Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss one of the most important issues facing my constituents in east-central Florida. It is an undisputed fact that Medicare is running out of money and will be bankrupt in just 5 years. For me, this is not a partisan issue. This is a personal issue. I am a doctor and my patients depend on Medicare. I have a father who is dependent on Medicare. I know the value of this program for my patients and my family, and I am 100 percent committed to finding a solution to protect Medicare for current and future beneficiaries. As a medical doctor I've been disappointed that some have sought to use Medicare to gain political advantage. This is not a political issue. The Medicare trust fund began going broke last year, it is already $5 billion in debt this year, and will be completely broke in 5 years. We don't have time for politics as usual. I hear some talk about cuts in Medicare. There are no cuts in our plan. The plan I voted for increases Medicare spending from $5,200 per person in 1996 to $7,000 per person in 2002. That's an $1,800 increase in Medicare spending. We do want to spend smarter. We do want to attack waste, fraud, and abuse. We want to give seniors choices in health care. I urge those who have made this a partisan issue, to look beyond partisan politics and come to the table to work with us to do what is right for our seniors and future Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, I call for bipartisan efforts to restore and preserve our Medicare beneficiaries.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I believe that I can address this issue from a unique perspective in that I am a physician who participated in the health profession scholarship program. I worked my way through college, and I did not want to borrow money to go to medical school, and I was very attracted to the scholarship program. I remember distinctly sitting down in my parents' dining room and figuring out what it would cost me to borrow my way through medical school versus going into the military. Now, I have to say the main reason I went into the military was that I really felt the Good Lord was leading me to go in and serve my country and put the uniform on. And it was the best experience, I think, in my life. But I do not know if I would have done it if I had had a 7-year obligation, because when a doctor finishes his training and goes out into practice, he can typically pay off his student loans in about 4 years, and this 7-year requirement that the gentleman has added to his amendment, in my opinion, is going to make it very, very difficult for our armed services to recruit good quality physicians into the scholarship program. I additionally would like to point out that perhaps the DOD would only pay this much money for the students in the scholarship program, but this is really what it costs every medical school. There is lots of other money that goes into training a doctor, grant money that comes in, State money that come in, and, yes, other Federal moneys. So, in my opinion, this is an ill-conceived amendment, and I would encourage, as a former Army physician who participated in HPSP and worked with many of the armed services medical students, and they were some of the best doctors in the armed medical corps when I was in it, I would highly encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``no'' on the Klug amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, as was alluded to earlier, this is old ground we are going over today. This amendment has been defeated three times previously, and it is up again. I would urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the DeLauro amendment. I will say what I have said in the past. I am a former Army physician. I went into the military in 1981, and I can tell you that when I went in, we were very, very pleased with the Reagan administration policy banning abortions at military hospitals. The reason for that is because most doctors, even if they are pro-choice, most nurses, even if they are pro-choice, do not want to have anything to do with this procedure, because once you see it, you know exactly what it is. It is morally wrong to do it. People go into the military because they want to defend their country. They do not want to be involved with this business. I think it is really wrong to be dragging our military into this debate.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Bill Clinton was in high dudgeon yesterday at his press conference. This morning's Washington Times said it was ``An afternoon of flapdoodle and balderdash.'' That is probably an understatement. Yesterday, Bill Clinton accused Republicans of using a poison pill. Well, let's talk about Bill Clinton's poison pen. Bill Clinton's poison pen vetoed the first balanced budget to a reach President's desk in a generation. Bill Clinton's poison pen vetoed Medicare reform. Now, our grandparents risk seeing Medicare go bankrupt because of Bill Clinton wants to demagog the issue. Bill Clinton's poison pen vetoed the $500 per child tax credit that would have help millions of struggling families make ends meet. Bill Clinton's poison pen vetoed welfare reform. Not once, but twice. Millions of Americans will never know the dignity of work because Bill Clinton refuses to fix the failed welfare state. Instead of keeping his promises, Bill Clinton would rather use his poison pen to veto the wishes of the American people.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Congress will once again this week have an opportunity to support the International Space Station Program. This is an exciting project, Mr. Speaker, and not just because of the tremendous science capability of the space station, nor just because it is the largest cooperative international science project in history, and not just because of the inspiration it will bring to the children of our world. Mr. Speaker, any one of these reasons are exciting enough to stand on their own merit, but I want to tell you about another exciting aspect of the Space Station Program. The space station represents our first permanent step into the unknown. This is our Nation's foremost exploration program, and it holds unimaginable opportunities for exploring our last frontier. Throughout history, nations that cease to explore and expand their civilization eventually perish, and we must not let our Nation go down that path. Support our future. Support the space station.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my colleagues about one area of science that will be performed aboard the space station. Protein crystallography is a field of research that allows scientists to determine the structure of proteins that play critical roles in diseases. To use this technique, researchers must grow large, high-quality crystals of the protein. On Earth, gravity often causes the crystals to grow imperfectly, preventing scientists from developing new disease- fighting drugs. Protein crystals grown in space, as demonstrated on many space shuttle flights, are superior in quality and size to those grown on Earth. This means that researchers can better develop drugs to battle disease. In fact, protein crystal grown on the shuttle have already allowed researchers to develop drugs that are in FDA trials even as we speak. But the growth of many crystals requires more than a few days available aboard the shuttle. That is why we need the space shuttle. It will permit researchers to grow their crystals in a nearly perfect microgravity environment for long periods of time. Mr. Speaker, researchers from universities and companies around the world strongly support the international space station, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 145, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the House will be considering the authorization bill for NASA next week, which includes funding for the international space station. You will hear arguments from opponents of the space station. If their rhetoric sounds familiar, it should. They are the same arguments used last year, and the year before that, and the year before that. In fact, they are the same arguments used by opponents of any visionary project throughout history. Space station opponents are trying to sink our country's investment in the future. Opponents do not want you to hear that the space station is on schedule and on budget, or that nearly 90,000 pounds of hardware have been built by the United States and our international partners. Opponents of the space station want you to cut it because they claim we cannot afford it. I tell you now that we can't afford not to build the space station. We cannot turn our backs now on the men and women who have worked to make the space station and its promising future a reality. I urge everyone to support the international space station--a vote for the space station is a vote for our children's future.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I very much applaud you in your efforts to reassert the authority of the Constitution of the United States, because I feel very strongly that not just for years, but for decades, the language of our Constitution has been either subverted or totally ignored. There is probably no better example than the rampant, wanton, overwhelming number of regulations that have come from Federal bureaucrats that have tremendous impact on the day-to-day lives of American families who are very, very often just struggling to make ends meet. You were talking about tax policy before. What is so amazing to me is that the callous, casual attitude that many politicians have about raising taxes, when many families, they are on such a tight margin that those slight increases in taxes mean a cutback in their ability to plan for a vacation, to plan for higher education for their children, to plan for an expansion on their home. But getting back to the subject you were talking about, regulations, the other body, their Governmental Affairs Committee recently reported out that Federal regulations cost the average American household $6,000 annually in higher prices, diminished wages, and increased taxes or reduced services. Furthermore, under the Clinton Administration, there has been a record increase in the number of Federal regulations. They have increased at 4.6 percent per year during the Clinton administration. This is a record, it stands at an all time record of now 67,518 pages of regulations, 18 percent higher than what they were in 1992. Some people think this is just an abstract concept. But when you talk to a small businessman who is trying to start a new business and discovers that he has to fill out form after form after form of regulations dealing with multiple different layers of bureaucracy, and that inability to get himself started in his business frequently results in lost income for his family, and sometimes in bankruptcy, businesses not even being started, jobs not created because of the burden of Federal regulations, this indeed I think is one of the silent crimes of our government against our people, the fact that there has just been this endless amount of regulation issuing forth from Washington, DC.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just want to add to your comments about the so-called revolution. In my opinion, the revolution that people talk about here in Washington is nothing more than a dose of common sense coming from the people that you talk about, which is where the power truly lies with, a dose of common sense coming to the people of this city. This city is insulated from the people that put them here. This so- called revolution is nothing more in my opinion than the people that work in Washington at the bidding of the governed who elect them and put them here, finally having to start acting on some of these things that people have been crying out for for years and years and years and years, like reforming the Congress itself, making the Congress live under the laws that they have been passing on to the people. Madison, in Federalist Paper Number 37, which I am sure as a student of history as you are, J.D., you would know that he said in that federalist paper that the Congress should not be allowed to pass any law that does not have its full operation on themselves or on their friends. In reality, as we know from the past 25 or 30 years, they have repeatedly passed major pieces of legislation, including the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Leave Act, even the labor laws themselves and OSHA regulations they exempted themselves from. And OSHA regulations, they have exempted themselves from it. As I understand it, the people from OSHA right now are beginning to do their audits on all these buildings here on Capitol Hill, and that some of them have some very, very serious problems. And those problems would have never been recognized if it had not been for the fact that this so-called revolution, which I think is nothing more than common sense reform coming to this body and coming to this city, and it is something that the American people have been asking for for years and years.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, in 1988 we had a presidential candidate who pledged no new taxes and then in 1990 taxes were raised. Then in 1992 we had another candidate who campaigned on a middle-class tax cut and in 1993 he raised taxes. It should be no surprise to the minority Members in this room that now there are a new group of people in this Congress who want to actually require a three-fifths majority to raise taxes. I am told that if this law were in place, the majority tax increases over the past 15 years of 1982, 1984, 1987, as well as 1990 and 1993, would not have gone through. I think it is good to have a firewall of protection between the people's wallet and the Government of the United States. I support this amendment. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the amendment. We need this protection for the working people in the United States.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the Record. The Speaker of the House stated that he would like to see the Health Care Financing Administration, which is the big bureaucracy created by liberal Democrats in Washington that processes all the claims, he would like to see that wither on the vine, and the gentleman from Texas has misquoted the Speaker. I would also like to rise in support of medical savings accounts. One of the biggest reasons why we have terrible health care inflation in American is because the providers and the consumers, both the doctor and the patient, are not the ones picking up the tab, and in medical savings accounts, the patients suddenly become wise and discriminating consumers. Where medical savings accounts have been implemented, cost savings average 17 percent. A 17-percent reduction in our health care costs in this Nation would be a huge benefit to our economy, a huge benefit to our industries, and a huge benefit for our competitiveness in the international markets. It is good for consumers. Support the Republican health care bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this bill for a variety of different reasons, probably chief of which is that it will allow many small employers to pool their resources together and purchase health care benefits in bulk. This is an advantage the has been held by large corporations for many years and has been denied small businesses, and, as a consequence of that, those small businesses have to pay a much higher premium and they therefore choose not to provide coverage. I would like to also additionally briefly address the issue of medical savings accounts. We have heard a lot of discussion about how bad these supposedly are, but I would assert that if medical savings accounts were available to the employees that work for Members of the minority, the majority of their employees would select medical savings accounts because medical savings accounts truly give the health care consumer the freedom to choose how to spend their health care dollars. It has been shown repeatedly that they over and over save a considerable amount of money. One of the biggest problems in our health car system is the third-party payer system.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about what the American people want and the facts about the bill before us. They want medical insurance that is available, affordable, and portable. Most Americans without health insurance work for small business. Most small businesses also want to provide health insurance to their employees but find it too expensive to do so. Large corporations, on the other hand, are able to buy health insurance in bulk for their thousands of employees at more affordable rates. Current law does not give small businesses the same opportunities to join together with other small businesses and purchase insurance in bulk. The end result is that insurance is not affordable. Our bill makes health insurance affordable and available for small businesses by allowing them to pool together and buy insurance for their employees in bulk at affordable rates. This change will make medical insurance available and affordable for tens of millions of Americans who work for small businesses and have no insurance today. This is supported by small business associations across the board and deserves the full support of Congress. We also make insurance more portable. We make it easier for employees to take their health insurance with them when they change jobs. For too long employees have resisted changing jobs and advancing in their careers because of fear of losing their health insurance. By making health insurance more portable, we open new job opportunities for millions of Americans. This is a good bill. Let us pass the bill. Let us pass the rule. If there is anything blatant about this, it is blatant democracy at work.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following material for inclusion in the Record: Mount Sinai Hospital Medical Center Chicago, IL, October 28, 1995. Hon. Charles Canady, Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, House Committee on the Judiciary, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC Dear Congressman Canady: It has recently been brought to my attention that opponents of HR 1833 have stated that this particular abortion technique should maintain its legality because it is sometimes employed by physicians in the interest of maternal health. Such an assertion not only runs contrary to facts but ignores the reality of the risks to maternal health that are associated with this procedure which include the following: 1. Since the procedures entails 3 days of forceful dilatation of the cervix the mother could develop cervical incompetence in subsequent pregnancies resulting in spontaneous second trimester pregnancy losses and necessitating the placement of a cerclage (stitch around the cervix) to enable her to carry a fetus to term. 2. Uterine rupture is a well known complication associated with this procedure. In fact, partial birth abortion is a ``variant'' of internal podalic version . . . a technique sometimes used by obstetricians in this country with the intent of delivering a live child. However, internal podalic version, in this country, has been gradually replaced by Cesarean section in the interest of maternal as well as fetal well being (see excerpts from the standard text Williams Obstetrics pages 520, 521, 865 and 866). Furthermore, obstetrical emergencies (such as entrapment of the head of a hydrocephalic fetus or of a footling breech that has partially delivered on its own) are never handled by employing this abortion technique. Cephalocentesis, (drainage of fluid from the head of a hydrocephalic fetus) frequently results in the birth of a living child. Relaxing the uterus with anesthesia, cutting the cervix (Duhrssen's incision) and Cesarean section are the standard of care for a normal, head entrapped breech fetus. There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother. Partial birth abortion is a technique devised by abortionists for their own convenience . . . ignoring the known health risks to the mother. The health status of women in this country will thereby only be enhanced by the banning of this procedure. Sincerely, Pamela E. Smith, MD, Director of Medical Education, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me, and I commend her and the Committee on Rules for bringing forth this rule, and the members of the Committee on the Judiciary for originally introducing this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I was sitting in my office at the time, still practicing medicine in 1993, when I got my copy of the American Medical News in which this procedure was first described where a baby is identified under ultrasound, the abortionist, using a forcep, reaches up into the birth canal and grabs the baby by the feet, dragging the baby out of the birth canal up to the level of its head, and then there, dangling outside the mother, typically with its arms and legs moving, a forcep is inserted into the back of the skull, an opening is created, the brains are sucked out, and the dead baby is then delivered. I was amazed to read in this article that somebody could actually concoct a procedure this gruesome, and I was further shocked to read that the physicians who developed the procedure then went on to report that in 85 percent of the cases within which they do this procedure, there are no significant birth defects, and some of the defects that they cited, where they justified doing this procedure, included cleft lip and cleft palate. Mr. Speaker, I was shocked, and frankly I was amazed that I could live in a country where a procedure as gruesome and awful as this could be legalized. Some would call this a safe medical procedure. I would contend that there was a party involved in this procedure where it was anything but safe. Indeed, it was lethal, and it was lethal in a most horrific way. We in the United States, contrary to the contention of many people, have the most liberal left-wing abortion laws. In Europe, most of Europe that legalized abortion far before we did in this country, this type of procedure is not legal. They have restrictions on how you can do these procedures and when you can do them. Specifically, they are not legalized in late trimester, in late second trimester, and in the third trimester. My colleague on the other side of the aisle I thought encapsulated the whole issue very well. There are some people who would like the mother to be able to choose how her baby will die. The majority of this body voted once before, and will vote again, that there is a place where the Government of the United States has to draw the line and say, ``This is beyond the pale.'' This is a total repudiation of the principles upon which our Nation was founded. I support the rule. I encourage all my colleagues to vote for the rule.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this bill benefits American families, workers, and taxpayers by reducing illegal immigration and reforming legal immigration. We live in a nation built upon the very principle of immigration and open borders. However, the generosity of this great Nation has been abused and those violating and abusing our laws have made a mockery of them. Our Nation has always welcomed legal immigrants that contribute to our society, and nothing will change with this bill. H.R. 2202 will reign in problems that are spiraling out of control. As we debate this bill, illegal aliens comprise one-fourth of our Federal prison population. And 2 million illegal aliens--one-half of the estimated 4 million illegal aliens in the country--use fraudulent documents to illegally obtain jobs and benefits. These jobs and benefits come straight out of the taxpayers' pockets, costing them billions. This is simply unacceptable. Illegal aliens are draining our scarce national resources. There has been much debate over the content of legal immigration reform in this bill. I feel strongly that we must keep legal immigration as a part of this measure, especially since much of the illegal immigration is driven by problems in the legal immigration system. The American people support legal immigration reform--in fact, a recent Teeter poll shows that people support a 5-year ban on illegal and legal immigration. Now, this bill does not ban legal immigration, but it does significantly reform it. We cannot ignore the wishes of the American people as we consider this important legislation. We have a responsibility to reform these laws and we must not shrink from it. H.R. 2202 is supported by a diverse coalition of organization across the country and cuts across all political, religious, racial, and socioeconomic lines. We must not ignore this strong message from the American people. Support immigration reform and support H.R. 2202.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we are debating a continuing resolution that will keep the Government open through the rest of the year. Unfortunately, some have chosen to complicate this bill by offering an amendment to strike the Istook language. The Istook language allows States to make the decision as to whether they will use the State portion of their Medicare funding to pay for abortions in the case of rape or incest. Mr. Chairman, not only does the Istook amendment protect States rights, but specifically a particular State. We have already heard today the impact this will have on the State of Colorado. I strongly urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this Lowey amendment and support the original Istook language.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Asking the President some very specific questions about the technology transfer and I am still waiting for a response 1 month later. I also, Mr. Speaker, had a three-page letter drafted to the intelligence community asking for specific responses to questions about the upgraded intelligence assessment that was used by the minority party in the Senate to say we don't really have a threat to worry about. Now, Mr. Speaker, some listening to this might think well, here is a Member of Congress who only wants to stick it in the eye of the Russians, he doesn't really care about relations with the former Soviet Union, he just wants us to build a bigger and bigger defense industrial base. First of all, Mr. Speaker, let me make this point. I have no parochial interest in missile defense. There were no contractors in my district, I don't have a military base in my district. I do chair the R&D committee. Let me make one additional point, Mr. Speaker. I will match my record on Russian-American relations with any Member of this body. For the past 3 years I have cochaired the Russian-American energy caucus where I have worked with Members of the Russian Duma on joint energy deals, two of which are now in place, Sakhalin I and Sakhalin II with Mobil, Marathon, and McDermott Corporations. Western companies will invest between $50 and $70 billion in Russia to help them develop their energy resources. We are now working on Sakhalin III. In fact, the Russian Duma last December passed a new production sharing agreement which will encourage other projects of this type to help Russia stabilize the economy. Just 2 weeks ago, I was the only Member of the Congress in attendance at a luncheon with Mr. Chernomyrdin and the Energy Minister from Russia Mr. Shafranik where we talked about joint cooperation in terms of energy investment. Secondarily, Mr. Speaker, I work with Russia on environmental issues, Nikolai Vorontsov, a member of the Duma, has chaired the globe task force in Russia on environmental issues. I have worked with him as a member of globe U.S.A., in fact, was in St. Petersburg leading the effort on the part of our Navy to put funding in to help the Russians clean up their nuclear waste in the Arctic Ocean and in the Sea of Japan. As a member of the National Security Commission have fought for the past several years to get additional funding to help the Russians deal with their terrible environmental problems, working with Bob Colangelo and Vartov to establish joint Russian-American energy initiatives. In fact, just in December of last year had the leading Russian environmental activist in our country testifying before my subcommittee on ways that we can work with the Russians on environmental initiatives. Mr. Speaker, we are doing a ton of work with the Russians on the environment. Mr. Speaker, we have also proposed establishing a new Russian-American Duma to Congress forum. In January of this year when I was in Russia, I carried a letter from you, Mr. Speaker, which I delivered to the new speaker of the Russian Duma, Mr. Seleznyov. This letter suggested that both speakers should support the establishment of a formal process where Members of Congress and the Duma company meet at least twice a year focusing on specific issue areas; namely, the environment, energy, defense, foreign policy, and relations, as well as other issues that are going to come up in the forefront, like the economy, health care, adoption laws, and so forth. That letter from you, Mr. Speaker, was delivered to Mr. Seleznyov by me. In addition, I met with members of the four major political parties in Moscow to convince them that it was in their interest to have more formal relationships with Members of the Republican and Democrat Parties in the Congress. I met with the Yabakov Party, Zhirinovsky's party, the Communist Party and Yavlinsky's party, and Mr. Speaker, the response was overwhelmingly positive from all of them. But you know, Mr. Speaker, and we expect, by the way the Ambassador, the Washington Ambassador from Russia will be in my office tomorrow where I will meet with him, Ambassador Aleksey Arbatov where we will discuss the Russian administration, Mr. Seleznyov's response to your letter, Mr. Speaker, to establish this new forum, as well as your letter also outlining a proposal to establish a direct internet linkage where Members of Congress and members of the Russian Duma can communicate through simultaneous translation in a written form back and forth on an instantaneous basis. These are concrete proposals that we have made. These are concrete actions, Mr. Speaker, that we are taking on an ongoing basis. Last year I have hosted over 100 members of the Duma in my office. My goal is the same goal as President Clinton and that is to build a solid relationship between Russia that encourages economic growth, that encourages democratization and encourages the reforms you have been seeing in Russia. But the difference, Mr. Speaker--and this is a key difference, this administration wants to sanitize and ignore the realities of the Russian military threat. The key thing that we have to understand, Mr. Speaker, is that the leaders of the Russian military are the same leaders who led the Soviet military; they have not changed. They are not a part of the reform movement and many of the actions being proposed by the leadership of the Russian military potentially pose a threat to this country's security. Mr. Speaker, I think the Russian people want us to call their military leadership when things occur which they even cannot ask in their own country about, yet this administration tends to want to put its head in the sand and not acknowledge issues that occur like the transfer of technology of the Acceleramas, like the effects of the morale problems in the Russian military, like threats posed by the transfer of the SS-25 technology and the threat that poses to the United States in terms of a rogue nation getting that capability. It reminds me, Mr. Speaker, the Clinton's administration policy reminds me of my first amendment that I offered on the floor of the House in 1987. At that time there was a debate in this Congress that was going on about the ABM Treaty much like there is now, and on that debate, Mr. Speaker, the liberals were saying that we should adhere to the strictest interpretation of the ABM Treaty. My amendment was very simple. It said the Russians in fact were in violation of the ABM Treaty because they had installed a large fader-phased radar system in a town called Krasnoyarsk. My amendment passed the House 418 to zero; no Member voted against it. But many of the liberals who voted for it stood up on this floor, Mr. Speaker, and they said it is not an important issue. The Russians just built that radar for space tracking purposes. They do not plan to use it in violation of the ABM Treaty; that has never been their intent. It is an accidental location. Yes, it is a technical violation of the ABM, but it does not really matter because it is not going to be used for battle management and certainly would not be used against the United States. That was in 1987, Mr. Speaker. In 1995, General Voitinsev in the Russians' Military Historical Journal was interviewed. Now General Voitinsev for 18 years was the commander of Russian air and space defenses for the entire Soviet Union. In the interview he was asked about Krasnoyarsk radar, Mr. Speaker, and in response to the question he said he was ordered to place the Krasnoyarsk radar where it was by at-that-time General Ogarkov. General Ogarkov was ordered to place it there by the Politburo, the ruling body in the Communist Party and in the Soviet Union. So here we have the 18-year commander of air and space defense command for the Soviet Union now admitting in a public record in Russia that he was ordered to place the radar where it was in direct violation of the ABM that would eventually allow the Soviet Union to break out of the ABM Treaty and have battle management capability that would directly threaten the United States. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to understand the context in which the Russian military operates. There are some in our Congress and there are some in the White House who want to do whatever they can to bolster up Boris Yeltsin, and what I am saying is, Mr. Speaker, we have got to be candid and frank with the Russians. When they violate a treaty, we have got to call them on it. When they violate by sending equipment or technology to Iraq, we have got to call them on it. When they want to send SS-25 technology out around the world as a space launch capability, we have got to call them on that. Mr. Speaker, that is in our interest and it is in the interest of the Russian people that we understand what is going on and that we want them to be as compliant as we expect ourselves to be. But Mr. Speaker, that is not happening in this administration. This administration wants to lift up the rug, bury everything under the rug and say do not worry, everything is OK. Mr. Speaker, it is not OK, and I am not about advocating massive increases in funding in these areas. Every dollar that we plused up, Mr. Speaker, last year was done so with the request of Gen. Malcolm O'Neill. General O'Neill is President Clinton's point person on missile defense. In fact, Mr. Speaker, General O'Neill is retiring this May. Right before our break in January I got wind that he was retiring. I talked to him, tried to convince him to stay on because I have confidence in him. I think he is a great American and a great leader. I put together a letter, Mr. Speaker, asking Secretary Perry to reconsider and ask General O'Neill to reconsider and stay on as head of BMDO. Within 1 hour I was able to get 22 Members of this body who were the leaders on defense issues to sign that letter asking that General O'Neill stay on, 12 Democrats and 10 Republicans. Everyone from Jack Murtha to Floyd Spence to the key leaders on both sides of the aisle on defense issues signed that letter asking to keep General O'Neill on board. Why? Because we in a bipartisan way have confidence in him. he did not do that. He decided and announced this past week that he is going to retire and I got the word, Mr. Speaker, through the grapevine of the Pentagon that the administration, to further downplay the whole potential threat for missile defense, that they were going to replace General O'Neill, who is a three-star general, with a two-star, and the notion was that if Bill Clinton won the election by lowering it to a two-star position there would not be as much visibility. But if a Republican won the Presidential election, then the Pentagon would elevate it back up to three-star to give it the visibility it warrants. Mr. Speaker, that is outrageous. I will say that when I raised this issue with Dr. Kaminski he said he would not support that and felt that the appropriate level of support that has been displayed by General O'Neill as a three-star should be continued by whoever replaces him. But, Mr. Speaker, the turmoil continues. The program outlined by this administration is not logical, it is not based on threat, it is not based on reality and we are going to counter that with every ounce of energy in our bodies this year, Mr. Speaker. In fact, tomorrow we will have our first missile defense hearing. Thursday I was supposed to have General O'Neill come in along with the Air Force and the Army. I am still scheduled to have that hearing on Thursday, where they can talk about their national missile defense capabilities. But, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I heard in a phone call from General O'Neill yesterday that he is being told by superiors not to come before my committee. Perhaps there is something that he cannot say or perhaps the administration does not want it on the record again that, in fact, the people who are responsible for these programs are going to say directly opposite of what the Commander in Chief said, that in fact we can deploy a system that is not in violation of the ABM Treaty. Well, I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. I am having a hearing on Thursday, and I am having a hearing with General O'Neill and with General Garner from the Army and with the general from the Air Force to talk about it and if they are not there, we will have empty seats, and we will let the people of America decide. Now, the Pentagon said we are sure we want them to come in because Dr. Kaminski has not briefed the Congress on program needs for this year. Mr. Speaker, that hearing has nothing to do with program needs. All we are talking about is what capability do we have now, what capability do we have now, and can we in fact deploy systems in the Air Force and in the Army using existing capabilities at a low cost that can give us some protection. So, Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone in the Pentagon listening tonight, we are going to have the hearing on Thursday and I hope you show up because if you do not show up, we are going to have the hearing anyway. Mr. Speaker, beyond that hearing we are going to have 10 hearings this year on the threat from missile proliferation, on the Russian command and control problems. We are going to have a hearing on joint, dual American-Russian cooperation in missile defense programs. We are going to have a hearing on the standpoint of political implications of the ABM from Russia's standpoint, just as I have asked the Speaker, their Duma, on the political implications of the ABM from our standpoint. We are going to have the most aggressive debate in this country's history on the threat to our people from a proliferation of missiles, and I would hope in the end, Mr. Speaker, that when we have to make a final decision on a defense bill that it will be based on fact and not rhetoric. It troubles me though, the direction I see the administration going. The week before we left for the February work break, Mr. Speaker, we were called in as members of the Committee on National Security and we were told the administration was going to ask for a $3 billion reprogramming request from this year's defense bill. Now this administration, who is telling the American people we do not have enough money for defense, we do not have enough money for the priorities of missile defense, General Shalikashvili's letter to General Luck saying we would like to help you, but we do not have enough money for that and to protect our troops in Korea, this administration asked for a reprogramming, Mr. Speaker. One of the items was to reprogram $80 million of DOD money to train the police force in Haiti. Now, Mr. Speaker, to me that is outrageous. I live near Philadelphia. Philadelphia could use $80 million for its police force. So could New York. I think Washington, DC, could use $80 million to train its police force. But this administration wants to reprogram $80 million of this year's DOD money to pay to train the Haitian police force, and they are telling us they do not have enough money for their priorities. This administration wants us to reprogram $200 million to pay the Jordanians for the peace agreement that President Clinton signed, $200 million out of this year's defense bill to assist Jordan in coming to the peace table; not coming out of State Department funds, not being appropriated publicly, but in a reprogramming request coming from this administration out of this year's DOD dollars. Third, the administration wants to reprogram money for nation building in Bosnia. Now we are not asking the Germans to put money up, or the French or any other NATO country. We are going to reprogram money from out DOD budget to nation build in Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, those are some of the outrages that I feel, but one that really got my attention during the break more than anything else dealt with the B-2 bomber. Mr. Speaker, I chair the Research and Development Subcommittee for the Committee on National Security, and I have consistently opposed the B-2 bomber this past year despite intense pressure from my party leadership, and the reason is not that I think the technology is bad, it is not. It is because we cannot afford it. In the current budget environment we cannot afford to buy more B-2's. But that battle was fought on the floor and those that supported the B-2, some of the most liberal Members who hate defense spending voted for it and we funded it. I think it was a mistake. But the ultimate goal of this President to go out to southern California, Mr. Speaker, just this past month and have a press conference and say to the workers working on the B-2, I think we ought to take another look at whether or not to build more B-2 bombers: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely outrageous. Talk about hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, that a President who says that we put too much money into the defense bill, that we plused up programs we should not have plused up is now talking about a study to determine whether or not we should build more B-2's. For those poor workers out in California who may be watching, Mr. Speaker, I would ask them to ask the President when that study is expected back. I would tell them it is probably the week after the November election and that is when the report will come back, no more B-2's. Mr. Speaker, what I am saying in summary is it is time to stop playing politics with the defense of our country. Missile defense and the programs and priorities we have are not a Republican issue. Every gain that we made last year was done with support from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They were in the forefront of this debate. They were in the forefront on the committee, on the House floor, in the Senate, as well as the House of Representatives. This is a bipartisan issue that should be based on fact. If Neil Abercrombie's Hawaii is threatened by a missile from North Korea, every one of us needs to pay attention, and that is exactly the situation, Mr. Speaker, just as if Don Young's Alaska is threatened from a missile that can potentially hit parts of Alaska from North Korea. This year, Mr. Speaker, we are going to lay the facts on the table through the extensive series of hearings that we are going to have, 10 in the subcommittee, 2 in the full committee, starting tomorrow, through briefings we are going to have. We are going to make the case that it is in our interest to work aggressively toward missile defense; it is in our interest to work with the Russians to convince them that they have more of a threat from missile proliferation than even we do. In the end we have got to work together to only defend the people of America, the people of Russia and freedom loving people everywhere, just as we are doing with Israel. Mr. Speaker, we have helped Israel build the prototype for what will be their national missile defense system; it is called the Aero Program. The taxpayers of this country have put a half a billion dollars into that program and it is justified, it is a good program, and it is good to give Israel the security they deserve. Why do not the American people deserve the same security? Why should we build a system that can protect the people of Israel from a missile attack and leave the people of America vulnerable? That is the question we have to answer, Mr. Speaker, and we can do it without massive increases in funding, we can do it with a very careful and deliberate approach that builds upon the technology we have today that will deal with the threat we have today and build and allow us the options down the road to build a more elaborate defense capability, a more robust defense capability. Does this mean that eventually the ABM treaty may have to be renegotiated? Absolutely. Mr. Speaker while I am not willing to take the treaty on this year, I am one who is firmly convinced the treaty has outlived its usefulness. But we need to understand the political considerations in Russia if we attack that treaty head on. My proposal is to grab the hand of the Russians and work with them to show them that we are no longer in a bipolar world with just two countries, with offensive military missile capability. We now have North Korea, we have Communist China, we have Iraq trying to get long-range missile capabilities, and it is in our interest to work together. That should be the approach we use this year. Mr. Speaker, that will be the approach that I use as we begin our hearing process, and as we move forward to provide security for the people of this country with our fiscal year 1997 budget request. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the Washington Times article of February 15, 1996, and the letter to President Clinton of January 30, 1996. The material referred to follows: [From the Washington Times, Feb. 15, 1996] Plea for Missile Defense in Korea Fails (By Bill Gertz) The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has declined to back the commander of U.S. forces in Korea in seeking to reverse a Pentagon decision to delay a new missile-defense system urgently needed in Korea to protect U.S. troops from North Korean missile attack. Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in a cable told Gen. Gary Luck, the commander in Korea, that the Pentagon plans to scale back funds for the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to pay for other weapons modernization programs. The Shalikashvili cable calls into question Clinton administration support for building effective regional anti- missile systems. ``Five years after 28 Americans were killed in the Gulf war by an Iraqi Scud, we still have no effective theater missile defense, which the administration has said is its top defense priority,'' said Heritage Foundation defense expert Tom Moore, commenting on the cable. ``It is absolutely reprehensible that the administration is leaving American forces abroad exposed to these growing threats,'' he said. A spokesman for Gen. Luck had no comment. A spokesman for Gen. Shalikashvili said no final decision on the missile- defense funding has been made since the cable to Korea was sent. Mr. Shalikashvili was responding to an earlier cable from Gen. Luck, who warned the threat of North Korean missiles is growing and that two THAAD batteries--18 launchers--are needed as soon as possible. Delays in fielding THAAD, the first modern anti-missile system in decades, could have serious consequences for defending the peninsula against attack from the north, Gen. Luck stated in a Dec. 11 cable to Gen. Shalikashvili, Gen. Luck wrote to seek the chairman's support for reversing the Pentagon's decision in October to hold up a new phase of THAAD development. In his reply cable, Gen. Shalikashvili said that ``I understand your concern,'' but he did not say he supported efforts by Gen. Luck to reverse the decision placing a hold on THAAD's engineering and manufacturing development program, a new stage that would move the system closer to deployment. Instead, the four-star general indicated THAAD may not be deployed at all. In 2002 or 2003, the Pentagon will put it in a ``shoot-off'' competition with a Navy wide-area missile defense system, he said. Until the shoot-off, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, which sets priorities for defense spending and weapons programs, ``is recommending THAAD funding at a minimum level,'' Gen. Shalikashvili stated. ``A final decision has not been made,'' he said. ``Will keep you advised.'' North Korea has deployed scores of modified Soviet-design Scuds, like those fired against U.S. troops during the Persian Gulf war, and reportedly is in the early stage of deploying a longer-range missile known as the No Dong. The Shalikashvili cable also indicates that Pentagon missile defense policy is not in line with new provisions of the 1996 defense authorization bill, signed into law Saturday by President Clinton. The authorization law orders the defense secretary to restructure regional missile defense programs to make Patriot PAC-3, THAAD and two Navy systems, known as lower and upper tier, top-priority programs. The law sets specific dates--all by 1999--for deploying the first models of the systems. Full- scale deployment must begin by 2000 for THAAD, and by 2001 for upper tier. Gen. Shalikashvili stated in the cable that the primary objective of the internal review of missile defense needs to to ``free up dollars for critically underfunded areas of recapitalization.'' The proposed competition in 2002 or 2003 between THAAD and Navy upper tier could delay production of the wide-area defense system by three to five years, Gen. Shalikashvili said. More than a dozen Senate Republicans, including top party leaders, wrote to Defense Secretary William Perry last fall urging him not to delay THAAD. Any slowdown in THAAD development would be considered ``a declaration by the administration of a lack of commitment to theater missile defense,'' the senators stated in a Nov. 7 letter to Mr. Perry. Missile Defense [Excerpts of a cable sent to Gen. Gary Luck, commander of U.S. forces in Korea, from Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Jan. 19.] In response to Ref. A [a cable from Gen. Luck of Dec. 11], Ballistic Missile Defense programs are under internal DoD review to evaluate the cost-effectiveness strategies for meeting validated theater missile defense requirements. The primary objective is to free up dollars for critically underfunded areas of recapitalization. For this reason the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) is recommending THAAD funding at a minimum level necessary to continue development toward a shoot-off with the Navy theater-wide ballistic missile defense system in 2002-2003. ``My execptation is that this JROC plan, if adopted, will possibly delay an upper tier production decision three to five years. Full impacts of the JROC course of action under consideration are to be assessed by the services and Office of the Secretary of Defense Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. I understand your concern. A final decision has not been made. Will keep you advised.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this morning I attended a press conference held by Jim Talent and J.C. Watts to announce a community renewal project that will empower low-income communities. This bill was formulated and designed by the communities that it will effect. Congress went to the community leaders and asked them what will help them in their renewal projects. This initiative is what came out of those conversations. I want to first of all commend Jim Talent and J.C. Watts for meeting with these community leaders and for listening to them as they formulated the legislation that will help these communities to become strong. A major component of this empowerment initiative is title II, which allows these communities to implement school choice. Not surprisingly, most of these community leaders made school choice a top priority in their list of essential components for the renewal of their communities. According to the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, 70 percent of low-income parents, who were aware of school choice opportunities, were supportive of school scholarships for their children. Their No. 1 comment was that in order to improve their communities, they must be able to have quality educational choices for their children. I'd like to direct Members' attention today's Washington Times, page A3. The Associated Press is calling today the super Tuesday of school choice. There are a number school choice events happening today. Today in the other body, they voted on cloture of debate on the D.C. appropriations bill which includes choice scholarships for the low- income students of the District of Columbia. Unfortunately that vote failed by six votes. In Milwaukee, Parents for School Choice is defending the Milwaukee plan before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and in St. Paul, MN, Governor Carlson's choice initiative will be debated. In some parts of this great country, the state of education continues to decay. Despite solutions of more money, more bureaucracy, more regulation, and greater Federal intrusion into our schools, we would all agree things have gotten worse, not better. Our children need the opportunity to pursue a good education. If this educational opportunity is outside their school district, they should have chance to take advantage of it and find their American dream through quality education. A good education is a key ingredient in ending the cycle of poverty that entraps so many of our Nation's children. This empowerment initiative will liberate the parents of low-income children to choose a school that meets the educational needs of their children. Mr. Speaker, the 104th Congress has been accused of not looking out for the poor and less advantaged, and simply being a voice for the rich. Well, Mr. Speaker, this bill will dispel that myth. In fact, it challenges these critics to match their rhetoric with their support for this proposal. This bill is targeted to the low-income families and communities--to the people who most need the opportunities of choice in education. In an article in the Washington Times, Carol Innerst reported that public school teachers in troubled urban districts are much more likely to send their children to private schools than other Americans. A surprising 12.1 percent of all public school teachers and administrators send their children to private schools. In those public school systems considered the worst, an average 32 percent of the public school teachers and administrators send their children to a school outside of the district they work in, frequently to a private school. I want to encourage my colleagues to seriously consider supporting the Community Renewal Project when it is introduced on the House floor. It is a wonderful project that spans both ideological and political platforms. it is a bill that well help Americans pursue the American dream.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, If I could conclude, let me just say in 1982, in 1983, again in 1985 and 1986, the minority party has attached legislation to a debt ceiling increase. To hand this President a debt ceiling increase that does not have provisions in it to get us to a balanced budget would be to turn our backs on the people who voted us in as the majority party in November 1994, saying they want the budget balanced. Support this rule. It is a good rule.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the record should show that the gentleman from Florida who just spoke voted for and attached to the 1993 debt limit bill the largest tax increase in history. I do not believe that was a clean debt ceiling increase. This is a good rule on a good bill. It is going to make sure Social Security's recipients get their Social Security checks. I have a lot of elderly seniors in my district who rely on those checks. This is a good bill. Everybody in the body should support this. We are getting bogged down talking about how the minority wants a clean debt ceiling increase. Prior to coming to the Congress as a physician, I had the opportunity to treat AIDS patients, some of whom had acquired their AIDS through drug abuse. I had the opportunity to deal with drug addicts. I have to say there are some Members of this body who are addicted to spending taxpayers' dollars, addicted to spending money that is not theirs, and it is just wrong. We put on the President's desk two increases in the debt ceiling, and they had attached to them provisions that would get us to a balanced budget, and he vetoed them twice on two occasions, he said, ``No,'' and now we hear all of this clamor about a clean debt ceiling from a party that has Members like Senator Chris Dodd in 1987, who is now the general chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who said it does not take any imagination, when he was attempting to pass a controversial financial industry legislation, questioned by the Reagan administration, he said, ``I can attach an amendment to the debt ceiling bill which he has to sign, and the vote will be overwhelming.'' In 1984, Senator Ted Kennedy tried to force his nuclear freeze legislation onto the debt limit, justifying his amendment as the most important issue of the day. parliamentary inquiry

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the President the other night asked for a clean increase in the debt ceiling. Prior to coming to Congress, I was a practicing physician. I treated a lot of people with not only medical problems, but also with some psychological and emotional problems. One of the things that I did occasionally see is people with serious gambling problems, and the last thing that I would ever recommend for a bank to do would be to give somebody with a gambling problem a line of credit. Mr. Speaker, we have a President that does not want to balance the budget. He has fought us on balancing the budget, he has fought us on welfare reform, he has fought us on tax cuts, even though he cannot pay for all of those things; and now he wants us to give a clean increase in the debt ceiling so that he can go on his merry way with liberal tax-and-spend programs, the programs that have driven this country almost into bankruptcy, 5 trillion dollars' worth of debt, $18,000 for every man, woman, and child. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to increase the debt ceiling, we need to get on the road to balancing the budget and not fairy tale stories about balancing the budget, not saying that we support the balanced budget and then opposing it for the last year, like he has.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Danny McCain is the founder and international director at large of International Institute for Christian Studies [IICS]. This organization develops and enhances academic Christian studies programs in public universities in 10 countries including Nigeria, Russia, Ukraine, and China. In university classrooms that just 5 years ago were devoted to the teaching of atheism, IICS professors have been invited to teach about the moral foundations of society which Christianity provides. During the past year, Dr. McCain has taught over 300 West African teachers who daily teach religious and moral education in the public schools. At a recent seminar, the commissioner for education said, ``Our country is in trouble; most of our troubles are related to morals; morals are derived from religion. Moral and religious education is essential for our Nation's survival.'' I am sure we could learn much about the source of moral values from these developing nations. Dr. McCain currently serves as a senior lecturer in the University of Jos, Nigeria, where he and his family have lived for the past 7 years. It is a pleasure to have him as our guest chaplain today.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there you have it, we have been called gruesome, we have been called extreme, we have been called radical, we have been called just about every name in the book because we want to do something so extreme and so radical as to balance the budget using honest numbers. People back home are saying to me, ``Dave, if you can't do it, who will do it? And if we can't do it now, when will we do it?'' The time has arrived. The President is vetoing all of these bills that we put before him because we do not spend as much money as he wants to spend. Those are the bottom-line issues in his vetoes. He wants to spend more money than we want to spend. We want to balance the budget. He has not presented a budget that balances. He has not presented to us a budget that, when we give it to the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, and they analyze the numbers, it does not come to balance in 7 years. The American public wants the budget balanced.