Dave Weldon

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I wish to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 6 minutes to explain my amendment, 3 minutes of which I will yield to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Brown].

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this project is an authorized project. Section 201 of Public Law 103-452, signed into law on November 2, 1994, states: The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may carry out the major medical facility projects for the Department of Veterans Affairs, and may carry out the major medical facility leases for that Department, for which funds are requested in the budget of the president for fiscal year 1995. In the President's fiscal year 1995 congressional submission for VA construction, major projects, pages 2-7 through 2-9, the budget requests $17.2 million for the design phase and $154.7 million for fiscal year 1996 and beyond for the complete construction. The budget submission goes on to describe the proposed hospital. It's clear to this Member that section 201 of the public law specifically authorizes all projects for which any funds were requested in the President's fiscal year 1995 budget request. Under this reading of the law, the committee, through Public Law 103-452, clearly provides an authorization for the full hospital, not simply the first phase--the design phase. Section 201 clearly authorizes the Secretary to carry out the major medical facility projects for which funds are requested. The President's fiscal year 1995 budget requests funds for the VA hospital in Brevard. Additionally, with regard to the chairman's statements that section 202 places a limitation on section 201. I strongly disagree with his interpretation. The limitation may apply to the amounts that can be appropriated for these accounts in fiscal year 1995, however, the limitation in no way restricts the authorization of the project. This limitation is clearly limited only to the amount authorized in fiscal year 1995, not 1996 and beyond. The authorization for fiscal year 1996 and beyond remains intact. Section 202 does not affect this. On this basis, I ask the chair to rule against the point of order and allow for consideration of the amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Roemer amendment, and I just wanted to make one thing very, very clear to our fellow Members here. There are a lot of figures being thrown around about the space station, some claiming that it is going to cost $94 billion, a GAO study that claims that that is for the full cost of the station. Well, there are $8 billion spent on redesigns that were commissioned by this Congress in redesigning this program over and over again, and now you have the program finalized, you have international partners in it, it is on budget, it is on time, it is good science. There are 14 different programs from NIH that are going up on this space station. There are seven different pharmaceutical companies interested in doing significant research in areas like diabetes, osteoporosis, that are going to go up on this space station. Included in that supposed $94 billion is $47 billion in shuttle operations over the next 15 years. The supporters of this amendment, are they claiming they want to ground the shuttle, that they want to completely end our manned space program? I think the American people say no, and they have said no consistently for the past 5 years. Repeatedly this body has voted in support of this program. Now we are about the business of trying to kill it one more time. Now while we have the Japanese investing $1 billion in their part of the program, we have our European partners investing $2 billion in their part of the program, while we are in the process of bending metal and finalizing this and ready to put it up in the air, the dream is about to become a reality, one more time the naysayers are coming forward and saying no, no, no, we cannot have a space station, we cannot afford it. Well, I submit to my colleagues that if that type of attitude had existed in the past, Jefferson would never have purchased the Louisiana Purchase.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the intent of my amendment was very simple. Although many areas of the country have adequate medical facilities for veterans, some areas do not. My amendment simply would shift the money to the VA construction account instead of the general medical account as the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio] has proposed. Simply put, my amendment would direct these funds to the most needy veterans, the veterans who currently have no medical facilities. As a veteran and as a physician who has provided medical care to many of these veterans, I understand the acute need for the underserved communities. Today there are 250,000 veterans living in east-central Florida that are in great need of a veterans medical facility. Without the adoption of my amendment to the amendment, these 250,000 veterans, who gave of themselves for our freedom, and other veterans in underserved areas, will see little improvement in their veteran-scare. The veterans in these areas are the most underserved in the Nation, and we have a responsibility to fulfill our commitments to them. If we are going to transfer money from the Selective Service to meet the needs of veterans, we should transfer it to serve the most needy veterans. Voting for the Weldon amendment will do this. Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, there is a point of order for lack of germaneness against my amendment, so I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this time. I appreciate the chairman's recognition.

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I commend the chairman for the hard work that he has been doing. It must be made very clear to all Members that if we do not balance our budget, there will be no resources for important programs like that NASA, like VA, and like HUD. I support the chairman in the outstanding efforts in making sure that our manned space flight program is funded in this budget, particularly the space station. I do have some concerns about the provisions in this budget for VA medical care in my district as well as some concerns about senior housing. I believe that we will be able to address some of these issues in an upcoming amendment on this bill. However, I cannot overstate the importance that if we do not move toward a balanced budget, all of these crucial programs will no longer exist. I commend the chairman. I commend all the Republican Members as well as the Democrat Members on the other side of the aisle for working very hard to getting us toward that goal, that goal that has been so elusive for so [[Page H 7832]] many years and years and years, up until this new Congress, of balancing our budget and moving our Nation toward a future of prosperity not only for the people alive today but as well for future generations that will not be inheriting bankruptcy.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I stand in opposition to this amendment and rise to speak out in support of our international space station. NASA has cut its budget 35 percent since fiscal year 1993, saving the taxpayers $40 billion. NASA's fiscal 1996 budget is below their fiscal year 1992 budget in real dollars. Aerospace is the single strongest export sector in the U.S. economy; 1993 exports topped $40 billion. Station is less than 15 percent of the NASA budget, one-seventh of 1 percent of the Federal budget, and costs each American taxpayer $9 a year. In essence, Mr. Chairman, we have a great program here. It is on budget, it is on time, and we have an agency that has been leading the charge in doing it smarter, faster, quicker, with less money, and what we are trying to do here is congratulate and encourage that Agency by kicking them when they are doing a good job. This space station, I am convinced, is vital and important for our Nation to remain the world's leader in science, technology, as well as education, and I speak out very, very strongly in opposition to this amendment. I believe our space station is part of our future, it is important for our children, and I encourage all our colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend history teacher Carlyjane Watson and her eighth grade class at Bourne High School in Bourne, MA. They marked the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II in a most creative and informative way. The class held a ``Living History Forum'' where each of the students contacted relatives and neighbors who had served during World War II to learn about their firsthand experiences. This was an innovative way to introduce the students to the wealth of historical knowledge found in their own community. This program was a fitting tribute to all Americans who made great sacrifices during World War II. It also allowed students to get a lesson in history directly from those who made it. This ``Living History Forum'' allowed the students to gain a better understanding of both the factors that lead to the war and the immense courage of those who experience it. This is sure to leave a lasting impression on both the students and those who shared their experiences. It is a fitting tribute to those who sacrificed so that we might continue to live free. Mrs. Watson is to be commended for her innovative way of making history come alive for all of those involved.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, I would just like to share with the gentleman that my mother grew up in an Italian home and she learned to speak Italian along with her 3 sisters and her brother and they were all proud to go out on the streets and learn English. My mother went on not only to get a good command of English but to get through the public school systems of the city of New York and get a college degree and go on to become a teacher. She was a strong advocate for English as a common language in the United States, because she saw firsthand the importance of knowing the language and the need to know the language to be able to get ahead. She taught me the importance of what you are talking about. That is why I am a sponsor of the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], and I am proud to be a sponsor of that legislation.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to speak out and to salute the people at Kennedy Space Center as well as the officials in NASA and those at the other centers as well as our astronauts in particular and additionally our cosmonauts on the tremendously successful recent Mir rendezvous mission. I went down, Mr. Speaker, to see the shuttle take off for that particular flight. Unfortunately we got canceled because of rain the few days I was down there and I had to return back here because the House went back in session. But then we had a flawless liftoff and the mission, I can only say, was a tremendous success. Not only did the commander of the mission, Hoot Gibson, do a fabulous job, but so did the entire crew. It was a historic mission. It was the 100th space flight for the United States, and it was the first rendezvous mission involving our space shuttle, clearly demonstrating the technology that is needed for our space shuttle not only to continue to go up and link up with the Mir space station but in a few years to be able to go up and link up with our future space station. I think it is a tremendous testimonial to the efforts of all the workers there at Kennedy Space Center as well as at Johnson Space Center and the other NASA centers that this mission went off flawlessly. I was delighted to be able to be there to see the shuttle land and to meet with some of the Russian officials. I could not help but think how our nations, the United States and the former Soviet Union, what is now Russia, enemies for so many years, for so many years engaged in an escalation of hostilities, how we can now in this arena join together and to show that through cooperation and trust that we can achieve great things. I, by no means, Mr. Speaker, mean to imply that I feel that we should let down our defenses. I am personally an advocate for a very strong national defense. I think what is going on now with the Soviet Union today, or the Russian people today, is something new, we need to take 1 year at a time and see how it goes. But I think this was a tremendous testimonial to the success of a cooperative effort. I also think it was inspiring to all our young people. Today our young people are looking for role models. So many of their role models in society let them down. When they look at the success of this mission and the astronauts in this mission, it is something they can look up to. As the Speaker knows, we have to compete in the international marketplace and we need to have the best in science and technology if we are going to be able to be competitive. I think through our space program, that is a key way in which we can continue to maintain our strong posture, leading the world in research and in science. This space station holds out the prospect for some tremendous breakthroughs in areas of medicine that I happen to be very familiar with as a former physician. I spent many years treating many women with osteoporosis and additionally treating many senior citizens who had problems with fainting or syncopal episodes. With the medical research that we are going to be doing on the space station made possible with our shuttle, we should be able to unlock some of the secrets that led to this disease and how to achieve some meaningful cures to some of these problems. To be there at the landing of this shuttle was just very inspiring. I had seen many shuttles take off before from my parking lot at work in Melbourne, FL, but I had never actually been there at Kennedy Space Center to see one of them land. It comes in over the coast of Tampa at about 200,000 feet. By the time it arrives over at the east coast at Kennedy Space Center, it is at 50,000 feet. Within 4 minutes, it is landing on the ground. It drops and drops and drops and drops, and then when it is just a few hundred feet off the ground, the pilot noses the shuttle up, the landing gear comes down, and it comes in for a landing just like an airliner. As it landed, Mr. Golden was there, the administrator of NASA, turned to me and he said, ``No other country in the world can do that.'' He was right. No other country in the world can send a spacecraft up with a crew and bring that spacecraft back and have it land on an airstrip safely. Mr. Speaker, I salute the astronauts and cosmonauts on this mission, and I [[Page H 6728]] salute all the workers at the space centers that were involved in this project.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's efforts here today to do something, to speak out about doing something for the terrible problem of excessive regulation, and the impact that has a job creation. This is a very important issue in my district, Mr. Speaker, where the defense cutbacks have put a lot of people out of work, but there are a lot of people trying to set up new businesses and trying to be independent, and the Government regulations that are required in setting up a new business, and just hiring a new person, is actually stifling business creation all across our country, including in my district. We as Republicans, I believe, need to continue the effort to try to not only downsize Government but make the Government as the gentleman said, more user-friendly and more open to job creation. One thing I do want to add to this discussion, which I think is very important, is the need to deal with our terrible problem of excessive litigation. I know a business in my district approached me, and this particular business, they had been in the printing press business for a time way back in the early part of the century, but they are now out of that business. There was a printing press that had been in use, safely in use, for 70 years, that an employee at a company had recently been injured on, and that company was, now that they have been out of the printing press business for something like 25, 30 years, they are now being sued for a product that has been in safe use for something like 70 years. I just think that is wrong, it is unreasonable. We need our tort reform legislation to get through the Senate and we probably need more provisions to be passed in the future.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding this time to me, and I will try to make my comments brief so that perhaps some of the other speakers would have the time that they need. I would just like to share with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that, when the Reagan policy was initiated, I was in the Army Medical Corps. and I was practicing medicine. I was actually in my residency, and I was working with many ob/gyn residents, and the general consensus, at least amongst the people who are out there doing what we asked them to do, was that we very much appreciated the Reagan policy because the feeling amongst most physicians is that providing abortions is not medical care. Most physicians go to medical school because they want to help the sick and help the needy, and the idea of using those skills to snuff out the life of the unborn is directly in contradiction with the principles that drew them into medicine, and to have a military officer, a military medical officer of all people, involved in doing this procedure, the use of a military facility runs directly in contradiction with all of those principles that drew us, as physicians, into the Medical Corps, and we were very grateful for that policy, and I am very much wholeheartedly in support of the gentleman from California, Mr. Dornan's, amendment. I believe that it will be upheld. I believe the sentiment of this Congress has shifted in favor of our position, and I speak as a man of experience who has been out there taking care of military families, and speak with that experience, and I say to my colleagues that this policy is very, very much embraced by the officers in the Army Medical Corps, in the Air Force Medical Corps, who wholeheartedly support the belief that we should be in this business.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Medicare is in danger. President Clinton's own trustees say Medicare will be broke in 7 years. Seven years. That means that if your parents, or grandparents, are 58 years old, there will be no Medicare for them when they become eligible at age 65. Mr. Speaker, our senior citizens depend on Medicare for their day-to- day medical needs. Republicans are determined to ensure that they can continue to depend on it by strengthening and protecting the current Medicare system. We will cut the waste and fraud from Medicare and increase the amount we spend on each recipient. We will create a series of new choices within the current system so seniors are not forced into a system they do not want. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, seniors want a Medicare system that offers the best care at the lowest cost and gives them maximum control over their own health care. Republicans will give them that system.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, isn't it ironic that the first bill the President lost increased spending by $17 billion, and the first bill he is going to veto cuts spending by almost $17 billion. Where has the President been for the past 2 years? The mandate from the people in the last election was clear--cut spending first. Gone are the days where out-of-control spending habits are the norm. This new Congress is showing that Washington must act responsibly to balance the budget. And [[Page H5629]] that means that any increase in spending in one area will equal a decrease in another. It is simple accounting. The rescission bill provides much-needed disaster assistance to people in Oklahoma City and to victims of earthquakes and floods in 40 States. Yet the President has decided to play politics with these disaster victims. By vetoing the rescission bill, thousands of people will have their suffering prolonged. Mr. Speaker, the President just doesn't get it. The people want us to act responsibily and we have.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue of the Republican proposal to eliminate the in-school interest subsidy. There is going to be a lot of rhetoric and dialog, and I think the air needs to be cleared as to exactly what is going on with this issue. I can get up here and say that I was a student who took advantage of the student loan program and the in-school interest subsidy. Though I worked my way through college in order to help get through medical was a medical student. I was very pleasantly surprised to discover that when I finished medical school and when I finished my internship and residency, that I still only owed $10,000, that the interest of 7 percent per year had been picked up by the U.S. taxpayer. Indeed, I was very happy to find that out because once I got out of medical school and my internship and residency, I got myself a pretty good job and $10,000 was fairly easy to pay off. That, indeed, is the essence of the problem with the Democrat proposal of continuing the in-school interest subsidy. Let us just say, if I had daughters, they were twins. And one wanted to go to school to become a hairdresser and it took her 1 year. And she wanted to take out a $5,000 loan to do that. And then I had another daughter who wanted to go through 4 years of college and 3 years of law school and wanted to borrow $5,000 a year to do that. Well, guess what? My daughter who went to school to be a hairdresser would be paying through her taxes the in-school interest subsidy on my other daughter who wants to accumulate a $35,000 loan and then get out and become a wealthy attorney. We, Republicans, are making a proposal that these students pay that in-school interest subsidy in the form of added principal when they graduate. This may sound like an onerous, terrible burden to place on our college students and our professional career students when they get out of law school or medical school, but the truth is, Mr. Speaker, that the average increase in the size of that student loan will roughly be equivalent to their cable bill. It will be about $27 a month, the average student will have to pay in extra costs on their student loan, not exactly what I would consider to be an onerous burden to place on a student who has a great likelihood of making a fairly good income, a substantially better income than the average person who goes out there and works when they get out of high school. Mr. Speaker, this proposal of the Republicans is a fair proposal, but probably more importantly, one of the best reasons why this is a good proposal is we do not have the money to pay for this. We have to borrow the money to pay those interest payments for those college students. Indeed, these college students, when they get out and those who have had their student loan interest paid, it has been paid in the form of added Federal debt. Those students, when they get out of college, will have more debt to pay off in the form of an added debt burden. Mr. Speaker, our proposal, the Republican proposal, is a logical proposal. It is a fair proposal. And, indeed, it is a proposal that asks the people who are most able to pay to pick up the tab. But we are going to hear a lot of rhetoric about this being something that is bad and evil, but, Mr. Speaker, it is fair. It is logical. It makes sense. It is something that is badly needed. And I support the elimination of the in-school interest subsidy. I ask that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle do so so that we can help balance the budget and we can help create a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing, with my good friend Frank Riggs, the Low-Income School Choice Demonstration Act of 1995. Mr. Speaker, in some parts of this great country, the state of education continues to decay--despite throwing more money at the problem. The liberal solution is more money, more bureaucracy, more regulation, and greater Federal intrusion into our schools. I, and my colleagues joining me on this bill, feel differently. We should focus on parental choices, deregulation of classrooms, the acquisition of essential skills and knowledge; and good, objective tests that tell us how our children are doing. Education is subject to a great many debates and ideas. One of the those ideas is allowing parents to choose the school their children attend. Some may say we shouldn't allow the parents to decide what school might best prepare their child for the world outside. But, I believe it is essential that we allow our parents to determine what is best for their children. In an article from the Washington Post this past weekend, a high school student was very surprised to find out she had scored perfectly on her SAT test. This was despite knowing she had incorrectly answered at least two questions. How could this happen? Well, currently the College Board, the organization that administers the SAT, is recentering the scores to bring the average back up to 500 points. It is a sad commentary on the state of our Nation's educational system when we have to lower the standards of education in order for our students to score well on their college entrance tests. This must stop. We must better educate our children. Breaking down old, outdated barriers and confronting the new paradigm of change and innovation has been the hallmark of this Congress. The first 100 days of this Congress brought a tremendous amount of change. The primary thrust of all the ideas that have been circulating is to reduce the role of Government and empower the American people to make their own decision about their lives. The Weldon-Riggs Low-Income School Choice Demonstration Act of 1995 is an innovative and creative way of changing the status quo in the debate about education reform and education choice for all Americans. This demonstration project is a tiny step, but a step nonetheless, toward change and a better educational future for our most valuable asset, our children. A good education is a key ingredient in ending the cycle of poverty that entraps so many of our Nation's children. This bill will liberate the parents of low-income children to choose a school that meets the educational needs of their children. Improved education is essential for our Nation's economic vitality. Our increasingly competitive global economy demands a well-educated work force, and this bill will serve as a catalyst for improved education. In 1986, almost 94 percent of high school seniors were unable to solve multistep mathematical problems or use basic algebra. In fact, a 1994 survey by the Carnegie Foundation found that few college professors feel U.S. undergraduates are prepared for higher education: only 20 percent of professors believe undergraduates have adequate written and oral communications skills and only 15 percent feel undergraduates are sufficiently skilled in math and qualitative reasoning. As for literacy, most young Americans are functioning at rudimentary levels: enough to get through the day perhaps, but not enough to sustain a strong democracy, a competitive economy, and a vibrant culture. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, functional illiteracy costs U.S. businesses $300 billion in lost productivity annually. Our children need the opportunity to pursue a good education. If this educational opportunity is outside their school district, they should have the chance to take advantage of it and find their American dream through quality education. Last November, the American people sent me and many others to Congress to change the way the Government works. School choice is one step toward changing the attitudes of the Federal Government regarding education. Under the Weldon-Riggs education bill, the Secretary of Education would review applications from school districts around the Nation and select 10 to 20 school districts to participate in the school choice demonstration project. Children who are eligible for the Federal School Lunch Program could participate, and their parents would receive certificates to use at any public, private, or charter school in the area. Two $5 million grants would be available to the most needy districts. They would be targeted to those communities with highest number of low- income children. The remaining grants would be in varying amounts up to $3 million. Parents could use the money to send their children to public, including charter schools, or private, including sectarian, schools of their choice. The money could be used to pay reasonable transportation costs and would be limited to the average per child expenditure in the local public school. The Weldon-Riggs school choice demonstration bill would cover 3 years, with an initial cost of just $30 million. Each participating school district must submit evaluation information to the Comptroller General for review. Data from the demonstration project would be studied after the 3-year period and a report would be submitted to Congress. Earlier this year, Secretary Henry Cisneros of HUD said, ``Low- and moderate-income families should have greater power to make decisions about their lives, and government should support their quest for self- sufficiency.'' This same principal should apply to education. These low-income families should have greater power to make decisions about their lives, that's what this bill does. [[Page E1045]] Mr. Speaker, I urge more of my colleagues to sign on in support of this demonstration project and put a little hope and innovation into our education system.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. Prior to coming here to the U.S. Congress, I was a practicing physician in Florida. I, indeed, took care of a lot of Medicare patients. Fully half of my clinical practice was in taking care of Medicare patients, and I got to see firsthand the tremendous value to those people of having this program, particularly those low-income seniors who always were very comforted by the knowledge they could have access to good quality medical care under this program. Unfortunately today, the way things stand, this program stands the real possibility of going bankrupt, and we, as Republicans, are proposing that we save the Medicare Program. We are not cutting anything. What we want to do is control the growth of the program. Today in America, the Government spends $4,600 per senior citizen, and we are talking about allowing that program to grow to about $6,300 per senior. But our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the President, they propose no program, but just to let this program grow to the extent that it would cost $8,600 per senior citizen, and we are seeing we need to look at this program in a way to save it, to help our seniors to continue to have the quality access to medical care that they demand, that they deserve, and the Republicans are ready to act. We are asking for some serious input from the trustees of the Medicare Program, and I support this bill, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 660, the Housing for Older Persons Act. Stop bureaucrats down at the Department of Housing and Urban Development from harassing those who live in seniors-only housing. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important issue for older Americans in my district. They should have the opportunity to live with other friends and neighbors which are sharing in the community they choose. In 1990, the Congress passed amendments to the Fair Housing Act intended to protect seniors-only housing from familial status lawsuits. However, bureaucrats down at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, appointed by President Clinton, are not allowing these Americans to follow the law. There is a nebulous requirement that seniors housing include significant facilities and services. HUD has given this term an ominous and expensive definition, that costs thousands of dollars for seniors-only housing in my district. A clear example of how the Federal Government has wreaked havoc in housing for older persons took place in my own home State. Late last year, seniors at the Windmill Pointe Village Club Association of Orlando, FL, were forced to pay more than $440,000 in damages and penalties for practicing familial discrimination. Mr. Chairman, mandating such services as illustrated in the latest regulations issued by HUD will require housing complex owners to double, triple or quadruple rents in mobile home parks or housing complexes. Unless the House of Representatives acts on this bill, the potential of high rents could effectively ban low- and moderate-income elderly from seniors-only housing. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill and end this attack on our seniors.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support for family tax relief. The rhetoric coming from the other side of the aisle does not match up with the facts. A case in point: I received a phone call last week from Christine, a constituent in my district. She is a single mom with a 7-year-old son who called to urge my vote in support of the capital gains tax relief. It seems that she is selling a home and that she needs the additional income from our tax relief to help her provide for herself and her son. Now, Christine is not rich. Yet existing capital gains tax laws severely penalize her. This bill means that Christine will keep more of her money. In addition to tax relief provided by the capital gains reduction, this bill's child tax credit will let her keep another $500 of her income. Mr. Chairman, it makes for good rhetoric and heightened class warfore, but his does not add up. Support this bill. This is a good bill.

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, while Republicans take positive steps to reduce the marriage penalty, Democrats are giving America's families one more incentive not to stay together. Under their substitute, a family making $75,000 can deduct up to $5,000 per year for educational expenses. However, a divorced couple or $50,000 or $100,000 combined, can deduct up to $5,000 each, or a total of $10,000. In other words, Mr. Chairman, Democrats reward families that stay together with a $5,000 tax penalty. Anti-family policies like this one, simply put, are destructive to families and should be rejected. I urge that we vote ``no'' on the substitute.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, a friend of the Congress and a long time leader in this nation's space and ballistic missile defense programs is retiring from the U.S. Air Force on March 31 of this year, Maj. Gen. Garry Schnelzer. His most recent position has been as the Air Force program executive officer for space, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Washington, DC. In this position, he has provided program management for the development and procurement of the major Air Force space and launch systems and Air Force ballistic missile defense programs. General Schnelzer has had a long and distinguished career of over 30 years of military service. After being commissioned through the Bowling Green State University Reserve Officer Training Corps as a distinguished graduate in July 1964, he started his military career by successfully completing pilot training at Laughlin Air Force Base, TX. He served in a variety of flying duties cumulating over 3,300 flying hours and completing over 300 combat missions in Vietnam. For his valor, courage and heroism, he received a Distinguished Flying Cross with oak leaf cluster, Air Medal with 17 oak leaf clusters and the Vietnam Service Medal with two service stars. Following his tour in Vietnam, General Schnelzer embarked on a mixture of flying and development and acquisition tours, which included assignments to the Cambridge Research Laboratories, as a C-130 pilot at Dyess Air Force Base, and as a program manager for the successfully demonstrated antisatellite weapon system. He then held a string of jobs of increasing responsibility with the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization ending as deputy director [acting]. Following a short assignment at Los Angeles Air Force Base as special assistant launch matters, he assumed his current position in February 1990. Due directly to his efforts, the nation has seen its space heavy launch capability restored, the deployment of the Global Positioning System, the launch of the first Milstar satellite and the initiation of an advanced space based missile detection and warning system. These systems are the force multipliers which ensured our dominance in Desert Storm and century. In addition to the combat awards I mentioned earlier, General Schnelzer has received other numerous awards and decorations, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, the Distinguished Service Medal, the Defense Superior Service Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters, the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal. General Schnelzer plans to answer a higher calling and will be working for the Episcopalian Bishop in San Antonio. There, he will be coordinating the activities of all the Episcopalian churches in south Texas. On behalf of my colleagues and the congressional staff who have known and worked with General Schnelzer we wish him and his wife Helen the very best in their future endeavors.

Mr. WELDON of Florida

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

Mr. WELDON of Florida

Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].