990 and had been on multiple drugs over 8 years and had developed a variant of the AIDS virus that was resistant to those drugs. That gentleman had homosexual relations with a gentleman, passed AIDS to that gentleman, and this occurred in San Francisco, and the gentleman who acquired AIDS acquired a form of AIDS that was now resistant to all of the drugs that his partner had been resistant to. The accompanying editorial reads, ``Transmission of Multiresistant Human Immuno Deficiency Virus, the Wake-up Call,'' a very appropriate title for this editorial. This is, I would like to say, a very, very serious public health development that we are now seeing, the transmission of multidrug resistance to AIDS. Unfortunately, the gentleman in this editorial did not address the underlying problem, and this is really the focus of what I want to get at. This disease, as well as the transmission of other sexually transmitted diseases, is a behaviorally transmitted disease and we are not addressing that issue as a public health issue. Indeed, the authors of this editorial make a glancing comment about how, again, we need more sex education. Until we as a nation truly begin to lift up abstinence and point out how many of these so-called safe sex regimens are not truly safe, we are never going to be able to deal with this problem. I would like to draw the Speaker's attention and Members' attention to a very important article that appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution just yesterday, and the Surgeon General, David Satcher, spoke at a meeting of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, where he again reiterated the mantra of the Clinton administration's approach to this problem that we need more sex education and more use of condoms, and in an interview afterwards with the President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Martin Luther King, III, he had this very important statement to make, and it is this: The only way is abstinence. Sex should not be something that we just casually engage in and take lightly. I am very, very pleased that Mr. King made this statement, particularly in light of the fact that while blacks only make up 13 percent of the U.S. population, they are accounting for 57 percent of the new cases of AIDS. It is time for America to wake up and say that the sexual revolution was a fraud; that the old way was the better way. I am very disappointed with Drs. Fauci and Cohen that they do not tackle this issue head on but instead make comments about how we need to encourage safe sex more. This is a fraud and a lie. We are going to begin to see in this country the emergence of multidrug resistant AIDS and we are going to have to invest even more money in developing new drugs, and until we recognize the fact that this is a behavioral problem and that safe sex is not the way to go but abstinence is the way to go, we will never deal with the problem.