Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1122, the partial-birth abortion ban. I have spoken out repeatedly in support of this ban, and I will continue to do so however long it takes to get the necessary two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate so that we can override the President's veto. It was in 1993 when I was still practicing medicine when I first read about this procedure. It was published in the American Medical News. I had seen all of my patients for the day, I was sitting down at my desk, and, frankly, I was shocked and amazed that in a country that is supposed to be founded on the principle that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to life, that a procedure this barbaric would be legal and, furthermore, that some people who purport to be legal scholars would argue that it is somehow protected in our Constitution. It is nowhere mentioned anywhere in our Constitution. I want to address two very important issues; No. 1, these so-called tragic circumstances. In that original article that appeared in the AMA News, the originators of this procedure admitted that 85 percent of the time it was on perfectly healthy fetuses and in the other 15 percent, the majority of them were cleft lip and cleft palate. How many millions of Americans in this country who have a loved one with cleft lip or cleft palate would like to know that this kind of barbaric procedure could be done on a baby for a deformity as simple as that? It is absolutely tragic to me to think that somebody would make that kind of an argument. Mr. Speaker, I am not finished. I also want to discuss this other so- called health exception. They had a health exception in California prior to Roe versus Wade, and they did thousands and thousands of abortions every year because we all know, I am a doctor, any doctor can say it is needed for health. That is a loophole you can drive a truck through. This procedure is barbaric. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote in support of the bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for far too long, the veterans of east central Florida have had to travel great distances to receive quality inpatient medical care. This is an intolerable situation which I have worked hard to change. In the Fall of 1998, a new VA clinic will be opened in Brevard County which will help meet the outpatient medical needs of local veterans. This will be the first ever permanent facility to serve area veterans in east central Florida. However, the long drives for hospital stays currently continue. That is why I led the effort in the last Congress to allow the VA to contract with local health care facilities for inpatient care. This year, language I wrote with my colleague Bill McCollum establishing this pilot program was included in H.R. 2158, the fiscal year 1998 VA/ HUD Appropriation Bill. The program was funded at the level of $5 million in the House bill. This language was not included in the Senate version, but the final House-Senate agreement included the provision. This pilot project represents the wave of the future, a new and more efficient way to deliver quality health care to those who have sacrificed so much for our freedoms. No longer should the brave men and women who served their country selflessly have to travel long distances for quality care. I am confident that this project will be a great success, and will lead to more widespread contracting efforts in the future. I strongly support this conference report and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on behalf of our Nation's veterans.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report and want to thank Chairman McDade and Ranking Member Fazio for their hard work. I know they had a difficult task balancing hundreds of requests. It is important to note the importance and priority the Congress has again placed on federal beach renourishment projects. As a member of the Coastal Caucus I believe it is critical that we pass this important legislation. As the chairman is aware, we have experienced unprecedented erosion along the beaches in Brevard and Indian River counties in Florida. These beaches are not only important for our tourism industry, but they are home to the largest concentration of endangered sea turtle nests along our Nation's Atlantic coast. The failure to move forward with these beach renourishment efforts will continue erosion of this critical habitat. Most of the erosion in Brevard County is directly attributable to the construction of the Canaveral Inlet by the Federal Government in the 1950's. Since that time homes and infrastructure that once stood 400 yards from the breaking waves are now at the water's edge. Indeed, study after study has shown that the inlet has acted as a barrier and has stopped sand from flowing to the beaches south of the inlet. More than 300 residents of Brevard County whose property is in danger of falling into the Atlantic have filed suit against the federal government. This has the potential of costing the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars. The conference report before us moves forward with the Brevard County Storm Damage Prevention project and will help the U.S. government avoid several hundred million dollars in liability. The project doesn't propose putting the beach back like it was. It would create a 50 foot buffer to protect properties and rectify some of the damage caused by the federal inlet. Additionally, I am pleased that the Committee has included $500,000 that I requested for environmental restoration efforts along the Indian River Lagoon. This funding will help us move forward with the C-1 rediversion project which will help us reduce the flow of fresh water and sediment into this Estuary of National Significance. This will improve the health of the lagoon and benefit the manatee and the lagoon aquiculture industry. I thank the Chairman and the conferees for their support of these projects.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in the Chamber today to talk about a very important issue to all Americans, and that is our economy, and specifically what I would like to address is some of the questions surrounding why is our economy doing so well. There are lots of economists, people on Wall Street, who are marveling at the low unemployment rates, the low inflation rate, the very, very strong stock market. Indeed many people are saying that this is the best economy since World War II, possibly one of the best economies in our Nation's history. Why is that? What is going on? What are the causes for this? In particular, I want to address an issue that a lot of people have been bringing up, is it indeed secondary to the consequences of the policies and programs of the Clinton administration? I have had the opportunity to hear both the Vice President and the President speak on a number of occasions, and, indeed, taking advantage of the situation with this strong economy and taking some credit for the good times that exist right now. I would like to just, first of all, begin by extending my opinion that I personally believe the single biggest reason why the economy is as strong as it is right now is because of the hard work of the American people. It has, in my opinion, little to do with the policies that are emanating from Washington DC, but very much everything to do with people all over this country who are willing to get up in the morning, work hard to make a living, and, in particular, those people who are willing to take a risk and invest some of their hard-earned money in a new business, start a new company or, more importantly, many of the entrepreneurs all over this country who deny themselves pay raises and instead reinvest their money back into their business, and, in so doing, they create new jobs and make the country a better place to live. Getting back to the issue I was talking about earlier regarding what impact have the policies of the Clinton administration so far on all this, as we all know, the economy began to turn around in 1992, even before the election when Bill Clinton was elected. There were lots of economic indicators that we were coming out of the recession of the early nineties and that the economy was going to be turning around. After being elected, the administration put forward its economic stimulus package to help jump start, quote-unquote, the economy, even though it was beginning to take off, and that was defeated in this House. That was one of the centerpiece issues of the economic package. The other centerpiece piece was their health care plan, and their health care plan additionally was defeated. Their rationale for their health care plan helping the economy, of course, was by lowering health care costs, our businesses would become more competitive. One of the most compelling reasons why this economy is going so well is revealed in this chart next to me on the left. What is shown here is interest rates, long-term interest rates, and this very much impacts the ability of businesses to borrow money, their competitiveness, their ability to be profitable and reinvest money back into creating new jobs. After Bill Clinton was elected, interest rates went up and up and up, and that is because budgets were being presented and passed by this House that increased spending, deficits as far as the eye can see. This line right here demonstrates the November election of 1994. You can see on this chart that interest rates dropped dramatically, almost 2 points, following the election of 1994, when, for the first time in 40 years, you had a Republican Congress that was going to hold the line on spending, you were going to get the budget balanced. And when the Government is not out there borrowing $200 billion every year, the cost of borrowing money goes down, and that not only helps businesses to do better, it helps moms and dads to make ends meet better because they can get a home mortgage for less money, they can buy a car for less money. Now, interest rates went back up over here, and that was after the government shutdown. Now they have leveled off since then. In my opinion, yes, if you wanted to say who is responsible for this strong economy, it is the hard working American people. But if anything coming out of this city has played a role in these economic good times that we are in right now, it has been Washington holding the line on spending, getting the budget balanced, and that was a consequence of the Republican Congress coming in and holding the line on spending. There another dividend of the Government spending less. Interest rates go down, yes, and that makes it easier for businesses to be successful and for families to be able to refinance a home mortgage. But when the Government is not spending so much money, it helps keep the inflation rate low. That is why we have this good situation, a situation that has not existed since the 1950's, the last time there was a Republican Congress, where you have low interest rates, a strong economy, low unemployment rates, and, importantly, low inflation rates, because inflation robs people of their hard-earned money. So, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that though I believe that this economy is so strong, that there is a lot to be proud of, an economy is a fragile thing, and we need to continue to hold the line on spending, we need to continue to work toward balancing the budget.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this legislation. America was greatly blessed for the past 89 years to have had the privilege of knowing Jimmy Stewart. He was a committed family man and a role model on and off the big screen. He recognized his position as a role model and throughout his life taught us much. Those of us in this Chamber and the Chamber across the Capitol have a lot to learn from him and the roles he played. It has been said that what is said about a person upon one's death is very telling of the value of their life. As a nation we were saddened at the loss of Jimmy Stewart. What did his friends say about him? Charlton Heston, who starred with Stewart in ``The Greatest Show On Earth'' said, ``He was deeply patriotic, deeply professional, a fine actor, and more important than any of those things, perhaps, he was a gentleman.'' Karolyn Grimes, who at the age of 6 played Stewart's daughter Zuzu in ``It's A Wonderful Life'' recalled, ``I remember very distinctly that I did not learn the words to `Auld Lang Syne' at the end of the movie. I felt like a very silly fool. Stewart sort of didn't know the words, either. He made me feel really at ease about it. I will always consider him a movie legend and someone I can always respect and keep in my heart.'' Ronald and Nancy Reagan said, ``He never really understood the greatness that others saw in him.'' Bob Hope said, ``Jimmy was every man's hero and every woman's dream man. He wasn't just a talent, but a genius and a dear friend. America has lost its role model and I've lost a great friend. Jimmy represented the best in all of us in the characters he played. Who can ever forget his Mr. Smith? Yup, that was Jimmy. I love Jimmy for his humor and warmth and for his commitment to our country. He was a great war hero and did so much for the USO. All that and he played a mean game of golf. I'm going to miss him.'' Bob's wife Dolores said, ``His life was lonely without his beloved wife Gloria, who died in 1994. He missed her so, and now they're together again. What joy there must be.'' ``It's A Wonderful Life'' and ``Mr. Smith Goes To Washington'' are stories of commitment to principle and to family. These movies are a far cry from many of the movies we see today, characterized by ``Powder'', ``Pulp Fiction'' and ``Priest.'' We need to continue to send Hollywood the message that America longs for movies in the spirit of Jimmy Stewart, movies about commitment to family, to a husband or a wife, commitment to children, to love them and care for them, to put them first, not our own selfish interests. Again, I commend the gentleman from New York for bringing forward this legislation, and the subcommittee chairman and the ranking member for supporting it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica] and the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Cummings], my good friend, for bringing my bill to the floor today. I also want to thank the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton], the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for allowing the bill to be considered in such a timely fashion. I also, in addition, want to thank my very good friend, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Deutsch] for working with me on this important bipartisan effort. Mr. Speaker, House Concurrent Resolution 95 is a simple bill. It does not spend any money, it does not change any regulations, it does not affect any Federal agencies. But this is an important bill, Mr. Speaker, because it recognizes a unique group of soldiers who fought for this country during World War II. Beside me on my left we can see, of those who are remaining and still alive, a picture of them gathered at a meeting. Now, lots of men and women sacrificed on behalf of our country in World War II. What makes this group so special? They were not the only members of the United States military to serve, but they were the only ones to be held in a Nazi concentration camp. Those horrible camps will forever occupy a dark place in human history, and we have long recognized the bravery and daring of many prisoners who fought their Nazi oppressors and struggled to win political and religious freedom. But, tragically, we have never formally recognized these men for their service, sacrifice, and suffering. My attention was first drawn to their situation when they held a reunion in Melbourne, FL, which is in my district. After talking with Bill Williams, the leader of this group, who lives in Lake Placid, FL, I learned that both Sonny Montgomery and Tim Hutchinson had championed this bill when they served in the House, and I was determined to complete their work. When these 82 airmen were shot down, they were captured in civilian clothing and were sent to Buchenwald concentration camp as spies and as criminals. But when our soldiers were sent to a concentration camp instead of a POW camp, they were considered political prisoners, and therefore not subject to the fundamental protections of the Geneva Convention. My bill simply recognizes their unique service and asks the President to do the same by issuing a proclamation commending them. Other allied airmen were also held at Buchenwald, and their countries have recognized their service. So it seems fitting that we do so as well. Senators Tim Hutchinson and Joseph Lieberman have introduced similar legislation in the other body, and I hope this year that both Chambers can pass these bills and give these men the recognition that has been half a century waiting in coming. The saga of the airmen is recounted by Mitchell Bard in ``Forgotten Victims--The Abandonment of Americans in Hitler's Camps.'' His book details the horror these men suffered, the violent beatings, the days in solitary confinement, the malnutrition, the freezing temperatures, the sleep deprivation, the medical experimentation. We must never forget their sacrifices for freedom around the world. Mr. Speaker, today's consideration of this bill is also very timely. Just a few weeks ago, the Department of Justice concluded years of negotiations with Germany regarding reparations for these soldiers and other American civilians held in Nazi concentration and labor camps. I am pleased to report that the negotiations were highly successful and all of the United States soldiers held in Buchenwald are going to be compensated by Germany for their cruel and inhumane imprisonment. I commend the Justice Department for successfully closing out the settlement. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit for the Record a note from former President George Bush. President Bush wrote a warm note of greeting to these men when they met in Melbourne last year, and I want to include it as part of the Record for today's floor action. March 10, 1997. I am delighted to send warm greetings to all gathered in Melbourne for this special reunion of American World War II veterans. Present at this remarkable gathering this week are men who represented the best of the American spirit during a time of tremendous peril. Like so many others, you answered the call to duty and turned back a threatening tide of tyranny looming over Europe--and those who live there today in freedom are indebted to you for your sacrifices and selfless service. So as you fellow old-timers come together to renew friendships and recall lost comrades, I am honored to join in saluting you, doing so with the hope that you know your Nation respects you and is grateful to each of you. George Bush. House concurrent resolution 95 is endorsed by the American Ex- prisoners of War and the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this important bill. By passing this bill today, those veterans still living and the families and friends of those who have passed on can fully realize the public recognition these brave men so rightly deserve. Mr. Speaker, I thank again my colleagues from Maryland and Florida.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my question is, Would a plan to make it easier for parents to save for their children's college education be a good thing or a bad thing? What if their children took that money and used it to go to a private university like Harvard? Would that be a threat to public universities like the University of Michigan or the University of Virginia? Or would that make schools like the University of Michigan and the University of Virginia try even harder to compete for students that might otherwise go to Harvard? If allowing parents to send their kids to Harvard is not a threat to public universities, why would making it a little easier for parents to send their kids to private schools be a threat to public schools at the elementary and secondary level? Could it be that many parents would vote with their feet and take their kids out of bad public schools and put them in private schools? That would force bad schools to clean up their act or shut down, which is exactly the point.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one reason why education is such an important issue is because it is education which should play such a vital role in teaching, in the words of Alexis de Toqueville, ``the art of being free.'' Mr. Speaker, few Americans these days think about the art of being free, I suspect, and few schools talk about the democracy and the American republic in terms of the art of being free. But all one has to do is look around the world and it is quite obvious that societies are free not by virtue of free elections alone; not by the virtue of a written constitution that guarantees freedom on paper only; not by virtue of a judicial system that promises justice, but is corrupted by arbitrary Government power and police misconduct. No, Mr. Speaker, the art of being free must be taught at home, cultivated in school, and given free expression and practice. The habits of freedom are encouraged in schools through the study of the uniqueness of America, our belief in individual rights over group rights, our history of forward-looking optimism, and the shared faith in the availability of the American dream to all.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I would disagree with some of the people who would claim that the current language in the bill does not represent a change in policy. I think it does. I think we do not have the data to support such a change in policy. For that reason, I highly encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me say that I think I can bring a little bit of perspective to this. Prior to coming to the Congress, I was a practicing physician. Many of my patients were AIDS patients. Indeed, my colleague and I for years were the only AIDS doctors in a county of 400,000 people. I saw them in my office. I went in the hospital in the middle of the night. I have also taken care of a lot of drug addicts and I can tell my colleagues that these needle exchange programs, they cut down on the frequency of sharing needles but they do not bring this down to zero. If my colleagues deal with drug addicts, they will see why. They are pretty irrational people in their behavior most often, and a lot of them will cooperate with the exchange, but a lot of times they will still share needles. It is just a bare fact. We have heard from a lot of people today that all the data is in and this works, needle exchange programs save lives. I can tell my colleagues that that indeed is not the case. There have been some significant articles in the medical literature that challenge that, and I think it is really a major mistake for the Federal Government to get on this bandwagon. Specifically, there is a 1996 study that was published in Lancet, and that is a British medical journal, a respected British medical journal, that showed that needle exchange programs, the people in the program have a two times greater risk of contracting AIDS. Not that it reduces, as some people have been claiming, the transmission of AIDS by 30 percent, but that it doubles the transmission of AIDS. Now, this is a study in a respected medical journal. Mr. Chairman, additionally, probably one of the best journals, the best medical journals, is a journal called Epidemiology. Epidemiology is the study of the spread of disease, and they published in the Annals of Epidemiology a study this year, January of this year, that showed that needle exchange programs have no impact. There is no reduction in the transmission of AIDS. So, if my colleagues like needle exchange, they can whip out all their studies that show it works. If my colleagues do not like needle exchange, they can whip out these studies and show it does not work. Mr. Chairman, what I say to my colleagues is we are talking about Federal dollars and what we are going to be doing with Federal dollars. I think, considering that so many people think it is so objectionable, to do this, indeed, I have been informed by a Member since I have been on this floor that needle exchange programs are illegal in something like 45 States, I think it is very, very inappropriate for us to be giving this administration the freedom to go out and start engaging in more of this. I think we need more scientific data and more studies. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage all of my colleagues to support the Hastert amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to close by getting back to something the gentleman was talking about a few minutes ago, in quoting that newspaper article. If we look at the polls, there are a lot of people who still remain pessimistic, despite the economy going strong and unemployment being low, and it is the morality, it is the virtue issue. The gentleman is absolutely right, we cannot lay all the blame on our schools. Hollywood is playing a role, what people are seeing on TV. But it really comes down to, in the end, we have to change ourselves. We have to change our families. We have to change our communities. Unless it comes from the grassroots up, it is not going to work. It cannot come from Washington, DC, down. We cannot reform education and put education reform, we cannot change our educational system, where virtue and values are being upgraded, we cannot reform the system from Washington, DC. There are 5,000 education bureaucrats in this city right now, working in buildings around this Capitol, that are not doing anything to help so many of these kids who are struggling. A lot of our kids are doing well, but a lot are struggling. I think it is very exciting, the kind of reforms we are seeing. I think what we are trying to do in the Republican Party here in this Congress, we are saying no to the status quo, and we want to see some real reform. It has really been a pleasure to be able to join with the gentleman in this discussion.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, I would agree 100 percent that you can teach morality, virtue, and character in an environment that does not include a religious theme. Some examples I think include hard work, the value of hard work, caring for others, treating others as you would want to be treated yourself. You do not have to get the Bible out to instill these values in kids. There are lots of ways that you can just teach those basic human values. Now, I happen to personally believe they are all rooted in the Bible, at least in western civilization they are rooted in the Bible. But there are ways that you can teach values and virtue where you do not have to violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and State. I know you are going to tell me that is not in the Constitution, and I am aware of that, that the words ``separation of church and State'' are not in the Constitution.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. There are now actually six.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I want to make one point getting back to what the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] was talking about about 5 minutes ago. Though we need innovation, a thousand flowers should bloom, we do need school choice, we do need a competitive marketplace, the thing that the gentleman was talking about is incredibly important and that is discipline. That is something that is absent in too many of our schools. There are two components to education in my opinion. One is the book learning, knowing your multiplication tables, knowing who Christopher Columbus was, but there is another part in education, and we all know this. It is a part of our education that begins from the moment of our birth, most of it comes from our parents, and that is building character, building integrity, building honesty into that young person. Indeed if you ask an employer what is more important, that they have all this book knowledge and word knowledge or whether they are responsible, reliable, not on drugs, stable family life, they will always tell you they would rather have those character things, because they can always teach them, even though it is not their job and it should be the schools' job, but they can always teach them that stuff. But you cannot fix somebody who does not have those things ingrained in them by the time they are 18. What the gentleman was talking about, getting the good old-fashioned paddle, that is a part of it, discipline and character and training. That is an area where I have to say our public system in most areas is failing miserably. It is directly related, I believe, to taking prayer out of our schools and taking out the wisdom of the Bible. Can we go back to where we were 30 years ago? No. I do not think we can. I do not think we can put school prayer back in. This country has become so diverse. However, I believe we need to give parents the choice to be able to put their children in a religious environment or not in a religious environment, to select the environment that they want for their kids. I happen to believe many will choose a religious environment and I think they should have the freedom to do that. These arguments that that is a violation of the separation of church and State I think is absurd. I think parents, working-class families should have the freedom to choose the academic environment for their kids that wealthy families have. Working families should be able to choose where they send their kids to school. Having that disciplined environment that the gentleman from Georgia was talking about I believe is more important in many ways than the book learning that we give our kids.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Clearly, the gentleman makes a very important point, which is that you cannot blame it all on the schools, and you cannot blame it all on the teachers. Indeed, I have to say, maybe I am partial to teachers, my mother having been a schoolteacher, most of them are great, most of them are very sincere, most of them are very hard working, there are some elements to the problems that we have in our schools that transcend the school, and it does require more parental involvement. Your example is an excellent example of how parents get involved. I know with my little girl, Katie, when she was in the first grade she was struggling with reading. My wife started to work with her with reading and tried to help her. At the end of the first grade, she was reading at about the third grade level, but she started out struggling. That is an example of very intense parental involvement. A lot of parents, single moms, do not have the time for that. There are problems that go beyond our schools, and parental involvement is one of the keys. I will tell you, I think one of the best ways to get parental involvement is to get school choice, where parents are looking at the schools in their school district, looking to see which ones are good, and then getting their kids enrolled. They have an investment in that. It is no longer a government-run operation, and every kid goes off and gets on the bus, and whatever comes out of the process at the end is whatever comes out. The parents have some ownership. When they are shopping for the best school, I can tell you most parents are really going to make a strong effort to find the best academic environment for their child, and you are going to see parental involvement. If we can get an environment in this country today where every State is doing what Minnesota does, I think parental involvement will increase, not only in the private schools and the sectarian schools, religious schools, but in the public schools as well, because if a parent has a tax voucher or tax credit in their hand and they choose to go to the public school, I would assume they are going to make more of an effort to make sure that their son or daughter is getting the education that they need. But I agree with the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] 100 percent, that there is more to it than just our schools. This is a community issue, it is a family issue, it is a church issue, it is a school issue, and it is a government issue. But I think it is a local government issue, it is not a Federal issue.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Amen.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I am honored and flattered to hear the gentleman say that. Let me first say it is an honor to be here in the Congress. I cannot really say it is a pleasure to be here in the Congress but it is an honor, an extreme honor. One of the reasons I left my medical practice and ran for Congress and came here was the issue that you are talking about tonight, and that is one of the reasons why I wanted to come down here and join both of you. I am a product of the public education system in our country. I went through public school. I went to a State college. I went to a State medical school, so I am very much a product of public education, and public education in America for many years has been a tremendous success. Indeed, my mother was a public school teacher. I feel indebted to the public school system, and I feel that it has truly been a tremendous success story up until the recent past. We all know the status of education in America today. There are some schools that are doing a great job, an outstanding job, and there are some schools that are doing an OK job, but there are some schools that are failing really miserably. At the root of that, I believe, is a lot of factors, one of them is that we have a Federal bureaucracy in Washington that I believe is very, very inefficient, sucking up money, money that should be in the classroom and putting unnecessary burdensome rules and regulations on our schools. One of the reasons why I am very proud to be able to be here and be part of the Republican educational reform is that one of the key themes is to get money, power and responsibility back to parents, back to teachers, and back to the schools and out of the bureaucracy in Washington, DC. Let me just add one other thing because I was listening to the comments earlier about the innovations in Minnesota. One of the reasons I ran for Congress is I felt the only way to deal with so many of the problems within our public educational system today is through school choice. It is the one major sector of our economy, and I am not sure if the gentleman from Georgia was reciting these figures or if it was the gentleman from Minnesota earlier about how there are 3 million people employed as teachers in the United States, there are 20,000 schools. This is just a huge industry, and we basically have put it in the hands of Government. It is the only major sector that is in the hands of Government of our economy. We do not have the food delivery system in the hands of the Government, we do not have medical care in the hands of the Government, though some people wanted to make medical care the purview of the Federal Government, but yet we have given education over to the Federal Government. Let me just add, though, that there are people in this country who have educational choice but they are the wealthy. The wealthy have always had educational choice. People with the means could always pick the best school in their community. I think what we are about with educational reform and school choice is giving everybody the same ability that the wealthy people have, to be able to choose the best academic environment for their children. I want to raise one very, very important point and this is, I believe, a falsehood that we hear spoken repeatedly on the floor of this House by the opponents of school choice and that is that choice in education will ruin public education. In other words, the public schools will not be able to compete; if you really have a marketplace and give parents a tuition voucher or tax credit, that the public schools will collapse. Let me just say, first of all, that I do not think that is true at all. I think there is enough innovation and enough talented teachers in our public system that they will be able to compete, they will improve and they will be made better by school choice. For somebody to make that argument, they are tacitly, implicitly admitting that the system is so bad, in their own mind, that they will not be able to compete. For them to get up and say it will ruin public education, they are in essence admitting that it is inferior and that in a marketplace they will not be able to survive. I happen to believe that is wrong. Some of our public schools will fail, some of our public schools will close, but I think some of them will be made better. I want to just tell the gentleman as a Congressman from Minnesota, he has a lot to be proud of in his Governor, in his State legislature. They have emerged this year as one of the leading States and perhaps in many ways it is very fitting that it should come out of Minnesota, a place that has been known for its progressive innovations for years and to see this happening in Minnesota. I agree with what the gentleman was saying earlier about how this is really a State and a local initiative to really reform education. This is a huge country; 270 million people, 50 States. We cannot fix education in America here from Washington, DC. It has got to happen in every school, in every county, in every city, in every State capital all across the country. A thousand flowers should bloom and innovation should occur.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Alexis de Toqueville wrote in his famous work, ``Democracy in America'' that, ``In America, there cannot be enough of knowledge, for all knowledge benefits those who possess it and those who do not.'' Now, Alexis de Toqueville is quoted all the time, but there is a very good reason for it. He is often right on the mark, so insightful, and so remarkable in his judgment. And de Toqueville's commentary here on the value of knowledge, about how education is important to everyone, is an example of his wisdom. Mr. Speaker, education is an issue that is important to those with children and those without. If a generation of American schoolchildren is receiving an inferior education, that is a serious problem of concern to us all. Of course, the reality is that some of our Nation's schools are excellent, some undistinguished and some simply a disgrace. But it is the general trend toward mediocrity, the systematic dumbing down of curricula, textbooks, and standards that I find more alarming. Mr. Speaker, I know that millions of parents agree, and that is why education reform must be a top priority.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and before I get to the meat of my comments, I want to point out that that amendment that I rise in support of calls for a parental notification, not consent. So we need to debate the facts here. I encourage all my colleagues to support the Istook-Manzullo amendment and reject the Castle amendment. If we really do support family integrity, the United States, and indeed going back into history, British law has a long-standing tradition of parental rights where parents have the authority and control over raising their kids. We, in this country, beginning with this program as it began in 1975, began in a direction that is in direct violation of that principle in the sense that now the Federal Government is funding a program that will allow minor children, females, to go in and see a physician and get contraceptive services, to include injections of medications, placement of IUD's, without parental consent, with absolutely no knowledge of their parents. Some of these interventions are not without risks. As many of my colleagues know, prior to coming here, I was a full-time practicing physician. One of the drugs that is dispensed, for example, in these clinics, is injections of a drug called Depo-Provera, a drug that has associated with it the potential complications of thromboembolic disease, which is blood clots, blood clots in the legs, blood clots traveling to the lungs. These clinics can place IUD's. IUD's are associated with a tremendously enhanced risk of infectious complications, and all of this can be done without parental consent. Our children cannot get aspirin from a school nurse without parental consent; our children cannot get their ears pierced, but they can go into a title X clinic and get access to these medical services. The supporters of this policy as it has existed for the past 20 years claim that, oh, it is necessary because these young girls are sexually active and they have to have access to these services; and if they have to tell their parents, it is going to cause a lot of conflict, and some of them come from difficult homes, et cetera. There used to be a time in this country where the kinds of conflict that would be introduced by these young girls talking to their parents about this issue would be considered healthy, it would be considered good. But now we want to intervene and say no, no, no, we just want to give them these services. Now, I would, perhaps, be somewhat sympathetic to the supporters of the existing policy if, indeed, this program was having some kind of a positive impact, but we all know what the impacts have been. Actually, the teen pregnancy rate in this country has gone up dramatically, and, indeed, probably what is more significant is the incidence of venereal disease and the long-term complications of those venereal diseases, such as infertility, which has just gone up 5-, 10-, 15-fold over the last 25 years. If we talk to any practitioner who engages in that practice, he will tell us that is a tribute to the high rate of promiscuity. Let me close by just saying this. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We cannot say, I support family values, I am opposed to all this sexual activity for teenagers, but, yes, we have to fund contraceptive services to be done in a fashion where parents do not even know. I just want to point out that this amendment calls for parental notification. And, in addition, I just want to add one more important thing, a point that was made by the gentleman from Oklahoma, in that many, many of these girls are having sexual activity with men who are over the age of 18. In most States that is statutory rape, and in some instances, these children have been seduced and are, in effect, being abused. As a matter of fact, I believe we are going to hear the story about a specific case of that occurring in the district of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Manzullo], where a young girl was seduced and was being sexually abused and getting contraceptive services with the assistance of this man who was abusing her. In my opinion, this policy, as it has existed for the past 20-plus years, is a direct affront to the principle of standing up for family values and believing in the rights of moms and dads to have a role to play in the care of their children; and I would encourage all my colleagues to support the amendment of the gentleman from Oklahoma and oppose the Castle substitute.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on June 10 Representative Peter Deutsch and I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 95, a resolution that would officially honor United States airmen held in Germany's Buchenwald concentration camp during World War II. Senators Tim Hutchinson and Joseph Lieberman introduced an identical resolution in the Senate the same week. Our bill recognizes the service and bravery of 82 U.S. airmen, who were the only U.S. soldiers ever held in a concentration camp. At the time I introduced the bill, I submitted a list of U.S. military prisoners that had been held in Buchenwald, but inadvertently left off some of those names. The list I have included below is a complete list and corrects that earlier mistake. I would appreciate your inclusion of this new list in the Congressional Record. List of WW II American Airmen Held at Buchenwald Concentration Camp Updated September 5, 1997 Not located (5) Freeman, E.C.; Hanson, J.T.; Horrigan, R.J.; Scharf, B.T.; and Scott, G.W. Deceased (33) Alexander, William; Allen, Roy W.; Appleman, S.M.; Beck, Levit C.; Bozarth, J.W.; Chapman, Park; Crouch, M.E.; Dearey, R.W.; Duncan, James H.; Edge, W.L.; Fix, E.E.; Granberry, W.L.; Heimerman, L.A.; Hoffman, R.B.; Horwege, G.L.; and MacLenahan, J.H. Martini, F.; Masters, L.O.; Mauk, W.E.; Mikel, G.; Pecus, Steve; Pederson, J.W.; Pennel, Sam; Salo, L.H.; Smith, J.W.; Stralka, P.A., Jr.; Suddock, D.E.; Vallee, E.; Vance, Ira E.; Vincent, E.H.; Wilson, P.J.; Wojnick, R.J.; and Zeiser, J. Still living (44) Bauder, W.F.; Bedford, R.L.; Bowen, C.E.; Brown, R.H.; Carr, F.W.; Chalot, J.A.; Chessir, D.; Coats, B.A.; Cowan, F.K.; Coffman, J.D.; Dauteul, D.F.; Denaro, Joe; Fore, J.W.; Hastin, J.D.; Hilding, R.D.; Hunter, H.F.; Johnson, R.T.; King, Myles A.; Larson, M.E.; Little, B.S.; Ludwig, E.F.; and McLaughlin, D.G. Mitchell, G.E.; Moser, J.F.; Pacha, A.M.; Paxton, S.K.; Powell, W.; Raynolds, N.L.; Richey, G.T., Sr.; Ritter, E.W.; Roberson, C.W.; Ryherd, W.H.; Shearer, D.R.; Sypher, L.H.; Thompson, W.A.; Vratney, Frank; Watson, J.P.; Ward, Robert; Williams, W.J.; Zander, A.E.; Phelps, B.F.; Pelletier, A.J.; Friel, Edward J.; and Petrich, M.R.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me. I rise in strong support of this resolution. I commend him, as well as the ranking member of the committee, and all my colleagues who have worked on behalf of this resolution. I certainly extend my condolences and condolences from the people of the 15th Congressional District to the people of Israel who have, again, been victimized by the terrorists, and in particular, by this very, very ugly form of political terrorism, the suicide bomber. I had the opportunity as well to go to Israel in August and visited with the Prime Minister, Mr. Netanyahu, as well as the defense minister and the Arab negotiators. I additionally had the opportunity of visiting the Jerusalem market where the bomb exploded in July, and I personally, along with my wife, we were at the Ben Yehuda Street where this recent bombing occurred. I can tell all of my colleagues that this is the most vicious, despicable form of terrorism that is imaginable, where you send suicide bombers into shopping markets where innocent men, women, and children are, and as very correctly pointed out by our colleague, Palestinians are actually in the area. They are blowing themselves up, in some instances. Mr. Speaker, this is a form of mindless terrorism. What is extremely disturbing about all of this, as has been indicated by the previous two speakers, there is abundant evidence that Mr. Arafat has the ability to put a stop to this; that he has actually attended a meeting and spoken in support of Hamas, and Hamas has taken credit, responsibility, for this act. For Mr. Arafat to claim to be in support of peace, in my opinion, is hypocrisy. Some people have risen up and said he should return his Nobel Peace Prize, and I would say he should, at this point. Just a few minutes ago in this body we rose and had a moment of silence in recognition of Mother Teresa, a woman who is recognized the world over for her work on behalf of the poor and the innocent, and the sacrifices she has made in her life in respect of human life. Yet, just 1 day ago we can see that others in another place in this world decided that they were going to take brute force in their hands and kill innocent women and children, innocent elderly people. The problems that exist in the Middle East are serious, but they will not be moved forward, peace will never occur in the Middle East, as long as there are people in Hamas, in the PLO, that are willing to resort to these kinds of heinous acts in order to fulfill their ends. I encourage all my colleagues to support this resolution. I again commend the chairman and the ranking member and all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their work on behalf of this. I rise in strong support of this, and in opposition to terrorism in any place in this world.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I rise in support of the Smith amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in support of it and against the Pelosi option. The Mexico City policy was established by Ronald Reagan in 1984. It basically said that no family planning organizations that do abortions and promote abortions can get Federal funds. There were claims made at that time that all of these family planning organizations would have to close up shop and all these women would be denied contraceptive services. In truth, all but two of them stayed in business. They made the commitment. They took the money and they stopped promoting abortion. Now we have a substitute that has been put forward, the Pelosi language, that says that no money would go to an organization that promotes abortion as a method of family planning. The person who will certify whether or not that is the case is Bill Clinton, the man who rescinded the Mexico City policy in 1993, the first act he ever performed. He does not like Mexico City. But we are going to trust him now, the man who vetoed the partial-birth abortion bill. ``Trust Bill'' is what we are being told today. Another thing that this language does is, they can be performing abortions and, yes, they can be using their U.S. dollars to buy fax machines and dollars from somewhere else to perform the abortions, but as long as they are not promoting it, they can still get all these U.S. dollars. I believe that if you are really pro-life and you are really committed to the principles that are in the Declaration of Independence, which is we are all endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, then you need to support the Smith amendment. This was Ronald Reagan's policy. The Members who are proposing this alternative are the people who never supported Ronald Reagan's policy. I believe, if we are committed to the principles that this Nation was founded on, we will support the Smith language. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote with Smith.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I congratulate the chairman of the committee for the good work he did in this tax cut. I would like to talk a little bit about reality, who is going to benefit from this tax cut. This is a family in my district, the Auger family. We have here Jim and Donna. He is a plumber, she cuts hair. Here are their three kids: Christopher, the oldest, Anthony, and Danae, the young girl. They are going to get $1,500 of reduction in their taxes for the $500-per-child tax credit times three. When this young man is in college in about 3 years, they will get $1,500 of tax reduction. They will still get the $500 per child tax credit for these two. This is flesh and blood. These are real middle class families. Do not believe the lies that this is a tax cut for the rich. This is a tax cut for the middle class. It is a Republican tax cut. It would have never happened if it were not for the election in 1994 and the persistence of the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Newt Gingrich, and the gentleman from Texas Mr. Bill Archer. I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise again to talk about our Nation's space program. I rose earlier in a special order with the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Gutknecht] to talk about our Republican tax package and how it was going to help working families, and I talked at great length about a particular working family in my congressional district that was going to be helped tremendously by our tax package. It was going to help them in many, many different ways. The $500 per child tax credit was going to help them, because they had three kids, and it was going to give them an extra $1,500 a year. But probably also, more importantly, the education tax credits were going to help them to be better able to send their kids to college. This is the Auger family I was talking about, and they had one young man 15 years old, their oldest son, college material, and they were looking at some very, very serious financial strain. They had a family income of about a little less than $40,000 a year, but trying to raise three kids and send them to college was a real strain. I was pleased to get up and to be able to talk about them, but I did want to talk a little more about our Nation's space program. I represent an area of our country that most people have heard a great deal about. We call it in the Space Coast of Florida. It is where Cape Canaveral and Kennedy Space Center is located. We have a lot of men and women in our community that work in our Nation's space program, and I wanted to rise today and salute them and talk about the role that they have played in really forming a whole part of our American fabric. We are a great Nation, extending from the bustling cities of our Northeast to the beautiful beaches of Southern California, from the beautiful northern Pacific coast to our sunny beaches in Florida. There is a lot that goes into making up America and what makes this Nation the great Nation that it is, and a big part of it, in our modern era, is our Nation's space program, and it is something that all Americans, I believe, are very proud of. What we have today was really built on a lot of the hard work of the people that began the program, the early pioneers, so to speak, in our Nation's space program. One important point I want to make is these people were risk-takers. We all know some of the hardships and, indeed, that actually people have lost their lives in our Nation's space program. So going up in space and exploring space has its risks. But I believe it is well worth the price. I think there is something that beats in the hearts of every human being, not just Americans but all people all over the world, but particularly Americans, because we are a nation of pioneers. We all, except for our native Americans, we were all raised with the knowledge that our parents came to this country. They were either brought as slaves or their ancestors came from Europe or from Asia. We are a nation of pioneers, people who ventured out into the unknown, and that desire that beats in the hearts of all people, and particularly all Americans, I think, is encapsulated in our space program and what our space program is. We have had tremendous successes. Of course, we began with the Mercury program and the early astronauts, one of whom is a Senator in the other body to this day, and then it continued with the Gemini program, and, of course, on to the Apollo program, something that all schoolchildren today learn about, how the United States took part in the great space race with the Russians and we were able to succeed and win and get to the moon first. But now we are in a new era, a new era of space exploration, and I wanted to talk a little about that. I have some really wonderful photographs I wanted to show. This, of course, is a photo of our space shuttle, the current reusable launch vehicle that we use to bring men and women up into space. It has been a tremendously successful program. For those who have never seen one take off, I would highly encourage all Americans to try to get down there to the Kennedy Space Center area for a launch. You cannot get any closer than 3 miles, but even at 3 miles away, when this thing takes off, your shirt actually shakes from the power of the thing taking off. It is 11 million pounds of thrust putting this thing into orbit, and what is amazing about it, it is the only reusable launch vehicle. It comes back, lands on a runway, and then can be reconfigured and restacked and cycled again, and they go up and they come back. What is truly amazing about this program is not only the amazing technology of the program, but that this is actually 25-year-old technology. What I think is very, very exciting is a program that we are working on today in NASA, which is the new reusable launch vehicle. And I wanted to take a little time to talk about this program, because it is really in its infancy, but this artist's rendering of what it will look like, I think, encapsulates it very nicely. This shows the new replacements for the shuttle that we are currently doing the early design work and engineering on, and it shows, obviously somewhere over our desert West, maybe California or Arizona, hypothetically coming in for a landing. Because it would take off going straight up, the vehicle would then land on a runway like our current shuttle does. The important thing about this is that the whole idea with the new reusable launch vehicle to replace the space shuttle is to reduce the costs of putting payloads into orbit. Even though the shuttle program is a tremendous success, it is still costly to go up into space. It actually comes down to about, I believe it is $10,000 a pound for each pound that we put up into orbit. That is a considerable cost. So our idea here in the Congress and the Senate, and the President supports this program, is to come up with new technologies and new designs for a new vehicle to replace our Nation's space shuttle that, hopefully, we can deploy sometime in the next decade and, most importantly, that it would reduce the cost of getting payloads into orbit by a factor of ten, reducing the costs from $10,000 per pound down to $1,000 per pound. This could create a tremendous revolution in space travel. It would allow us to put satellites in orbit more cheaply. It would also allow us to put men and women in orbit at a lower cost. I want to talk a little about that, because we have another very exciting program that is well ahead of this program. This program will be on line, hopefully, sometime later in the next decade. We have a program called the international space station that I wanted to talk about and share with those listening. This is an artist's rendering of the future international space station. This is a tremendously exciting program. Most people are aware of the Russian space station that is up there right now, it is called the Mir. It has been up there for many years. There have been recently some serious problems with the Mir, and it is probably ready for retirement now, but it most certainly will be ready for retirement soon. What we have in the international space station is an effort to have our international partners, the Europeans, the Japanese, the Canadians, and as well the Russians, come together and form a consortium to truly build a true international space station that would have people from different countries participating in. This program is so exciting for so many reasons, and I wanted to talk about that a little bit. One of the biggest reasons, I think, why it is so exciting is the tremendous amount of research that will be possible on the space station. I am a physician. Prior to being elected to the Congress, I practiced medicine, and I was able to see on a daily basis the spin-off benefits of our space program in terms of helping people on earth. I took care of a lot of heart patients, people with cardiac conditions, for example, and the technologies that we use in things like pacemakers, in imaging technologies, like used in the cardiac catheterization lab, as well as imaging technologies like MRI scanning and CAT scanning, these are all spin-off benefits of our space program. There have been a tremendous number of other spin-off benefits, such as breakthroughs in material science. What is very, very exciting for me as a physician about the kinds of research that can be done on the space station is the tremendous breakthroughs that are a potential to be made in the area of pharmaceuticals. Because so many of the new drugs that they want to design and develop, there are problems with trying to work with them in the gravitational environment here on earth. But because of the weightlessness of the space station, they will be able to do tremendous amounts of additional research in this area, particularly in the area of crystal growth and understanding molecular structures better. So this has the potential of tremendous benefits for people all over the world. This shows the space station orbiting, and it is going to be orbiting at about 200 miles above the surface of the Earth. And I believe it is showing the space station orbiting over Greenland, I believe is what that is supposed to be. We can see those solar panels here. They will be generating the electricity to run the environmental systems that provide oxygen and clean the carbon dioxide out of the system, but as well provide the lighting and the cooling and the heating systems. But additionally, these solar panels will generate the electricity for the labs that will actually do the scientific research. You can see here, this module right here shows the European research area, and this module over here shows the Japanese research area. You cannot really see it very well, but the U.S. module is back in here where the U.S. scientists will be doing their research. As somebody who has followed the shuttle program very closely and the tremendous amounts of scientific research that have come out of the shuttle programs, what amazes me is the amount of breakthroughs they have made in science and our understanding of technology. But the shuttle was only up there for 2 weeks. But in this program, the astronauts doing the research will be able to be up there for months and months at a time. Indeed, this is projected to be orbiting above the Earth for more than a decade, a decade and a half, possibly longer. So this is one of the ways we are heading in our space program, a cooperative effort. There are some problems that lie ahead with the space station program. In particular, I want to talk a little bit about the Russians. One of the critical partners in the program are the Russians. And they have not been paying for their components that go into the Space Station. I have been asking the administration, particularly the Vice President, to do their best to try to work with the Russians. I went over to Russia in February of this year to meet with the Russians and talk with them about the importance of them having the financial resources to continue to invest to make sure that our space station program is a success. But to just get back to the next replacement to the space shuttle, the reusable launch vehicle, or RLV, as it is shown, or X-33 shown in this picture, someday the shuttle program will be phased out in the future and, hopefully, this will be replacing the shuttle and, importantly, will be dramatically reducing the cost of getting payloads into orbit. And that will have a tremendous number of additional spin- off benefits. I want to talk a little bit about that. Why do we want to reduce the cost of getting payloads into orbit? Well, there are a lot of reasons. One of them is to be able to better service the space station. But there are a lot of new, exciting technologies that are coming forward that could have tremendous benefits for people on Earth, and one of them is in the area of power generation. And I wanted to just talk a little bit about that. We all know we are very, very dependent in our modern society on electricity. Electricity is critical for not only our lighting and heating and running air conditioning systems, but, as well, it is critical for industry. Every business runs on electricity. We all know that there are basically three sources of electricity. Hydroelectric power, of course, is a clean and non-polluting way to get electricity. But we rely predominantly on power generation from burning fossil fuels and from nuclear power. There are two major concerns that are involved with both of those power sources. One of them is greenhouse gases and burning fossil fuels and burning oil and burning coal, it puts a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And the potential long-term consequences of that are of concern to everybody, the impact on the environment, the possibility that it could cause temperatures on Earth to rise slowly over time exists. And then, of course, with nuclear power, there is the concern about what do we do with the spent nuclear fuel. After the fuel has burned and generated electricity in the nuclear power plant, what do you do with that nuclear waste? Nobody wants it in their backyard. Well, there is another solution available and that, of course, is solar power. But solar power has had its problems. One of the problems with it is just weather. If we put solar panels on our roof, we can generate a lot of electricity, but not on cloudy days. Another problem area is we cannot generate electricity at night with solar power. Well, it turns out that the technology is available to us today to put solar collectors up in space and to generate electric power up there and to transmit that electric power to Earth, using microwaves, and then collecting those microwaves on the surface of the Earth using a special type of antenna called a rectifying antenna, or rectenna, and then converting it back to electricity. One of the first concerns everybody is worried about when they hear about this is, are not those microwaves going to be dangerous? Well, it actually turns out they will have only 25 percent of the energy of sunlight. So actually a bird could fly right through the microwave beams and it would have absolutely no effect on them. So they are very environmentally friendly. It turns out that one of the problems with putting solar collectors in orbit is gradually over time they will tend to descend down into the atmosphere, so you have to keep reboosting them. But an efficient way to do it would be to actually put the solar collectors on the Moon. In this photo that I show here, it shows people, men and women, working on the Moon, possibly in some kind of a base that would be doing something like collecting solar power. And there are scientists in this country today who believe that not only is the technology here and available now but that if we are willing to make the investment, that we could actually produce electricity for less money than what it costs. Indeed, some argue that it could be as cheaply as 3 cents a kilowatt. This is why we need to develop a replacement for the shuttle that reduces the cost of getting payloads into orbit, and this is why we need to learn by working in space and our space station about what are the problems associated with long-term exposure in space and what is it like to have to be able to construct something large like that in space; because the technology and the science will help us to possibly be able to move on to something like this, actually generating power in space and the potential benefits that this could have for all of mankind to be able to produce more cheaply not only for the United States but possibly for all people all over the world and produce it without any pollution. But there is another aspect to space exploration that I want to talk about, and it is not just the practical side. I have spent a lot of time this afternoon talking about the practical applications of space exploration, the practical benefits of going up in terms of breakthroughs in medical science and engineering and our understanding of technology. But there is just more to it than that. There is a desire, and I talked about this earlier in my comments, there is a desire that is burning in the heart of all people to explore and find out new things, to go places where you have never been before. I want to talk a little bit about the possibility of going to Mars. We have heard a lot recently about Mars in the news, the Mars Pathfinder mission and the tremendous success that was and how important that was for a better understanding of Mars. We have learned a great deal, for example, that Mars indeed may have once had an atmosphere much more like Earth's and that there may have been abundant amounts of water. And one of the big questions, of course, has life evolved on Mars in some form, some microscopic form? Some day we may be able to go to Mars. I wanted to show one more diagram. This artist's rendering shows what it would be like to possibly send a man to the Moon. And this involves using new technologies that are being researched right now at NASA. This would be a habitation module. This right here would possibly be a module where you would actually grow possibly plants in a controlled atmosphere; because the atmosphere out here is mostly carbon dioxide but you could create an environment inside a plastic shell like this where you would put oxygen and you would possibly be able to grow plants to be able to feed the men and women that would be working in this environment. And this, of course, shows what would be their return vehicle. Is this practical? Can we do it? Well, there are some people who argue that it would be just too expensive. There are some people who have argued that a trip to Mars could cost as much as $500 billion and, therefore, it is just too prohibitively expensive. Well, recent research has shown that it may be possible to do it for substantially less, possibly as little as one-tenth that cost. And this is why it is so important, I believe, for the cooperative effort like we are seeing with the international space station. If our international partners can come together and people like the Europeans, the Japanese, the United States, the Russians, work together successfully on the space station program, it may indeed be possible then afterwards for us to come together as a people from all over the world and cooperatively fund something like this so that we could be able to send a manned expedition to Mars. We just do not know what we will find out, what we will discover. The Mars Pathfinder sent an unmanned rover vehicle to Mars, and we are discovering a lot from that. But imagine the tremendous amount of discoveries that we could make if we were able to send men and women to Mars driving around in a vehicle like that, people who could actually get out and look at the rocks and dig for things and try to discover. We have no idea what science and technology breakthroughs could come from this and what we could learn as a people by exploring Mars and sending men and women to Mars. I do not believe that is where it will end. I believe Mars may just be one more step. We went to the Moon. Some day we may go on to Mars. Some day we may go beyond our own solar system. We may be able to find other planets that potentially could be colonized by men and women. And it all began back in the 1960's. It began with a challenge, a challenge made really by an American President, John F. Kennedy. And I wanted to just dwell on something that he said that I think is very important. He said that we go to the Moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard. He accepted the challenge and knew it was going to be difficult, but he also knew that if we applied ourselves and God's will was with us and good fortune, that we would be able to succeed. But he knew that there were going to be risks. Mr. Speaker, today we are at that same kind of a threshold. We are on the verge of getting our international space station up and running. We are on the verge of a newer, less expensive, more efficient replacement vehicle for the shuttle. There is the possibility of returning to the Moon, of going on to Mars. But yet there are always people in this body rising up and saying, ``No, no, no, we shouldn't do it, we should spend money elsewhere on something else.'' There were people back then during the Jefferson administration who were saying the same exact thing: ``Let's not do it.'' I want to talk about one other aspect of that book that I found fascinating. Not only were there Congressmen who did not want to fund the program, that did not think we should be going forth into the unknown, but the program ran over budget. When it ran over budget, there were those who were harshly critical of the Lewis and Clark expedition. Such is the case today. Every time any one of these space programs run even this much over budget, there are people who come forward and say, ``No, no, no, we need to end the program, it's not worth the cost, we need to turn back from the future.'' That is really what this is about, the future. It is about our kids. I talked earlier this afternoon about an amazing thing that teachers tell me in my congressional district, that when they want to motivate children to learn science and math, the thing that motivates them the most is to talk about our space program and to talk about how knowledge of science and math can be applied in the space program. It opens their eyes and it motivates them to get involved and be educated more in those areas. Those are crucial areas. Not every one of those kids who gets motivated is going to end up working in the space program, but we all know that many of them will be working in areas where science, engineering, math, and technology are critical for the United States to be able to continue to maintain and be the world's leader. I believe it is critical for us to continue to try to make these investments in the future. That is what it is really about when we talk about space and exploring space. It is about our kids, it is about the future. Are we going to turn our backs on the future? Are we going to turn our back on exploration? The history books are filled with the stories of nations and peoples who turned their backs on the future, who stopped exploring and stopped looking into the unknown. Those nations no longer continue to thrive and grow. I do not believe that will ever happen to the United States. I believe there will always be a majority in this body that will continue to support our space program and supporting the future. That is to so great a degree what our space program is about, looking on ahead into the future, taking the risks and willing to look on into the unknown.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is a picture of a family from my congressional district, specifically the town of Palm Bay, the town that I live in on Florida's east central coast, an area we call the Space Coast because of Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral being there. This is the Auger family, a middle-class family. Here we have Jim Auger. He is a plumber. We see him there with his wife and his three kids. They have a family income of less than $40,000. Jim juggles his roles as husband and plumber, and his wife, of course, is very busy with the household chores. I believe she also earns some extra income cutting hair. They have 3 kids. I want to talk a little bit about the kids. The oldest boy is Christopher. There is Christopher there. Then they have Anthony and their daughter Denae. She is 10 years old. Of course also they have the two dogs Bridget and Oreo.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I think this one is Oreo actually. I think I may have gotten that one wrong. I want to talk a little bit about what the Republican tax cut package actually means for them and how it will specifically affect this family, because it means a lot to this family. In fact, it means a lot for all families like the Augers, and the importance of this vote cannot be overemphasized. Indeed, I think it may be one of the most important votes that we will cast in this Congress. It is not always easy for Jim to look out for his family and to make ends meet, especially when so much of his hard earned money goes to the Federal Government. Indeed, like most middle class working American families, Jim sends more to the Federal Government than what he spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined, which is a very significant, important fact for many American families. What they will receive with this middle-class tax cut package is very important. They will receive $500 for each child. The gentleman from Minnesota has another picture of the family. I think what they are doing there is playing Pictionary at that particular moment. They are not trying to fill out their IRS forms and figure out how they are going to make ends meet. They are actually enjoying themselves there.