Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 3396, the Defense of Marriage Act, I rise in strong support of the bill. We must work to strengthen the American family, which is the bedrock of our society. And, marriage of a man and woman is the foundation of the family. The marriage relationship provides children with the best environment in which to grow and learn. We need to work to restore marriage, and it is vital that we protect marriage against attempts to redefine it in a way that causes the family to lose its special meaning. In the 1885 case of Murphy v. Ramsey, the U.S. Supreme Court defined marriage as the ``union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.'' Unfortunately, the courts of Hawaii are in the process of deciding if the State is going to sanction marriages between people of the same sex despite the Hawaiian people's clear rejection of such a policy change. The repercussions could be felt by the Federal Government and the other 49 States almost immediately. The full faith and credit provisions of the Constitution, article IV, require recognition of the ``public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings'' of each State. However, Congress has the authority to prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. Federal policies could be dramatically affected by the Hawaii decision since the Federal Government generally recognizes State documents in granting benefits and privileges to married individuals. Veterans' benefits, labor policies, Federal health and pension benefits, and Social Security benefits are just a few of the areas that would be subjected to substantive revision if Congress does not act soon. I think it would be wrong to take money out of the pockets of working families across America and use those tax dollars to give Federal acceptance and financial support to same sex-marriages. Without the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, this would be the case. The American people clearly recognize the importance of protecting the sanctity of marriage. We should not be forced to give public sanction to relationships that clearly fall outside the scope of our Nation's traditional understanding of marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. This act will protect the institution of marriage which has been and will remain the foundation of Western civilization.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Lowey amendment. I speak up not so much as a scientist who had done basic science research or a physician who has actually studied embryology but mainly as a concerned citizen. This is clearly a very controversial issue. I think it is inappropriate to use taxpayers funds for this kind of a purpose, and it is a very dubious scientific benefit, contrary to some of the claims that have been made by the gentleman from California as well as others. I can even quote from people who were involved in studying this issue. Dr. Brigid Hogan, a scientific expert on the NIH Human Embryo Research Advisory Panel, said: ``We are not going to be curing anybody of these tumors by doing research. On the other hand, the basic biology is extremely interesting.'' That is what we are talking about funding here, a very controversial, ghastly subject according to many Americans, including myself, and it is just going to be very, very interesting. Furthermore, we have a quote from Daniel Callahan, president of the Hastings Center, which is an IVF institute. He said: The NIH advisory panel ``report notes that four countries already allow embryo research and that it has been going on for some years in private laboratories in this country. Yet not a single actual benefit derived so far from that research is cited to back the claims of great potential benefits from having even more of it.'' We are not outlawing this research. We are saying we are not going to use Federal dollars for that purpose.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 294, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. You are truly a gentleman for doing that. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on an issue that I think is of critical importance to the people in my district, and that is the people who I believe truly are the forgotten people, and those are the people that work day in, day out to try to struggle to make ends meet. It is really a privilege to be in this body, it is really a privilege to try my best to represent the people of my district. But one of the things that bothers me and that honestly I am sick and tired of is that there are thousands of people in my district who I honestly feel are ignored, their concerns, their interests are overlooked by the politicians in this city. They are the people who dad works, dad works two jobs to try to make ends meet, mom is working as a cashier at the supermarket to try to make ends meet, and honestly at the end of the month, at the end of the day, they frequently do not have enough money to try to pay for the things that they need. They are trying to set aside money for college, and they cannot do it. They do not know how they can pay for braces for the kids. The car needs new tires, and they do not have enough money after they pay the rent. They do not have enough money after they buy the food to be able to put new tires on the car. So what do they do? They drive around with a car that needs new tires. And one of the biggest problems for these working families is the burden of the taxes that forces them to have to put mom out to work when she does not want to or forces dad to have to work that second job and, as a consequence, he cannot spend the time with the kids that he really needs to. We Republicans, we were trying to do something about that this year. We put forward a $500 per child family tax credit. Those families today in America, typically the working family today in America, they are sending 25 percent of their income to Washington, DC, and 40 years ago when I know when my mom and dad were raising us, when I was a kid growing up, they were sending 4 percent or 2 percent of their income to Washington, DC. It is the burden of government, of the bureaucracy, of the programs after program after program, the wasted money that is shackling and hurting our working families in this country. So we put forward a $500 per child tax credit, a tax credit that I thought was really going to help some of those working families, working families like the Tanner family in my district, who Bill Tanner works as an electrician. His wife, Anne, just recently had their fifth child, and our $500 per child tax credit would have meant $2,500 more for Bill and Anne Tanner to put toward the new tires on the car, to put towards money for college for the kids, to help them make ends meet. The President of the United States, he opposed us on that $500 per child tax credit after he ran in 1992 promising a middle-class tax cut, and we put forward a reasonable proposal, and the Democrats in this body opposed us on that $500 per child tax credit. I think it is wrong for politicians to come up here to Washington and say that they are working hard and they are fighting for those working families, those families that are having trouble making ends meet, and what happens, what is the end result: that they oppose the proposals that we are trying to put forward to honestly try to help them. They even opposed us on the balanced budget. The economists tell us if we could balance the budget, interest rates in this country could drop 2 percentage points. What that means for those working families is a car loan that is 2 percentage points less, a mortgage that could be 2 percentage points less. That can translate for those working families into more money in their pocket, and that is money again that they could turn around and use for their families. This government has gotten too expensive. It has gotten to be too costly. Oliver Wendell Holmes said that taxes are the price we pay for civilized society. I believe that the price is too high and that working families in this country need a break. The President and the Democrats in this body need to change their position on this issue. They need to support the family child tax credit. They need to support our balanced budget effort.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, before I speak on the issue of working families and what is happening to working families in my district and what I think is happening to working families all over the Nation, I yield briefly to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] to make some additional comments about the Wisconsin welfare reform plan and Republican plans to truly reform welfare, to stop talking about reforming welfare and actually start doing it. wisconsin's welfare reform plan

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 293, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to encourage my colleagues to support this important appropriations bill this evening. Not only does this bill fund important housing and veterans programs, it funds the critical scientific research and development efforts of our Nation. Among those efforts funded are those of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], the world's premier space agency. My district is home to one of NASA's key centers, the Kennedy Space Center [KSC], the launch site for all U.S. human space flights. KSC and other NASA centers are unique national assets, but their future is threatened by continued efforts to reduce and eliminate funding for critical human space flight programs, most notably the space station program. Despite having expressed strong, bipartisan support for the International Space Station only a few weeks ago, the House is once again being asked to vote on funding for the Space Station. These perpetually unsuccessful efforts to cripple the space station only create uncertainty for NASA and our international partners and unnecessarily tie up the House. You will hear many of the same arguments from opponents that you heard last month. But nothing has changed since then. The program is still on schedule and within budget. The scientific value of the space station has not diminished since last month. The Space Station still represents the forward-looking, future vision of our country. Don't be fooled by these so-called savings. In fact, any reduction in funding now would cause cost growth equivalent to double the so-called ``savings'' due to schedule delays in the production of space station components. We should keep our commitment to NASA and the American people by fully funding the space station. You should also recognize that any attempts to reduce or transfer funding for the space station are only thinly-veiled efforts to fatally cripple the program. These cuts would devastate a program that has succeeded in staying on schedule and within budget. In fact, over 100,000 pounds of hardware have been produced so far, and we are only 17 months away from the first launch to begin construction. It's time once and for all to show our support for the program and let NASA and our international partners do their jobs. I urge you to support the space station and to strongly oppose any efforts to terminate or reduce funding for this important program. Further, I want to point out that that there are several amendments to the bill tonight that would result in ``across-the-board'' cuts in the VA/HUD funding measure. While some of these cuts may fund worthwhile programs, these cuts also severely impact critical programs like the space shuttle and space station. I strongly urge my colleagues to suppose any such cuts so we can avoid weakening our Nation's human space flight effort. NASA has already done a significant amount of voluntary downsizing, and it can truly serve as a model for other parts of the Federal Government as we reduce the size and scope of government. However, NASA can take no further cuts in this year's budget. It is imperative that NASA receive the funding level proposed by the Appropriations Committee. Our children and grandchildren will thank you for supporting NASA and supporting their future.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when talking about children, there are significant differences between Democrats and Republicans. Republicans do not believe it takes Washington bureaucrats and spending to raise a child. But after 30 years of a failed welfare system, a rapidly failing public education system, and a deteriorating justice system, Republicans have a different answer. What it takes to raise a child successfully today is quite simple: two responsible parents. What children need is not more Government spending but a mother and a father who care about them. When talking about children, Republicans begin with three principles: First, that the moral health of a nation is no less important than its economic or military strength. The fact is, you cannot have a healthy moral environment to raise children in America when 12-year- olds are having babies, 15-year-olds are killing each other, 17-year- olds are dying of AIDS, and 18-year-olds are graduating with diplomas they cannot read. If we are to restore the moral health of America, this behavior has got to stop. Second, it is the results, not the rhetoric, that counts. Anyone can sound compassionate, but the truly compassionate are those that go out and find ways to make the lives of our children more happy and healthy. And third, we must be willing to face ourselves in the mirror and be honest with the American people about the failure of the Washington welfare system to help those who need it most. It is our responsibility as elected officials to acknowledge that Washington got it wrong, so that next time we can get it right. The welfare trap in this country literally enslaves generations of Americans on Government assistance by depriving hope, diminishing opportunity, and destroying the lives of our precious children. Just look at our inner cities. You will meet a generation fed on food stamps but starved of nurturing, hope, and basic education. Yet every year Washington spends more money on more welfare programs, expanding the welfare trap from one child to another, from one generation to another. What the Democrats do not understand is that raising more taxes to expand a welfare system that does not work now will only make matters worse later. And welfare is not the only problem facing children. Among industrialized nations at the start of this decade, we had the most murders, the worst schools, the most abortions, the highest infant mortality, the most illegitimacy, the most one-parent families, the most children in jail, and the most children on Government aid. A Washington-based social policy does not help children. It destroys them. It does not keep families together. It tears them apart. Instead of turning urban areas of America into shining cities on a hill, it has made them into war zones. We have spent $7 trillion on welfare-related programs, and yet we have more poverty, more crime, more drug addiction, more broken families, and more immoral behavior. The Washington welfare system is broken and needs to be shut down. We need to start over. But there are alternatives that are less expensive and work better than the current system. Why does Habitat for Humanity work so much better than HUD? Because Habitat for Humanity first requires recipients to learn the responsibility of home ownership, then requires them to build a home for someone else, and only then do they build their own home. What does HUD require? Absolutely nothing. Do you see the difference? The private charity requires something of the individual. The current Washington-based welfare system demands no responsibility, no work ethic, no learning, no commitment, and in the end, no pride. What we need are local solutions that involve local citizens working with local children. Spending more on the current Washington welfare system will not help children. We have to rebuild parents, families, and communities, but you cannot do it from Washington. It has to be done at home, in school, and at church. But it is also time we tackle the problem of American culture. Think of what your own children will be watching on television tonight. Think of what they will see at the movies this weekend. It is wrong, it's harmful, and we cannot tolerate it any longer. It's time to challenge the entertainment industry to end its decadent slide. What we tolerate today would have been unacceptable 25 years ago. And so the question for America is whether we move into the future, or remain in the past. Do we demand more from parents, or do we leave it to Washington to solve all our ills? Do we return control of education to the local community, or do we run education from a Federal department in Washington? Do we change the welfare system and restore hope and optimism to the next generation, or do we continue to accept the welfare world of dependency, illegitimacy and despair? And most importantly, do we make a real commitment to improve the lives of children across the country, or do we use children as political pawns in the upcoming election?

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the comments of the gentlewoman who just spoke. The Reagan administration was not responsible for those huge deficits. It was this House, the liberal Democrats in this House, who repeatedly served up to that President increasing levels of spending, the creation of new programs and new departments, which President Reagan repeatedly vetoed those appropriations bills, and it resulted in the Government being closed down. Yes; the Government was closed down 17 times during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Why? Because the liberal Democrats in the House wanted to spend more money. Mr. Speaker, for the first time, we have a House of Representatives that wants to spend less and a liberal Democrat President in the White House who is closing down the Government with his vetoes because he wants to spend more money. We need to set the record straight for the American people. Those deficits that were created in the 1980's were created while Federal revenues to the Treasury increased $600 billion. It is because this House of Representatives spent $800 billion more over that time period, creating the hugest deficits this Nation has ever known.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, in 1976, Bill Sample had a dream. Today, that dream is marking its 20th anniversary and 21,000 special children have had their own dreams come true because of him. Twenty years ago this November, Sample, then a Philadelphia police officer, was assigned to protective duty at a children's hospital. Among the patients were a large number of chronically and terminally ill children suffering from such afflictions as cancer, cystic fibrosis and kidney disease. Sample came to know many of the children as well as their families who had been drained financially and emotionally. Sample reasoned that the couldn't do anything to make the children physically better, but, just maybe, he could make some of their dreams come true. From this idea was born the Sunshine Foundation, the first such ``dream makers'' organization. Today, the expanding organization, made up almost entirely of volunteers, has its home base at the Sunshine Foundation's Dream Village in Loughman, Florida, minutes from Orlando. Sunshine Foundation has 29 chapters from coast to coast. In 1990 the first Dream Village opened on a 21-acre site just minutes from Disney World. The Dream Village is a unique facility, specially designed for Sunshine's children. It includes a spacious community room (complete with game room, fireplace and other amenities), a fully handicapped-accessible playground and swimming pool, an orange grove and seven individually designed family cottages. In all of the seven cottage, each of the children's bedrooms has been decorated with an animated ``fantasy theme'' which adds to the magic of the experience. The Sunshine Foundation has brought a ray of sunshine to children afflicted with a variety of conditions including cancer, cystic fibrosis, leukemia, AIDS, muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy and heart defects. The foundation recently decided to include children who have been physically and/or sexually abused. When the Sunshine Foundation provides children with their dream to visit central Florida attractions, they are accompanied by their immediate family. The children and their families are housed at the Dream Village with all expenses paid for by the foundation. Dreams are limited only by the children's imaginations. These have included meeting celebrities, special vacations, gifts of computers, as well as attending such events as the Super Bowl and World Series. In order to accommodate larger numbers of less seriously ill children, the Sunshine Foundation established ``Dreamlifts.'' To date, 47 Dreamlifts on 59 chartered planes have taken more than 8,000 children from special schools, hospitals and institutions all over the country to Disney World or Disneyland. Sunshine provides transportation, admission, meals and souvenirs. In 1981, the Sunshine Foundation added one more ingredient to its ``dream'' program. Children with Hutchinson-Gilford Syndrome, better known as Progeria, and their families were flown to the United States from all over the world for a reunion. Progeria is an extremely rare affliction characterized by premature aging. This assembly enables the children to interact with their peers and reduces their sense of isolation while allowing parents and siblings an opportunity to share experiences and mutual concerns. To date, Sunshine has sponsored 14 annual reunions and has another one scheduled for this month. On its 20th anniversary, the Sunshine Foundation has a record to be proud of: answering the dreams and wishes of more than 21,000 chronically and terminally ill children from all 50 States and many foreign countries. Mr. Sample's dream of helping terminally and chronically ill children to realize their dreams has become a reality through the good work of the Sunshine Foundation. I commend the Sunshine Foundation of 20 years of unselfish giving.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman, and let me just reiterate that I think we all share a desire to have the proper level of funding in this important account which pays the staff for NASA. They are a very, very hard-working work force, very, very dedicated to the future of our space program. I know in my particular district, I have Kennedy Space Center, the launch center for NASA, and we have the shuttle program there, we have a very, very dedicated work force. By restoring these funds, I think we are sending a message that we support the staff, we support the personnel and we recognize them for the outstanding job that they have been doing. amendment offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner to the Amendment Offered by Mr. Weldon of Florida

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I want to do a little bit of explanation as to what has been going on here. I think we all, on both sides of the aisle, share a desire to see this account restored to avoid any possibility of any furloughs and any significant financial shortfall on the part of NASA in terms of paying their employees. The issue and the debate that has been going on is how do we do this in a fashion that is consistent with our responsibility to stay within the budget to fulfill our obligation to get the budget balanced, the commitment that we have made to the American people, and in that sense come up with appropriate offsets that do not adversely affect any other accounts in excess, and something that is consistent with the overall philosophy of the committee in terms of what our investment in future science and technology is.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed, I believe the gentlewoman will agree my amendment is a good amendment. The bill on the floor of the House has a shortfall for NASA personnel funding. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Chairman Walker, and I, as well as the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Stockman, have worked hard to find a way to overcome the shortfall. My amendment would avoid possible furloughs of NASA employees, which would adversely affect every NASA center and every NASA program by restoring all of the funding shortfall. It provides for full offsets so there is no impact to the budget. Specifically, my amendment increases funding for NASA program management by $81.5 million. It fully offsets the increase by decreasing funding in space science by $60 million, cutting $8.5 million from NASA's travel account, and cutting $13 million from various other accounts. Even with my amendment, the space science account, which I know is an important account for the ranking minority member, still receive a net increase of $250 million above NASA's fiscal year 1997 request. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have referred to the need to fix the shortfall, and my amendment would do just that. I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support my amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be replaced with a new amendment.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the subcommittee chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this traditional rite of spring, to oppose the Roemer amendment and speak out in support of the future, in support of our children, in support of the space station. I would like to address several of the arguments that have been made by the people who would favor killing our space station. One of them is that they bring out articles and quotations from bench researchers that say, no, do not spend the money on space station, spend the money on my research. I have done bench research. I have done life sciences research. I can tell my colleagues they could go into any university anywhere in the United States and say, ``Would you rather we spend $17 billion on the station or on more bench research?'' And they would gladly say, ``Give us the money for more bench research.'' The question before us is, is that the more appropriate use of our resources? Another point that is being made by the opponents of the space station is this $90 billion figure. The space station is costing $17 billion to construct. The $90 billion figure comes from a GAO study where they added in the cost of running the shuttle program for those 7 years and the cost of all the research on the space station. This would be equivalent, in my opinion, to saying to go out to dinner with your wife and see a movie does not cost $30, you have to factor in the cost of paving the roads to get back and forth from the restaurant and the cost of heating or cooling your house while you are in the restaurant. This kind of accounting is very, very deceptive. The truth is the space station is on time and on budget, and there are very, very few programs run by this Federal Government that can make that claim. The space station program has been through downsizing. NASA has been through downsizing, and they have learned to be able to be lean, mean and efficient. This program is on time and it is on budget. What this program is about is about the future. When we look at the cost of the space station and compare it to what we are going to spend over the next 7 years on defense, on health care, on roads and highways, this comes out to be less than 0.1 percent. I think it is about 0.01 percent of what we as a Nation are going to spend. The American people have said over and over again over the past 5, 6, 7 years, yes, we want to make this investment in the future, because that is what this is all about, the future. I am told by teachers in my district that there is nothing that we can get children more excited about in the area of math and science than talking about space and manned space and the future. Support the station, vote ``no'' on the Roemer amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman. I will try to make my comments briefly. Mr. Chairman, this has been a lengthy debate. I think it has been fairly productive. I just want to explain a little to my colleagues how we got into this situation. Our staff on the committee sat down with the NASA officials and were given figures on the amount of money they needed for the support of their staff, the full-time equivalents. Then 2 days before we went to committee markup, they came in with a whole new set of numbers and said they needed $81.5 million more. It is true that the ranking member did seek in his substitute to restore that money, and I commend him for that. But he also sought about $1.5 billion additional of spending that we did not have. It would amount to borrowing more money from our children to pay for what we are doing now. I think that was irresponsible, and his substitute was defeated in committee, as it was on the floor. Nobody on the minority side presented an amendment that would exclusively restore this account. Mr. Chairman, I have been working diligently with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], with the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker], as well as with the chairman of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies, the gentleman from California, Mr. Jerry Lewis, to make sure these funds are restored. I think my amendment, with the perfecting amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], is a good, reasonable, responsible way to accomplish the goal. And we all agree on the goal, we just disagree on how we do it. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote in support of the Weldon-Sensenbrenner amendment.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I would just like to say, in response to the ranking minority member's comments, the tax reductions that we were trying to get through the House last year, which I think were vitally needed, provided tax cuts to families with children. The data on this is very clear. Young families trying to raise kids today now send a quarter of their income to Washington, DC, whereas 40 years ago they sent about 5 percent. It is many of those young families that are under the most stress. We also had a capital gains relief package that was going to provide very, very badly needed jobs in my district, which has been hard hit by defense cuts as well as 2,000 jobs that were eliminated at Kennedy Space Center between 1990 and 1994 when about $1 billion was taken out of the shuttle program. So I think the Republican budget priorities are sound priorities.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Committee on Science.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of difficulty with President Clinton's real commitment to our Nation's space program. We have all heard his official position, but how does that compare with the demonstrated position? On the one hand, his science adviser says the President steadfastly opposes any cuts in science and technology. That came from Jack Gibbons on March 29. Vice President Gore said the President's 1997 budget will provide generous funding for science and technology. But if we look at what the President does to NASA's budget, if we look at what the President actually does, rather than what he says or his staff says, we get a different picture. Mr. Speaker, the President made dangerous, deep cuts in NASA'S long- term budget. We can see on this graph that I have here, the House budget does decline NASA's budget slightly over 7 years in the effort to balance the budget, but the President's cuts are very, very deep and I believe seriously undermine our ability to have an effective and growing investment in science and technology. Indeed, the President puts a lot of investment in a program that I think is of some questionable scientific value. One has to wonder about the foundations of his space policy. I believe the future of space exploration lies in programs such as our international space station and continuing our investment in the shuttle program, as well as developing new launch vehicles. I know what would happen to our space program if the United States were left with the kind of budget that the President is proposing here. It would just be a shell of a program. Our nation is a space-faring Nation. We are an exploring Nation. If we look at the history of the great nations of the world and what happened to many of them when they stopped exploring and they stopped reaching out, they began to shrink. They began to diminish. They began to become less of a significance in the world. And they went on, to quote President Ronald Reagan frequently, into the dustpan of history. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the $2 billion that the President wants to cut out of NASA's budget is setting the stage for that kind of development for our Nation. I believe what the House is doing is the responsible thing. We all know everybody has to play a role in balancing the budget, and everybody has to do their part. It is wrong, it is immoral, to keep saddling our children with excessive amounts of debt. The debt burden, as we all know, today is huge, $5 trillion; something like $18,000 for every man, woman, and child. NASA has stepped up to the plate and has been able to continue doing what it has been doing in the past with fewer people. The men and women of NASA have done a yeoman's job in being able to continue the shuttle program, continue to allow it to fly safely, continue the space station on schedule and on budget, as well as continue investment in science research. But what the President is proposing, Mr. Speaker, I think would be devastating to our space program, and is just wrong. I believe that the President's budget proposal is the wrong approach to our science program. Mr. Speaker, I would say that we could almost describe his space policy as being lost in space. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage all my colleagues to support our House budget resolution on NASA. It is the right proposal. It is a proposal that would allow us to continue our crucial investment in the space station, in the shuttle program, in the development of a new launch vehicle, and would not devastate the program, as the President is proposing.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the chairman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Employee Commuting Flexibility Act which is a good piece of legislation that we really should be talking about which allows employees to use the company car to go home, saves fuel, and is good for the environment, but instead we keep talking about the minimum wage. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle suddenly in this election year have all this compassion for the minimum wage workers. What they do not seem to have compassion for is all of the people that they are going to unemploy by mandating from Washington, that their salary goes up. The gentleman from Indiana said it previously. Thousands and thousands of people have lost their job every single time the Congress raised the minimum wage. Every economist report except one reports that people have lost their job. But I do not think you care about them losing their job. You care about getting reelected. You care about who is in control of this body. That is why you are making a big deal out of it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I take the gentleman's place.