Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote no on the Harman amendment. I can bring some perspective to this issue because I was in the United States Army Medical Corps when President Reagan ordered that abortions stop in military facilities, an order that was reversed by Bill Clinton in 1993; and then this Congress corrected it. I can tell my colleagues that the men and women, the doctors and nurses in the Army Medical Corps supported the President because they did not want to have anything to do with this procedure. And the reason the people in the healing arts do not want to have anything to do with this procedure is because they know what it is. Even those who claim to be pro-choice will say to me, I would never perform one. And the reason for that is very clear. It is the destruction of a human life. We have no business in this Congress having anything to do with supporting abortion at military facilities, and I strongly urge my colleagues, let us not roll the clock back. Support the language in the law, oppose the Harman amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, 52 years is a long time to wait, but the Federal Government should finally recognize the bravery and sacrifice of a group of World War II airmen who were held as German political prisoners. These airmen were different from other Allied prisoners because they were held at Buchenwald, a Nazi concentration camp--and therefore not subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention. Today I am submitting a bill that would give these airmen their long- overdue recognition, and I am proud to say that it has already garnered the bipartisan support of 21 of our House colleagues. Representative Peter Deutsch assisted me in this important effort, and I thank him for his early support of this bill. An identical bill will be introduced this week by Senators Tim Hutchinson and Joseph Lieberman. The Nazi concentration camps will forever occupy a ignominious place in our 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, the United States has never formally recognized the service, sacrifice, and bravery of these American airmen while they were held as political prisoners at the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. My bill, which is endorsed by the American Ex-Prisoners of War and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, would recognize these 82 American airmen and ask that the President issue a proclamation commending them, by name, for their service. I have also included a list of these airmen, by name, that I would ask be inserted in the Congressional Record. I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in support of this important measure, so that 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 surely deserve. List of WWII American Airmen Held at Buchenwald Concentration Camp

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Smith language and in very strong opposition to the Campbell-Greenwood amendment. I would like to clarify the debate at hand here. This is a funding issue, what are we going to do with our U.S. taxpayer dollars. While there are prohibitions against U.S. taxpayer dollars being used for purposes like providing abortions, for lobbying to overturn pro-life laws in foreign capitals, or to go to an organization that promotes the forced abortion issue that is going on in China, United Nations funds right now are going to China and they are using it to force women who do not want to have abortions to have abortions. Our colleagues will claim that that is OK and that they can play this numbers game, and they can use our U.S. taxpayer dollars to provide condoms or other contraceptive services and then use dollars from somewhere else for forced abortions, for providing abortions or lobbying to overturn abortion laws in foreign capitals. The Smith amendment very clearly just says we are not going to give it to those organizations, we do not want to give U.S. taxpayer dollars that come out of the pockets of hard-working Americans, millions of whom are pro-life, millions of whom are pro-life Catholics and Protestants who have a strong religious prohibition against this. We do not want to give our U.S. taxpayer dollars to those organizations. Why would we want to give U.S. taxpayer dollars to an organization that is going to do forced abortions in China, and then we are going to get up here on the floor of the House and smile and say, well, our dollars did not go for that purpose. I mean, what a joke. They have got $1 million in the account, and they get $500,000 from the United States and $500,000 from their private sources, and they say the $500,000 going for abortions comes from the private sources. I say support the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith] and support his amendment, vote against the Campbell- Greenwood amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have heard the other side characterize capital gains tax cuts so many times as tax cuts for the wealthy that I am truly baffled. I am baffled because I do not know if the other side persists in saying this because they simply do not know what they are talking about or because they know that bashing the rich is good politics. So, Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions for the other side. Does the other side believe that the role of capital in our economic system is unimportant? Put another way, can the other side conceive of a single thing, anything at all, that is more important to our economic growth than savings and investment? Do the Democrats believe that taxing savings and investment less will result in more of it? Does more savings and investment help create jobs or prevent them from being created? Does the other side pretend to believe that the poor will prosper if fewer jobs are created? Of course not. The other side is so obsessed, Mr. Speaker, with the possibility that rich people like Bill Gates and Tiger Woods might get richer that they would deny the poor an economy that produces more jobs for everyone. No wonder the voters are cynical.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Married Couples Home Sale Equity Act. This bill will correct an inequity in the Tax Code that unfairly penalizes married couples. Let's take Tom and Mary as an example. Tom and Mary have been married for 30 years and have lived in their home for 15 years. They are each over the age of 55 and have decided to sell their home now that their children are no longer at home. They want to move to a smaller home and use the money they have earned from the appreciation on their home for their retirement. They bought their home for $100,000 and it has appreciated to $350,000. When Tom and Mary sell their home, they are allowed a combined $125,000 exemption from capital gains taxes. This means they will have to pay capital gains taxes on the other $125,000. Let's take the exact same situation except we will assume that Tom and Mary chose not to marry but decided to live together outside of the bond of marriage. When Tom and Mary sell the home they are each entitled to exempt $125,000 from capital gains taxes for a total of $250,000. Thus they are exempted from having to pay any taxes at all, even though they realized the same gain on their home. The only differing factor is that they are not married. Our Government should be about the business of encouraging strong families, not penalizing them for staying married. We should do everything within our power to promote strong marriages and families. Correcting this inequity will help us do this. My bill gives both a husband and a wife $125,000 each upon the sale of their home, thus raising from $125,000 to $250,000 the total exemption available to married couples. This is the same level of exemption nonmarried individuals are entitled to and its time we treated married couples equitably. I encourage my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this bill. Let's help America's families. Let's encourage marriage and the stability it brings to our society and our children.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for those on the other side who constantly talk about tax cuts for the wealthy. Perhaps those on the other side are simply not aware of how important tax cuts on capital gains are to the middle class. Then again, maybe for liberal Democrats, the rich whom they despise so much, the wealthy whom they rail against so often, are simply code words for the middle class. Although those who produce the most, who work the hardest, or even those who are simply fortunate, are considered the enemy by liberal Democrats, their opposition to capital gains tax cuts is flat out contrary to the interests of the middle class. Mr. Speaker, are those on the other side aware that middle class Americans are pouring money into mutual funds as never before? In 1995, net assets for equity funds totaled $1.27 trillion, for bond funds, $798 billion. The typical mutual fund holder has a family income of less than $60,000 a year. Listen to this: Of all of the shareholders, two-thirds have less than $75,000 family income. The bottom line, a cut in the capital gains rate is a tax cut for the middle class.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Gekas amendment will insure the American people against a government shutdown in the event the President and the Congress reach an impasse on the budget. The funding level of 100 percent of last year's funding will ensure stability until a final budget is worked out. Last year's government shutdown wasted billions of dollars. We paid thousands of Federal employees who did not work during the shutdown. I say we should keep them on the job to start with. The Gekas amendment is the only way we have to guarantee this. There is no reason, there is no commonsense reason for voting against this amendment. Finally, some say it is not appropriate to add it to the CR for natural disaster relief. I think this is the most appropriate place. This CR will help us avoid a man-made disaster, a government shutdown on September 30 of this year. Also, I would like to point out to my colleagues from Florida and the Gulf Coast, September is the hurricane season. The only thing worse than a hurricane is a hurricane during a government shutdown. Let us insure ourselves against a double dose of disaster. Support the Gekas amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. WELDON of Florida. One of the things I am concerned about, if the gentlewoman will yield further, is that while there are many Members in this body such as the gentlewoman, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Smith], who are very concerned about this situation, the issue is not really being taken very seriously by the administration. It really is their responsibility, they run the State Department, to bring pressure to bear on the Communist Chinese.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I would like to associate myself with the gentlewoman's remarks. I have been very concerned about the status of this gentleman. Is the gentlewoman familiar with any efforts on the part of the Clinton administration to intervene on his behalf up until this point?

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer], and the point I was trying to make with the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi] is that this is an arena or area where leadership from the White House I think is very essential, and I do not believe we are getting that kind of leadership from the administration. I think the leadership is coming from this body, Members like the gentlewoman from California, like the gentleman from Maryland, the gentleman from Virginia, and there is a vacuum in this cause of human rights, and when we have a high ranking State Department official meeting with somebody and then immediately afterward an arrest occurring and then there is really no outcry coming from the Office of the President, the President of the United States himself, that is a problem, and I think it is incumbent upon us, and particularly people within the President's party, to bring pressure to bear on him to take a more aggressive role in this issue and speaking out on it. Mr. Speaker, the last Democrat President who occupied the White House, Jimmy Carter, had a very, very strong record on doing this, and he would aggressively move on these issues, and I believe we are not seeing the kind of leadership that we need from the White House on this, and I very much appreciate, needless to say, the comments that the gentlewoman has made because this issue is very disturbing to me when we are having a vote coming up in the next month on MFN for China. It is going to be very difficult for people to justify this in the light of the human rights violations that are occurring in China.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my 5 minutes I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], if I may.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out about an important initiative that I will be supporting next week and have been supporting up until now, which is an effort to avoid another Government shutdown. There is a disaster appropriations bill that should be coming to the floor next week, and I support an initiative to attach a feature to that appropriations bill that would be a safety measure to avoid another Government shutdown. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas] has been the primary mover behind this, and I rise to speak out strongly in support of this initiative. I believe that the Government shutdowns that we had last year were generally agreed by people on both sides of the aisle as well as the President and the Vice President to have been counterproductive and to have been something that we should have avoided. And we have an excellent opportunity right now to attach an amendment to this appropriations bill that simply stated what it would do is, it would in the event that we cannot reach agreement with the White House on an appropriations bill, that the Government would stay open at a given funding level, whether it is 100 percent or 98 percent of the previous year's funding level, so that we do not get into this scenario where the Government is shut down. Mr. Speaker, as many Americans know, on September 30, the previous year's appropriation bill expires, and we need a new appropriations bill to go into effect on October 1. This continuing resolution or safety measure that I am talking about tonight would simply keep the Government open. A safety CR would ensure that on October 1 all of the appropriations bills that have not been signed into law, such as those that fund the Veterans' Administration, NASA, the Social Security Administration, to make sure Social Security checks continue to get funded, as well as other programs that affect retirees, all Federal agencies that would be covered by this safety CR would be able to stay open at that level of funding which they received last year or, if it is agreed, to be slightly below the previous year's level of funding. I think that this measure has several good, important features, one of which, it ensures that both Congress and the President negotiate in good faith and that they do not use a threat of a Government shutdown as a bargaining tool or bargaining chip, so to speak. Let me answer a couple of questions first off. Many people are asking, is this a new concept? Is passing a continuing resolution a new concept? No, it is not. We have passed 53 different continuing resolutions in the Congress since 1982. So this is not a new concept at all. I believe that this is good preventative medicine. Some people are asking, why is it really needed? Well, last year we experienced several Government shutdowns, and we all agreed that it was just a very, very ineffective thing to do. I believe that this continuing resolution attached to the disaster bill makes good sense. I believe that the Government shutdowns in many ways was a disaster for many of the agencies that were affected by it. And by passing this safety CR, attaching it to the supplemental bill that will come up next week, we will make sure that the Government stays open and many of the people who are dependent on the Federal Government in many ways will continue to be able to have, whether it is in the form of a Social Security check or whether it is in the form of disaster relief, they will be able to continue to use those resources. Therefore, I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as well as the White House to support the safety CR.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Well, actually it could be 10 percent, it could be 5 percent.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this is something we can revisit in the future. We can get some testimony. I am on the committee with the gentleman.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I think what we are proposing here is a very reasonable solution to the issue at hand. I think we can get testimony in the future on this issue, and if there needs to be more flexibility given to the housing authority, I think we will be able to do that. Amendment offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida to the Amendment offered by Mr. Jackson of Illinois

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I will not consume the entire 5 minutes because I basically, I think, have made my case. I think there will be some situations in the housing authority where it may be appropriate for the housing authority to exempt some residents. My own personal opinion is the vast majority of the people in the housing authority will be able to meet this work requirement because it is ridiculously low. I started out saying, I used to have to work 24 hours a month to get a room the size of a walk-in closet. We have got people who are getting apartments with several bedrooms, a kitchen. They are getting free electricity, free heat, and the gentleman is saying they cannot work 2 hours a week. Come on. Give me a break. That is one Oprah Winfrey show, that they cannot find somebody to mind their kids for 2 hours within the authority. Now, there may be some situations where that would arise. I believe my exemption here would give the authority some flexibility to do that. I just want to comment on one thing. In Florida, we had welfare reform in Florida and in one of the counties in Florida there is a work requirement in the whole State. After 2 years they have to go to work. In one of the counties, they decided to set up a citizens panel to see if they were doing something wrong. They had these citizens review these cases of people being put off of welfare. On every single case they reviewed about 36 cases. They have put every single one of them off because the people were making absolutely no attempt to find a job. I think what we are doing here with my secondary amendment is we are giving the housing authority some flexibility. If there is a mom in the building who really legitimately cannot break away for 2 hours a week or 8 hours a month, you are talking about one 8-hour shift a month. I think this is a very, very fair and reasonable solution. I will say it again, I think 8 hours is too low. I have got an amendment I will offer, I think it should be 12 hours or more. I had to work 24 hours a month to get a room the size of a walk-in closet. Do my colleagues want to know something? In the dormitory I lived in, that was very competitive. All the students in the dorm wanted that. There was very, very vigorous competition for the privilege of getting a room the size of a broom closet in exchange for working 24 hours a month. So I think this perfecting amendment is a reasonable compromise to the concerns of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson]. If his concerns are that he does think that there are some people in the housing authority who will not be able to meet the work requirement, my amendment achieves that desired goal. I personally do not think that is the intent. The intent is to gut this. They do not want any work requirement.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think it is absurd to argue that 100 percent are not going to be able to eke out 2 hours a week or 8 hours a month.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that they would be able with this work requirement to create a child care facility within the housing project.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the intent here is that it is possible within the constraints the gentleman is describing----

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns on Monday, May 5, 1997, it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 6, 1997, for morning hour debates.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday next.