Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, prior to coming to the U.S. Congress, I used to practice medicine. I practiced internal medicine and half of my patients were senior citizens. I do hope someday to be able to go back to my practice and resume taking care of senior citizens because I very much enjoy that type of practice. I have always like caring for seniors. They are all in the Medicare program. The Medicare Program has been a tremendous success. I think it has been instrumental in prolonging lives of seniors. And one of the key components of our balanced budget plan that we put on the President's desk is maintaining the solvency of the Medicare plan that makes sure that it will be there for seniors, and all we have done with this plan is we have done exactly what the President and the First Lady said needed to be done in 1993 when they were pushing their health care plan. They said, and if I may paraphrase them if I do not quote them exactly right, is that all you need to do is lower the inflation rate in the Medicare plan from where it is right now, 10 or 11 percent down to about 7 percent, and the plan comes into balance. Now there has been a lot of stuff said about the Medicare Part B premium. The GOP plan is going to double the Medicare Part B premium over the next 7 years. Well, guess what, my colleagues. Under the Democrats who have controlled this House for 40 years, guess what? Over the last 7 years the Medicare Part B premium doubled, they doubled the premium the last 7 years. Under the President's proposal it is going to much double. But, you know what? Next year, in the election year, under the President's proposal, he wants to reduce the Medicare Part B premium, and then he will increase it steadily every year thereafter once he is firmly ensconced in the White House for another 4 years. I believe this is wrong, that you should not play politics with a program as important as Medicare which provides health care for our seniors. I also think you should not be playing politics with an issue as important, as crucial, as balancing our budget in 7 years. Mr. Speaker, I ran on a campaign that says you must balance the budget in 7 years, and there was a very, very high degree of frustration amongst the voters in my district because they heard about Gramm-Rudman, they heard about the budget deal of 1987, they heard about the budget deal of 1990, and the tax increase of 1990 and how that was going to balance our budget, and then they heard again about the 1993 program, how this was finally going to do it. Here we go again in 1995. We have got $200--$180 billion deficit, and the budget that the President presented to us scored by the CBO, an agency that the President himself said is the group that should be scoring the budgets, says that his budget is going to be in debt, show deficits $200 billion a year out of 5 to 7 years into the plan. He finally produced a slightly better budget that was only going to have a deficit of about $100-120 billion a year. Now what we are saying, what the Republican freshmen are saying, is enough is enough, no more smoke and mirrors. We want a budget that is going to balance in 7 years. Now there are a lot of people getting up here and saying, ``Oh, we need to do a continuing resolution and get the Government open.'' I have got a lot of Government workers in my district. I have got Kennedy Space Center. I have got engineers who are furloughed, and guess what, my colleagues on that side of the aisle? They call me up, and they send me letters, and they say, ``Don't give in. I know I'm laid off, I know I'm not working, but you have got to balance the budget. We cannot continue to run these deficits.'' Mr. Speaker, they tell me it is immoral, they want me to hang tough, they do not want me to cave in. They want the budget balanced, and they want the budget balanced in 7 years. Indeed I got a phone call yesterday from a Democrat who told me that everything we are doing is right. He said, ``Don't give in.'' Now I am not going to vote for another CR. We signed a CR 3 or 4 weeks ago, and what happened? That gave the President the chance to waffle for 3 or 4 weeks and the AFL-CIO 3 to 4 weeks to run million- dollar-a-day ads trying to get us not to balance the budget. I will tell you what I think we need to do. Half of your conference over there agrees we need to balance the budget in 7 years, and what I say is the President will not come around, let us forget about the President, let us sit down with the conservative side of the Democratic Caucus with us and come to terms on a 7-year balanced budget so we can do a veto override, and we can reopen the Government, and we can all go home for Christmas. But I bought a Christmas tree, and I brought my wife and daughter up here, and I am willing to stay as long as it takes.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the Speaker. Again I would like to resume and just point out that the President had the opportunity to fund NASA. He had the opportunity to fund the VA. And he chose not to. He chose to veto that bill. Today we have a good piece of legislation before us here which will at least keep the veterans' checks going to our needy veterans, the veterans in District 15 of Florida that need them. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and I rise in strong support of the rule.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the President of the United States had the opportunity to sign an appropriations bill that we presented to him which would have funded the Veterans Administration, as well as the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as well as NASA. point of order

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the United States of America had 100 percent of the commercial space-launch market, today we have 30 percent, and yesterday the President's trade negotiators gave away that remaining 30 percent. They signed a trade agreement with the Ukraine to allow them to launch United States satellites. Today we have the French, the Chinese, the Russians, and now the Ukrainians, putting United States satellites in orbit. President Clinton ran as the domestic policy President committed to creating high-quality jobs for Americans. Yesterday he turned his back on thousands of working people on Florida's space coast, in California, in St. Louis, MO, in New Mexico, and Alaska, and he should pay a price for it in the election of 1996.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding this time to me, and I applaud the subcommittee chairman for this amendment. I think it is a very reasonable approach to dealing with this problem. There are a lot of things that go on up here in Washington, and it is, I believe, very hard for the American public to keep a watch on everything. One of the amazing things that has gone on up here in Washington is immediately after this President was inaugurated he started funneling a lot of foreign aid dollars into programs that promote abortion on an international scale, and the American people, in this environment that we are in of huge deficits, a huge national debt, I believe clearly do not want taxpayer dollars being used for this kind of a purpose. The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Callahan] has come up with a very reasonable approach. He is saying that we can continue to give these organizations money but that the ones that are actively out there promoting abortion, particularly the forced abortion like we have in China, which I would imagine 99 percent of Americans find reprehensible, and it is amazing that this administration would want to pump money into those kinds of organizations. It is saying that we will not do that unless the authorizing committee actually authorizes this. Now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who like to put money into these kinds of programs know that they can never get authorizing language for something like this, so they are going to fight this tooth and nail, but I think it is a very reasonable approach in the part of the committee, the subcommittee chairman. I applaud him for coming up with this solution to the problem. We need to get this bill through. I support the bill. I support all my colleagues who would stand up and rise in support of this bill, and it is a good solution to the problem.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to talk about the results of an election in California that was held yesterday in a Democrat district where a Republican won by almost a 2 to 1 margin. Clearly, the people in that district, a Democrat district, understand that we are not cutting Medicare, we are slowing the rate of growth of Medicare, and they clearly understand that it is extremely important that the situation here in Washington has to change. We cannot continue to have runaway spending, runaway growth of programs. We have to balance our budget, and we have to balance our budget now. In sending Tom Campbell to the U.S. Congress, the people of that Democrat district are saying the Democrats are not going to get the job done, they are going to continue to spend, we are going to continue to have deficits, and that we really do need to continue this change, this revolution that began in November 1994. There will be one more voting with us beginning in a few days, and the people in California say they agree with what we are doing.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Clinton administration will give away another U.S. industry: the United States domestic commercial space launch industry. A decade ago, the United States held nearly 100 percent share of commercial space launches. Today the United States holds 30 percent of the market. This loss of market share is largely due to the fact that our competitors receive heavy subsidies from their governments. Between 1996 and 2001, it is estimated that there will be 350 commercial satellite launches--120 of these will be geostationary launches. These are the high Earth-orbit, expensive launches that the United States dominated until recent years. For each of these launches that goes overseas the United States loses $50 million--if we lose all 120, that's about $6 billion that will go overseas. I'm all for the free-market. But I will aggressively oppose any plan that gives the advantage of foreign competitors that receive heavy subsidies from their governments. Mr. Clinton's plan does jut this, and that's why I'm an aggressive opponent of his plan. This chart shows what may happen to our commercial launch industry. There will be 120 geostationary launches between 1996 and 2002. It is a given Arainespace--Europe's subsidized space launch industry--will receive 72. That's 60 percent of these launches. Their subsidies allow them to undercut the United States unsubsidized prices. Under an existing agreement with the Chinese, the United States will allow 20 satellites to be launched on Chinese-Government subsidized launch vehicles. Under another existing agreement with the Russians, the United States will allow eight satellites to be launched in Russian-Government subsidized launch vehicles. This only leaves 20 launches for U.S. companies. Well, that is until tomorrow. Under the new agreement that the Clinton administration will sign with the Ukrainian Government tomorrow, the Ukranian-Government subsidized space launch company will get the other 20 launches. This leaves U.S. companies with a grand total of zero. Yes, it's true that U.S. companies can compete for the launch of these vehicles, but with the billions in subsidies from their governments, our foreign competitors will easily to able to undercut U.S. companies. It is very possible that of the 120 geostationary launches over the next 6 years, none of them will be launched from U.S. soil. This is a tragedy for U.S. leadership in space. For the American workers who have dedicated their lives to making these launch vehicles. And, for the dedicated and highly skilled workers at our Nation's space launch facilities. I, along with others, in a bipartisan effort urged the Clinton administration to renegotiate some of the earlier agreements to ensure that the Ukrainian launches were not in addition to those already allotted to our competitors. This suggestion was soundly ignored by the Clinton administration. I'm pleased that many of my colleagues have also expressed their concerns about this agreement. The Florida delegation sent a strong bipartisan letter expressing grave concern over the Clinton-Ukraine Agreement which I would like to submit for the Record. The distinguished minority leader, Mr. Gephardt of Missouri, let the administration know of his concerns in a letter which I would also like to submit for the Record. The Governor of Florida, Lawton Chiles, has expressed his opposition to this agreement. The Colorado congressional delegation also raised objections to the plan. Mr. Chairman, this Ukrainian agreement is bad for this nation. And, I am disappointed that the Clinton administration appears to have given no consideration to our concerns. In fact, I'm still waiting for a response to my letter of 3 weeks ago. America is the loser in this deal. As vice-chairman of the Space Subcommittee, I have called for a Congressional hearing on this issue. I will continue my aggressive opposition this agreement. I urge my colleagues to take a closer look at this and other international agreements that the Clinton administration is negotiating. Congress of the United States, Washington, DC, November 15, 1995. Ambassador Mickey Kantor, U.S. Trade Representative, Washington, DC. Dear Ambassador Kantor: We are very concerned about the direction the Administration is taking regarding United States launch policy. Last year, the Administration issued it's National Space Transportation Policy. This policy contained a commitment to negotiate and to enforce international commercial space launch services agreements with relevant non-market economies (NME's). It also contained a commitment to launch U.S. government payloads on U.S. launch vehicles. Your office is currently in the process of negotiating an agreement with the government of Ukraine. It is deeply troubling that the Administration is considering giving up even more of our domestic launch industry to competitors who are overly reliant on subsidies by their own governments, which distort the competitive market place. Any U.S.-Ukraine agreement must reflect the realities of the commercial market. U.S. commercial launch providers have relied upon the 1994 National Space Transportation policy and have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to build launch vehicles which are built with virtually 100 percent American components, technology, and labor. It is imperative that the following be observed and acknowledged: Higly subsidized competitors place U.S. launch providers at an unnecessary and unfair disadvantage. Both the Ukraine and Russia benefit from any Ukraine launch agreement since much of the content of the Ukraine vehicle is of Russian origin. The purchase or the launch of any NME-built vehicle by a U.S. entity should be counted against any quantity limitation in the relevant trade agreement. The basic terms of the current US-China and the US-Russia Space Launch Services Agreements should not be modified before they are due to expire. Additionally, we understand that the Department of Defense (DoD) may be changing it's current policy which prohibits national security payloads from being launched on non-U.S. launch vehicles. We have serious objections to allowing DoD to use non-U.S. launch vehicles for military payloads. This would seriously erode our nation's ability to launch military space assets during times of crisis and severely jeopardize our nation's domestic commercial launch vehicle business by undermining the U.S. launch industrial base. These policies have the potential to undermine the U.S. national interest of maintaining our domestic launch capabilities and infrastructure. Florida's long, proud history in the U.S. space launch industry may be seriously jeopardized. For our government to give away this heritage and these high-tech, high-wage jobs is unacceptable to American taxpayers and the Florida Congressional delegation. The U.S. space launch industry is ready to work hard and fight competitively for their market share. But we shouldn't ask them to do so when its own government changes the rules in the market place. We understand that if the proposed plan goes forward, 70 to 90 percent of the commercial, and potentially national security, launches will occur outside the United States. This would be, in our view, very detrimental both to our national security and to our own prospects for future investments by our own launch industry in this country's space infrastructure. We request that you brief our delegation on your intentions prior to your upcoming meeting with the Ukraine. We look forward to hearing from you very soon. Dave Weldon; Mark Foley; Dan Miller; Carrie Meek; Bill McCollum; Peter Deutch; Bud Cramer; Tillie Fowler; Bill Young; Porter Goss; Clay Shaw; Alcee Hastings; Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Charles Canady; Cliff Stearns; John Mica; Jim Trafficant.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time, and I commend him on handling a bill that I think is very important to the future of our veterans and the future of our Nation's space program and handling the bill extremely well. This bill fully funds our manned space flight program and the shuttle account at the levels the President asked for. It also includes funding for the construction of a new veterans clinic in my district. The veterans in my district have been asking for a health care facility for 12 years. It is one of the largest areas in the Nation of veterans that does not have a medical health care facility, and we have some funding in this bill to provide them with some good quality outpatient medical care. Mr. Speaker, as many know, prior to coming here I was a practicing physician, and this will meet about 80 to 90 percent of the health care needs of the veterans in my district. It is a good bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to support it. What I think was disgraceful, Mr. Speaker, was a motion to recommit to add more money to a veterans account and then no attempt to find an offset for where those funds would be coming from. I had hundreds and hundreds of veterans support me in my campaign last year because they want the budget balanced. They know if we do not balance the budget, there will be no money for health care for veterans, there will be no money for the space program. There will be no money for anything. We will be broke. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful to see people getting up and saying let us put more money into this and then not come up with a place to find the money. We need to get our priorities in order. We need to balance the books. We need to be responsible with the way we handle the people's money. This is the people's money. I know what would happen if the minority were the majority. They would just borrow the money again. They would add more money to our Nation's debt. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of this committee has crafted a well- thought-out bill that meets the needs for the future of our Nation, for the future of our space program and for the future of our veterans. It is a good bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to support the bill and vote, yes.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss an issue regarding a letter that President Clinton and Vice President Gore sent to a number of Federal employees. I was at a hearing last week on the space program and we were receiving testimony from the administrator, Mr. Dan Golden, and one of the members at that hearing brought up the subject of a letter that had been sent to NASA employees in his district that he found particularly offensive. I was very concerned about this particular issue, so I asked for a copy of this letter. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, when I saw this letter, I thought it was a hoax. I thought the President and the Vice President of the United States of America could never be so foolish as to send out to Federal civil service employees an openly and blatantly political document such as this, which is obviously in violation of statute. I had one of my staff call over to the White house to find out for sure, because I thought it was obviously a hoax, as to whether or not the White House had authorized this letter. I was very, very shocked to find out that this, indeed, did come out of the office of the President and was authorized by the Vice President's office. The letter is entitled ``An open letter to Federal employees, from President Clinton and Vice President Gore.'' It begins with a comment about how proud they are of the work force, and then it goes on to say some nice things about the very good work that our Federal employees do, but then it goes on to talk about the possibility of another Federal shutdown. It says in the fourth paragraph: ``You all know that the law under which most of the government is operating expires on December 15, and the debate that led to the November shutdown is not over,'' a very true and accurate statement. I agree with it. Then it goes on to say: ``We can't promise you that your jobs and your lives won't be interrupted again. Too much is at stake for America. If you are held hostage again, we know you would not want us to forfeit the Nation's future as ransom.'' Mr. Speaker, I think this is an outrage that the President and the Vice President of the United States would send out such a blatantly political document to Federal employees. The Congress of the United States sent to the President of the United States a continuing resolution to keep the Government open, and the President of the United States decided to veto that continuing resolution, and in him doing so, vetoing that legislation, he shut the Government down. It was quite apparent to me when I heard that he did not talk to the Speaker or the majority leader of the other body on their trip to Israel at all that he was very intent on not negotiating with our side and letting the government shut down. Indeed, that was the real story behind that lack of dialogue on that trip to Israel, the fact that the President of the United States wanted to go ahead and shut the Government down, and then these two gentlemen have the nerve to turn around and send out such a politically blatant document to Federal employees. I am calling on the chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil Service, the honorable and distinguished gentleman from Florida, [Mr. John Mica] to hold hearings on this subject, because I have since discovered this is not the first time that this has happened. No other President in United States history has ever exploited the Federal work force for political advantage like this President has. I have in my hands a document that came out of the White House, encouraging all Cabinet Members to solicit political donations from Federal employees, so this President has done it before. He has used his political office of the Presidency of the United States for his political gain. He is doing that again in this letter. I think it is wrong. No Republican President could ever get away with doing anything like this. If a Republican tried something like this, the Washington press corps would be up in arms, there would be calls for investigations, there would be hearings being held. I am rising today in this House to call upon the Subcommittee on Civil Service to hold hearings on what this President and the Vice President of the United States are doing, politicizing our civil service work force. I could tell you that I have civil service employees in my district who got this letter and they were outraged.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the kind gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this conference bill and urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of this. I was particularly pleased that the conference was able to fully fund the shuttle and the space station at near the request level of the President, and I am particularly pleased that the conference restored $100 million that the Senate had cut from the shuttle program. It allows NASA's vital field research centers to remain open so that they can continue to perform the important research work, and I am particularly pleased that there is $25 million for a VA medical clinic in my district. The veterans in my district have been waiting 12 years for a medical facility. This will allow these veterans to begin to receive good quality medical care that they have long deserved and they have long been waiting for. I would again urge all my colleagues to put aside their partisan differences and vote in favor of this bill. It is a good bill. It is good for veterans. It is good for NASA. I would encourage its support.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. One of the biggest reasons why I support this bill, and I believe very strongly we need to pass it as a nation, is that it will lower interest rates paid by all Americans on all of their loans. For example, a typical average American family such as many of those living in my district, Florida's 15th Congressional District, the space coast, can see up to $121 a month in savings on their mortgage payments. That amounts to $1,456. When decreases in student loans are added in that will occur when the Government is not out borrowing money, the decrease in the interest rate on student loans, car loans, and add that to our child tax credit for those typical hard-working families in my district, they could see up to as much as $2,000 of disposable income in their pocket. This makes sense. The American public wants the budget balanced. Hard-working Americans across the Nation will benefit from it. Support the Balanced Budget Act.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is very timely for me to speak at this point particularly regarding the issue of Medicare. As a physician I previously took care of many seniors in the Medicare plan. Before I get into some of the comments that have been made today about the Medicare issue, I do want to just stress to all my colleagues that we can get out of here if the President will sign our continuing resolution that simply calls for a 7-year balanced budget with CBO numbers. Mr. Speaker, the President himself has said that we should balance the budget in 5 years, not 7 years, and the President himself has said that CBO numbers are the more accurate numbers, and to stay here, and stay here, and legislate, and legislate when the problem is at the White House, I think is fully inappropriate, and I really want to talk about this Medicare issue because there has been in my opinion--well, let me just say this. Let me quote from the New York or Washington Post which I think said it very well, what is going on with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle as well as with the President? The Washington Post said, Bill Clinton and the congressional Democrats were handed an unusual chance this year to deal constructively with the effect of Medicare on the deficit, and they blew it. The Democrats, led by the President, choose instead to present themselves as Medicare's great protectors. They have shamelessly used the issue, just as we have seen tonight, and demagogued on it because they think that is where the votes are and the way to derail the Republican proposals generally. Now I would like to go back in time about 2 years, to a day in April 1993 when President Clinton was addressing [[Page H 13280]] a meeting of the AARP, and he said the following. He said today Medicare, Medicaid, and Medicare, are going up at three times the rate of inflation. We propose, and this is the President and the Democrats in the House saying we propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut, so when you hear all this business about cuts, and we have heard the cut word used just now tonight, let me caution you that this is not what is going on. It is a reduction in the rate of growth.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. When I came here, I met with the Speaker, I met with the Republican leadership, I met with the chairmen of the Committee on Commerce and the subcommittees, and I felt very strongly that this was extremely important, that we save Medicare. It was announced by the trustees of the Medicare plan, three of whom are Clinton administration Cabinet officials, that the Medicare plan was going to be insolvent, and I felt very strongly that it was extremely important that we maintain the solvency of the program, and the plan, and the proposal that has been put forth, and our budget proposal that we passed today calls for reducing the rate of growth of Medicare to about double the inflation rate. It is going to increase and increase dramatically. Essentially what we are doing is what the Democrats said needed to be done 2 years ago, but now today they are shamelessly, as the Washington Post has admitted, a paper that does not traditionally endorse Republicans, they have said that this is shameless demagoguery. Let me go on. I will quote President Clinton on a CBS morning show interview March 3, 1994, that is just last year. It is not necessary for us to have a huge tax increase if employers and employees do their part, if we can slow the rate of growth in Medicare and Medicaid to just two times the inflation, just slow it down where it is only increasing twice as much as regular prices. My colleagues, that is exactly what the Republicans do in their budget proposal. Again on October 5, 1993, Clinton said in a White House press conference only in Washington do people believe that no one can get by on twice the rate of inflation. So when you hear all this business about cuts, let me caution you that is not what is going on. That is Bill Clinton speaking, not Newt Gingrich.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. That is right.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. No, I am actually quoting the President of the United States.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2606. The resolution simply states that none of the Department of Defense funds may be used to deploy United States ground troops to Bosnia unless specifically authorized by the Congress. I have been very concerned about Mr. Clinton's unwillingness to consult with the Congress and seek congressional approval for other endeavors. Mr. Clinton failed to get congressional approval prior to spending tens of billions of dollars in taxpayer money to bail out the Mexican economy. Additionally, during the recent debate on the Federal budget impasse and the debt limit, Mr. Clinton has by-passed the requirement that the Congress pass legislation enabling the Federal Government to incur a debt in excess of $4.9 trillion. This President has consistently demonstrated a willful disregard for the legislative process and Congress. In spite of Mr. Clinton's statements, I have no reason to believe that his actions with regard to Bosnia will be any different. Besides, if the President has said he would seek congressional approval before sending United States troops to Bosnia, he should have no problem signing this bill. I am very concerned about President Clinton's plans to send United States troops to Bosnia, and I believe it would be wrong for the President or his administration to make promises of United States troops to Bosnia. I welcome all efforts to reach a settlement in the region, but oppose any increased U.S. military role in this volatile area. I do not believe United States military intervention in Bosnia will bring a lasting peace. Even a minimal military involvement holds the very real potential of miring the United States in a prolonged and unwinnable struggle. The last thing we need is to get tangled up in another Vietnam-like war with the loss of many American lives. Before taking another ill-conceived step, President Clinton needs to define our policy and objectives in the region. What are the specific objectives of U.S. military involvement? Why must the United States shoulder so much of this burden in Europe's own backyard? Why is Europe itself hesitating to use troops? What will be the next step if limited military engagement fails? These questions remain unanswered. At this point, the Clinton administration's policy seems to be driven by shifting winds instead of sound military strategy. Unlike Kuwait, Bosnia is not a well-established State and is under attack from its own people. The civil war there results from resurgent nationalism, conflicting territorial claims, and past historic grudges that are centuries old. The cold war may be over, but Mr. Clinton and his foreign policy advisors have not yet learned how to deal with regional conflicts that affect international security. The administration's vacillation in Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti has eroded United States credibility abroad. In addition, defense down-sizing has reduced our ability to protect our own vital interests and the Clinton administration has asked for even deeper cuts. Bosnia is not at peace. This centuries-old conflict is continuing. The Clinton administration is prepared to put our military men and women in the position of implementing the peace. I am not. President Clinton has failed to demonstrate why United States troops should be sent to Bosnia and he should seek congressional approval before endangering the lives of our men and women in uniform by sending them to the Balkans.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, when I was running for Congress in 1994, I had many, many people who told me they had never worked on a campaign before and never donated to a campaign before who got involved with getting me elected to Congress. I remember one fellow, Doug Jackson, told me he had saved up some money for a new entertainment center in his living room. He had no furniture in his living room and he gave me that money. I tried to talk him out of it. I asked him, why are you doing this? He told me he was concerned about the future for his children regarding the problems with education and crime in our country. But the most important thing he cited was deficit spending, the debt that this nation was incurring. I am rising today to speak out in strong support of this rule and this continuing resolution which will finally for the first time commit us to what Doug Jackson sent me to the U.S. Congress for, and that is finally balancing the books here in Washington. I am very encouraged to hear that many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to be joining with us tonight, but I am very disappointed by the words of the President. I do not know why he does not want to join with us. Clearly the American people want a balanced budget. They spoke clearly in 1994. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I cannot agree with you more on the importance of balancing our budget for the sake of our children and for our children's children. The United States has a longstanding history of doing what is right in the setting of adversity, in difficult times coming to the right conclusions, and I believe that today our Nation is really at that point. I think when the other body failed to ratify the balanced budget amendment and our dollar decreased from about 106 yen to about 80 yen, I think that gave the American people a good glimpse of what happens to a nation that truly does spend more than it takes in. Its currency is ultimately worth nothing, and the implications for that on our entire economic system is really huge, and I cannot understand why the President will not join us in this historic effort to restore fiscal sanity to our budgeting process and to make sure that our children are not left bankrupt, but do inherit a brighter and better future, and I do want to take a minute to talk a little bit about this chart because the President has been talking about saving Medicare, and I personally think it is disgraceful for him to be carrying on like this because everybody knows that in his health care plan that he was talking about back in 1993, he was talking [[Page H 12180]] about taking billions of dollars out of the Medicare plan. Now he is saying that he wants to prevent or stop some of the changes we want to make in the Medicare plan, but what he is engaging in I think is deceptive because, if you look at what we are doing right now with the Medicare plan, the seniors currently pick up about 31.5 percent of the premium. That is about $42 a month. Now this is the part B. The part A is the hospital insurance fund, and that comes out of people's Federal withholding as a separate tax. This is the part B plan. This covers physician services as well as certain outpatient services, and currently today the average senior spends about $42 a month for that, and that actually only consists of about 31.5 percent of premium. The actual total cost per month is about $130. Now this was originally a 50-50 split back in 1964 when the program was created, and in an effort to help seniors cope with limited budgets that has been allowed to go down to 31.5 percent, and what we do in our plan is we fix it at that level. What the President wants to do is let that share, the part seniors pick up, shrink down to 25 percent. But what he does not talk about is who is going to pick up the rest of this. This gets right back to what the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] was talking about. We do not have this. He wants to go out and borrow this money from our children to pay for this difference. We want to keep this right at this level here. The most shameful thing in all this is that he only wants to do this for 1 year, for 1 year, so that he can get the votes of senior citizens, and then beginning in 1997 and 1998 and 1999 and 2000 and 2001 and 2002, he wants to let the senior citizens, premiums go up on part B so that in the end, in the Clinton proposal, they will be paying $83 a month and in the Republican proposal they will be spending $90 a month. Why is he doing this? Why is he doing this right now? He is doing this because he wants their votes. He said to the American people back in 1992 that he would give them a middle-class tax cut. In 1993 he changed his mind. He said he was going to change welfare as we know it. Then he never did that. He said he was going to put forward a 5-year balanced budget proposal, and he never did. I personally think what he is doing here is playing politics with the votes of senior citizens.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. The gentleman from Arizona raises a whole host of points and it harkens back to what I talked about earlier. The President campaigned in 1992 saying that he was going to put forth a balanced budget and balance the budget in 5 years. He put forward nothing in 1993, nothing in 1994, nothing in 1995. And finally, after we put our budget, he came out with this belated, ridiculous attempt to balance the budget, which has red numbers straight through the end of the 10 years. Hence, it would still be $209 billion. He said he would change welfare as we know it. He never did. He said he would give the middle class a tax break. He never did. I think we have a real credibility problem here. I have some very, very serious concerns about whether he will ever seriously agree that we need to build a better future for our children, for the young son of the gentleman from Arizona, and my 9-year-old daughter, for the daughter of the gentleman from Ohio, and the daughter of the gentleman from Kentucky, and for the millions and millions and millions of children out there. Mr. Speaker, what is disgraceful is to play politics with all of this and try to buy votes by telling one group, ``We will give you a slightly better deal'' and then to turn around and raise their interest rates or raise their premiums or raise their taxes down the road, after he has gotten elected. Mr. Speaker, this is not leadership. As far as I am concerned, this is playing politics with the very future of our Nation, the future for our children and our grandchildren, and this is not what made America great.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is very gracious. I guess I would like to wrap up by pointing out that President Bill Clinton ran in 1992 as the candidate for change and his behavior over the past 2 or 3 days, I think, clearly indicates that though he ran as a candidate for change he is the President of the status quo. The status quo is not going to get us into the next century for a brighter, better and more prosperous future for ourselves and for our children. He ran saying that he was going to balance the budget and never presented to us a balanced budget proposal. He ran saying that he was going to end welfare as we know it, and he never presented a plan to be able to do that. And he also ran saying that he was going to give us a middle-class tax cut, and what he gave us was a tax increase. And furthermore, for him to do absolutely nothing in the area of preserving and protecting Medicare and making sure that it will be there for our seniors because, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we will agree if the Nation is bankrupt, nobody will get good quality medical care, including our seniors. And we have put forward these proposals to the President who keeps vetoing them and vetoing them. I personally think this is morally wrong for him to do that. He should be willing to sit down and negotiate with us and try to come to terms, but he is not doing that. And he really is playing politics with these issues, particularly in the area of Medicare. We have put forward a reasonably balanced Medicare proposal and he is playing politics with the issue.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. About half my practice.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, that was very, very eloquently said. I just want to harken back to this chart, because this is the balanced budget of the man who plays golf when the House and the Senate were trying to do the Nation's business. We sent a continuing resolution to him and we sent a debt ceiling increase to him that had some responsible features in it, and he went off and played golf. I personally thought that that said volumes about his commitment to these principles.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Absolutely not. That is a very good question. It leads to an important issue on the Medicare Program. The tax on working people to keep the Medicare Program solvent has been raised 23 times since the program was initiated. Let me just say that, as the gentleman from Illinois mentioned earlier, I am a practicing physician. I still see patients occasionally. The Medicare Program has been a great program. It provides the resources so that our seniors can get good quality medical care in their senior years. I think it is one of the primary things contributing to the dramatic increase in life expectancy for seniors. When I was in medical school, when I was in college, the average life expectancy for a male, I think, was about 70 or 71. Just in the past 15 years or so it has gone up to about 78. That dramatic improvement, I think, is directly attributable to the good quality medical care that our seniors get. But there have been problems with keeping the program properly funded as there is a problem right now, as this chart next to me indicates, three Clinton Cabinet officials testifying to the fact that there are problems in keeping the program properly funded.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I would like to comment on that, I remember when I was a kid growing up, somebody once called me a name. I do not know if they called me a liar or whatever. I went to my daddy and I was upset, and I said, why are they doing that? And he said something to me that I will never forget. He said, ``A lot of times when people call you names, they have a problem in that area themselves, and they are externalizing it on you, but they really, actually have the problem.'' I want to show you some numbers that I think convinces me how extreme the situation is here with our colleagues on the left side of the aisle and with the White House. Bill Clinton said he was going to balance the budget in 5 years, back in 1992. He did not present a balanced budget in 1993 after he was elected, he did not present it in 1994, he did not present it in 1995. Then after we put our budget on the table, he finally brought forth his 10-year budget. When he stood over here and said that he would put forward a budget using the CBO numbers, he did not do that. His numbers that he ultimately presented to us, after he was shamed into having to produce something, his 10-year budget was based on his budget office, so we had the CBO look at his numbers. Look at this. It goes from $196 billion to $209 billion at the end of 10 years. There is absolutely no attempt to balance the books here. I would not call this extreme, personally, I would call this irresponsible. [[Page H 12181]]

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to talk a little bit about our balanced budget proposal, our 7-year balanced budget proposal, and in particular the President and his previous claims of supporting a balanced budget, and I do want to dwell a little bit on the issue of Medicare. I think Medicare is a very important issue. Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the Medicare system. I earned my living prior to coming to the House of Representatives, and I plan on when I leave the House of Representatives going back to, practicing medicine. I am a physician, and I very much enjoyed taking care of senior citizens as an internist. About half of my clinical practice was caring for seniors, and I know firsthand how much our seniors depend on the Medicare program, and I think what the President is doing with this issue is truly disgraceful, and he is playing pure politics with the Medicare program, and in his proposal he wants to lower the Medicare premium to 25 percent, and then in subsequent years, after the election, essentially after he has bought the senior vote, he is going to let it drift up. In our proposal the Medicare part B premium will do exactly what it has done over the previous 7 years under the Democrats of this House. It will slowly double. Under the President's proposal it will double as well, but it goes down in the crucial year of 1996 when he is seeking to get reelected. What are we talking about in our budget proposal? We are talking about a 7-year balanced budget proposal. We have not been able to get the President to agree to this very fundamental principle. This is a man who ran in 1992 pledging that he would balance the budget in 5 years. Three years after he has been elected, he is refusing to sign on to a 7-year balanced budget proposal. Instead he is putting forward this budget proposal that supposedly gets us to balance in 10 years, 13 years after he has been elected when he ran on a 5-year proposal. We have welfare reform in our budget proposal. He refuses to support that, a man who ran saying that he was going to end welfare as we know it. What else do we have in our budget proposal? Tax relief for families with children. When my father was raising myself and my three sisters, as a postal worker he sent 4 percent of his income to Washington. Now those working fathers with children send 25 to 30 percent of their income to Washington. That is the single biggest reason why so many of those working families with children have to put mama out to work, too, and my colleagues know what happens then. They do not spend as much time with their kids. In the 1950's the average parents spent 35 hours a week in direct contact with their children. They now spend 17 hours a week. Who is talking care of the kids? The television loaded with violence. Finally, what else do we have in our budget proposal? We have economic incentives, a capital gains reduction that will pump money back into the economy, that will create jobs, jobs for people who are unemployed, and the President is refusing to sign on to any of these things, and what is the most crass thing, he is actually going so far as to try to claim he is trying to protect Medicare when in reality it is a temporary thing in Medicare. A year later the Medicare premiums will rise, and rise, and rise, and rise, and the President knows all this. But yet he is continuing to play politics. When the Medicare program was created, the Medicare part B premium was supposed to be shared by seniors, 50 percent coming out of the pockets of working people, 50 percent coming out of the pockets of seniors. Today many of those working people who are being taxed to support the Medicare Program cannot afford health insurance themselves. In our budget proposal we keep the percentage at 31\1/2\ percent. That is what it is at today. We think that is a fair and reasonable thing to do. But yet the President is trying to play politics with this. He is trying to lower the Medicare premium in an election year, and then he is going to turn around and raise it on seniors just like he turned around and raised taxes in 1993 after he ran in 1992 saying that he was going to give middle-class working Americans a tax cut. He raised taxes on them; he raised taxes on senior citizens. Senior citizens had their Social Security income taxed, an increase in their taxes. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues in the House, as well as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, to put politics aside and join together in a reasonable proposal to get us toward a balanced budget in 7 years. It is for our future, it is for the future of our children, it is for the future of our children's children. What kind of life are we going to leave the next generation? In years past, you paid off the farm, you did not leave the kids a mortgage. Today in America, today in America, every child that is born is being born into an economy where they owe $18,000 of debt. They are going to have to pay back with interest on that debt about $18,000. That is $4.9 trillion worth of debt. Mr. Speaker, I encourage the President to support our budget, to vote in favor of balancing the budget in 7 years.