Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

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

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there are some people who will have a legitimate case that they cannot get away. There are some that do not.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I support the efforts of the gentleman from Illinois to bring this issue to a vote. Let me just say that my intention in offering this amendment was purely one that I felt there was some merits to what the gentleman was talking about. I wanted to give the housing authority the flexibility it needed to accommodate situations that the gentleman is describing.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I object.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I would point out to the gentleman that part of the work requirement would include child care; if there is a day care center in the project, that working in that child care center would qualify as a work requirement.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I believe that they will be able to make accommodations and they will be able to meet the work requirement, and I think it will serve the community extremely well. I think there will be enhanced community spirit. I think it will deal with a lot of the problems with vandalism in the housing projects. I think it will help deal with crime in the housing projects.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I just want to address the gentleman's amendment briefly if I may. I am prepared to offer a secondary amendment, a perfecting amendment to his amendment, but I just want to make a few general comments before we get into this. I am coming from this as a person who has lived in government housing. When I was in college, I got a free dorm room and I got that free dorm room in exchange for working 6 hours a week in the dorm. And I had to do that over and above and on top of my requirements as a college student. I was a biochemistry major, it was a very demanding curriculum. I had to take a lot of courses in chemistry, physics. I also had to work my way through college, so on weekends I had to work. As a matter of fact, I worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift on Friday days and Saturday nights at a local hospital. In exchange for that, I got a little room about as big as a walk-in closet. I think what we are trying to do here with this amendment is ask people to work substantially fewer hours than I had to work. I had to work about 24 hours a month. We are asking people to work 8 hours a month. As a matter of fact, I am going to have an amendment I will introduce later because I think 8 hours is too little. I am going to try to increase that with an amendment to 12 hours. I think the issue that we are bringing up right now, single moms, kids at home, I think that there is some legitimacy to that. I personally think in these housing authorities that people will be able to work together to say that somebody cannot find 2 hours a week to me is a little hard to swallow. I am prepared to offer a secondary amendment to the gentleman's amendment, and I have that at the desk right now, that would give the housing authority the authority to exempt up to 20 percent on the grounds that are being brought up. I think that is a very reasonable compromise here to the gentleman's proposal. I think there is some legitimacy to what we are talking about in that there will be, there is some legitimacy to what the gentleman is talking about. I think to have the housing authority given the ability to exempt a certain percentage of people on the grounds that the gentleman is talking about, that they are very burdened with the requirements of their kids, might I just add that I think this requirement ultimately will be good for many of those moms to get out and to actually do some work, contributing to their local community. I think we need to have some flexibility with the housing authority, and I think the gentleman's proposal should be allowed for a certain percentage. I would ask that the gentleman would consider my amendment. I think if the chairman will accept this and the gentleman will accept it, then we can move on to the other amendments.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. No. I was a college student.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to talk a little bit about some of the preceding debate that occurred today on the housing bill. Let me just say, though the debate was frequently very heated and sometimes tempers and passions were quite high, I believe personally that a lot of this is very good. We need to openly debate these issues. I rise this evening, Mr. Speaker, because I feel there were a number of points being made by the minority which were entirely inaccurate as they pertain to my opinion on this issue of a work requirement in the housing bill, and as they pertain, I believe, to our party, the Republican Party's position on a work requirement in the housing bill. I have experience living in government housing, living in a dormitory in a State university. It was no bigger than the average walk-in closet. I had to work 24 hours a month for the privilege of having that small dorm room. I believe it is perfectly reasonable to ask somebody who is living in a government-funded apartment to put in 8 hours a month of work time. Mr. Speaker, in our provision we exempt the elderly, we exempt the disabled, we exempt those people who are going to school, even if it is part-time, even a vocational school, and we exempt people that have full-time jobs and part-time jobs. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Jackson] had brought forward, I think, a reasonable, well-thought-out amendment to exempt virtually every single mom. Though I feel there was some merit to that, I felt that his amendment was unreasonably broad, but that it would be reasonable to give the housing authorities some flexibility to allow them to exempt some single moms. Many of the people on our side of the aisle felt that they should be able to eke out somewhere in their week 2 hours a week to devote to community service. Let me just say that I agree with that sentiment. There were sentiments expressed by the minority that this is some sort of mean-spirited attempt to hurt the poor. On the contrary, my motivation in this work requirement is very much one of wanting to help the poor. I believe by, in exchange for them getting government-funded housing, requiring them to go out and work and thus having them work, we will instill a work ethic in people. We will instill in them a sense of community, and I believe that the children of these people living in public housing will benefit from seeing their parent or parents actually working. This point was driven home to me so vividly when I met a gentleman when I was campaigning in 1994 who told me about a program that he had taken part in where he went into the housing projects and read to young children, because as many people know, the psychologists have shown that if you read to small children, you can improve their academic performance; that their reading scores will get better when they get older and that they will have just higher academic performance at school. So he was going in and reading to these little kids, most often children of single moms that did not have a father in the house. I remember him telling something to me one day that just totally broke my heart. He said that he once asked a group of these kids what they wanted to do when they grew up. I have told this story before on the floor of this House. They did not say ``I want to be a fireman, I want to be a doctor, I want to be a teacher.'' They said, ``I want to collect a check.'' I kid you not, Mr. Speaker. These little 4-and 5- and 6-year- old kids, they knew nothing other than their mom living in the project with them collecting a check, and that is the only thing they knew. We have what I think is a very reasonable requirement suggested to us by Secretary Cuomo, supported by the administration, to require people who are able-bodied, people who are not disabled, who are not working, who are not going to school, to require them to contribute to the community in the form of community service, in the form of working in the project. I think it is an excellent idea, and it is unfortunate that our intentions are frankly maligned. Our intention on this side of the aisle, the Republican majority, is to help these people by getting them out into the community and working, whether it is cleaning up, whether it is removing graffiti, whether it is volunteering for child care. I think any of those things is going to help instill a work ethic in people, and it is going to set a good example for their children to be able to see their mom or dad going out and being a part of the local community. I think it will go a long way to helping those communities.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday next.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, a medical colleague of mine, Dr. Vince Griffith, came up here with his daughter, Stacey, to testify before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure about a tragic accident on Florida's Highway U.S. 192 that robbed them of a wife and mother. Dr. Griffith awoke the next day in the hospital with his daughter next to him. Stacey's intestine was ruptured and her spine was snapped. His wife had died of massive internal injuries. This brave father and daughter joined Robert Lay, who supervises Brevard County's Emergency Management Office, in telling the panel how important it was to widen U.S. 192. Mr. Lay talked about the disaster awaiting the space coast if a major hurricane strikes and U.S. 192 is turned into a parking lot trapping tens of thousands of fleeing residents. I am grateful to all of these witnesses, but I am especially proud of Stacey Griffith, who is partially paralyzed and overcame her own fear to testify before Congress. I congratulate them and thank them for the hard work they are doing on behalf of the people of the space coast.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the change in language offered by the gentleman from Alabama. I have no intention to oppose this amendment, but accept this amendment. I am happy to craft the language in such a way that business incubators would be available at other NASA centers that currently are not taking advantage of this, I think an excellent tool to make sure that the technology that is developed within NASA is better transmitted out into the economy where it can accrue to the benefit of all the people of the United States.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Roemer amendment. We have heard a number of points made repeatedly today that I would like to address, one of them being that this project somehow costs $100 or $90 billion. To say that this project costs that much money would be similar to saying that the Louisiana Purchase did not cost $14 million. It cost billions of dollars for all of those settlers to move into the West and build all those cities. Included in that figure is the cost of all the shuttle missions and all of the research that is going to be done on the space station. It is very, very unfair to make those kinds of comparisons. We heard firsthand in our committee the tremendous amount of good quality scientific research that will be possible on the space station. We research into areas like the treatment of existing diseases, development of new technologies that can help deal with problems like spinal cord injuries and bone disease and heart disease. I would also like to point out that there have been a number of Members who have mentioned about all these cost overruns that have occurred in the program already. The vast majority of those cost overruns were caused by this body redesigning the space station over and over and over again. Once we, the House of Representatives, stopped monkeying with it, lo and behold, NASA has been able to stay on budget and on schedule. They have done a darn good job on it. Finally I would like to say one additional thing. I believe when Queen Isabella was approached about funding Columbus, there were those who said, no, no, no, do not do it. Each time he wanted to go back, there were people who said do not give him any more money. Likewise, during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Programs, I know that there were Members in this body, probably motivated by the fact that the program had absolutely no funding coming into their district, chose to oppose it and vote against it. I am sure none of those Members today would stand up and speak proudly of the fact that they were opposed to one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of American exploration. I encourage Members to vote against Roemer.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1275, the Civilian Space Authorization Act, and I commend both the chairman and the ranking member, as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], and the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], as well as the staff for putting together what I feel is a very well balanced and good piece of legislation. In particular, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman regarding the Russian participation in the space station and, in particular, in support of the leadership that has been demonstrated by him as well as the ranking member in regard to the continuing ongoing problems with the Russian participation in this space station. We have all been made aware on the committee, as well as many others in this body, of the tremendous potential that will come from the Space Station Program. We have heard testimony from scientists regarding the tremendous breakthroughs in our understanding of human physiology and disease, in particular as it relates to heart disease, bone disease, as well as the development of new drugs and our better understanding of the transmission of some infectious diseases, such as cholera. Despite all these exciting developments and the reality that the Space Station Program is well on track, our international partners, such as the Europeans and the Japanese, have spent well beyond $6 billion in preparing their hardware. A critical partner in this project, the Russians, who were brought into the program by the Clinton administration, have been failing to appropriate the necessary funds to fulfill their obligations associated with the program. Might I say that I feel very strongly that it is in the best interest of our country that the Russians participate in the program, and I would like to see them continue to do so. Reality is such that their economy has not allowed them to support this program, and I, along with the chairman of the subcommittee and the full committee, went to Russia in February and were able to see first hand the serious nature of their internal financial problems. What has been lacking in dealing with this problem associated with the program is, I believe, a failure of leadership on the part of the White House, and particularly the Office of the Vice President, to clearly define how we are going to get beyond this problem area so that this program can be completed on schedule. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate again the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] for their amendment that addresses this issue, and I am prepared to work with them to make sure that the space station goes on to become a reality, because I know first hand, as a practicing physician, the tremendous potential scientific benefits as well as medical benefits that we will see from this program. I also rise in support of many of the other features associated with the program, such as the ongoing funding for the shuttle program, X-33, the Venture Star, as well as X-34, an important test bed technology that will help us develop new technologies for use in space. I, additionally, want to rise in support of the space science features that are associated with this; and in particular, I want to thank the people at NASA, the men and women, who have worked very hard not only in helping us prepare this legislation but, as well, have been doing more with less for the past 5 years. There have been many departments within the Federal Government that have been complaining about receiving decreases in the size of their increase. Whereas, NASA has been doing things better, faster, cheaper for a long time; and that is because of the commitment of the men and women at all the NASA centers all throughout our country to making sure that they keep their programs running efficiently and effectively. I would like to rise in strong support of them and again commend the ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee for their hard work.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, during the vote on the Kaptur amendment my vote should have been recorded as a ``yea'' vote for the amendment. My vote was inadvertently recorded as a ``no'' vote and I would like for the Record to show that I was in favor of the Kaptur amendment. This amendment will provide small businesses and inventors with the protections that they need and deserve. Amendment Offered by Mr. HUNTER

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my concerns about H.R. 400, patent reform legislation. As the bill is currently drafted, I cannot support this legislation. While I appreciate the concerns by Members on both sides of this issue, I believe that H.R. 400 has some flaws that I cannot overlook. For the past 200 years, the U.S. patent system has been the envy of the world. I believe that H.R. 400 as brought to the House floor would significantly alter this system which has done so much throughout our history to make the United States the world's leading source of innovation. We must carefully guard against any changes that might adversely impact the United States. If major issues are not addressed during the debate on this bill, I will cast a no vote when we take a final vote on H.R. 400. I thank the chairman for giving me this opportunity to speak on this matter.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to increase the take-home pay of American workers. What could be done? We could cut the tax on job creation that would improve economic growth, create new jobs and more opportunities, or we could reform the Tax Code in a way that will give businesses a greater incentive to invest in new machinery and equipment that would improve productivity and raise wages. Or we could encourage greater investment in education and training, so workers could have more skills, be more productive, and earn higher wages. But the best way to increase the take-home pay is to do so directly. This is not rocket science. Raise take-home pay by allowing workers to keep more of their money that they earn. Mr. Speaker, millions of workers live paycheck to paycheck. A tax cut would allow that paycheck to go a little bit further, especially for those just getting by. It is time to give American workers a break. They need a tax cut.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak out in support of our Nation's space station effort. As most Americans are aware, we have been bending metal here in the United States and we are getting very close to putting aloft the first critical elements for the initial assembly of our space station; and as well, our international partners such as the Europeans, the Canadians, and the Japanese have invested billions of dollars in constructing their elements, and scientists all over the world, as well as school children all over the world, are looking forward to the first phases of this program. Unfortunately, however, in the space station redesign conducted by the administration in 1993, the Russian government was placed in the critical pathway, what we call the critical pathway for space station construction and assembly. They were put responsible with Russian tax dollars for the construction of the service module, an element that has contained in it the life support, attitude control and propulsion capabilities. Unfortunately, the Russians have not been paying for their part of the space station. They have demonstrated to the international community that they are an unreliable partner. Indeed, they have told us five times over the past year-and-a-half, I believe now six times over the past year-and-a-half that they will be putting the money into this program and they have failed to do so. As we all know here in this body, the Russians have very, very serious internal financial problems that have been created by their transition to a market economy, and they just do not have the rubles to pay their people to build their components to the space station. Now, the reason I rise today is to call on the administration, and in particular, I call on the Vice President, Al Gore, to rise to the occasion and demonstrate to the American people that he has the kind of leadership ability that we expect to see in a national leader like him, and to step up to the plate and explain to us how he is going to redefine the Russian involvement in this program. I do not believe this situation calls for another redesign of the space station. We have a good design as it is, and we need to stay on schedule and we need to make sure that this program is a success. But clearly, the Russians are not going to be able to be a full participant in the way that was originally defined. The time is ripe, the time is now, for the administration to come forward and, specifically for the Vice President, who has been tasked by the President to lead our Nation's space policy, it is time for the Vice President to step forward and explain to us how we are going to keep this program on track and to make it a success. Now, let me just make very clear that I would like to see the Russians somehow involved, but they have to be removed from the critical pathway. We cannot have this program dependent on them anymore. We need to do what we can to keep them involved. They have a lot to bring to the table in their knowledge of space flight and their engineering, but we do not want them to be in the critical flow where our space station, the international space station is dependent upon them, because they clearly do not have the money to do that. Now, there has been a proposal brought forward to take funds out of the space shuttle program and divert it into efforts to try to come up with a new interim control module that will serve as a fail-safe effort to make sure that this program is a success. I have very, very serious reservations about taking more money out of our space shuttle program. The space shuttle program has been cut drastically over the years. The space shuttle program has laid off hundreds, thousands of people in my congressional district, and that includes Kennedy Space Center, the home to our Nation's space shuttle, and I think it would be unwise for us to cut additional dollars out of the space shuttle program at this time. I believe that there are other areas within the NASA budget, such as the Mission of Planet Earth Program that I believe last year had over $1 billion of unexpended resources, and the year before that, $600 million of unexpended resources, a program that does not have critical safety issues associated with it. Specifically, we are not talking about human space flight here, we are talking about unmanned vehicles, unmanned satellites, studying the environment. A worthwhile program; nonetheless, a program that has clearly shown that it has extra money in it and a place where we could get the funds that we need to keep this program a success. So again, I call on the Vice President to rise to the occasion and do the right thing and preserve our Nation's space station program.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I rise in strong support of this legislation. I would like to reference my comments to some comments made earlier about not lying or calling each other liars. And there has been a lot of debate today with claims that this procedure is rare and only used in the setting of fetal deformities, and there is an abundant amount of information out there that shows that it is not rare. We have one clinic that is reported doing 1,500 in one clinic, and then there is also abundant evidence that in the vast majority of cases there are no fetal deformities. These are done on healthy infants, and the debate is involving are we going to respect the sanctity of the life of the child? It is not a decision just between a woman and her God. There is a third party involved in this. In many cases it is a fully developed normal child, and to repeat over and over again that it is rare and to repeat over and over again that the children, the babies, have fetal deformities is just wrong.