Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I had served on the Committee on National Security in authorization. I now serve on the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations, and I want to tell my colleagues, every single member on those two committees, I have the greatest respect for what they try to do to bolster our military and our men and women. And my colleagues, some of them say, ``Why not wait? Why can't we wait just a few days?'' The President of the United States last night deployed ground troops to Iraq. Just imagine, just imagine what would happen if Saddam Hussein goes into Kuwait again, and the turmoil and the loss of lives, and think about how difficult it would be to bring up a resolution like this if we waited. There has been talk about Ramadan. Well, there is another religious holiday: Christmas. Think about how hard it would be to bring up this resolution. If this goes beyond January 6 into a next Congress, then we have a constitutional problem. And the public, they want this over. I agree they want it over, and that is why we are proceeding on, to get it over. We would have to start this process all over again. The public does not want that I say to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) or the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers); they want it done. As a matter of fact, talk about polls; in the Washington Post poll they talked about if this article goes through, almost 60 percent of the American people would ask the President to resign. It is not for the President. It is because they do not want this thing to go on, and we are going to do that. Mr. Speaker, I have a tape here. I would love to play it for the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) sometime. It is 18 SAMs (surface- to-air missiles), SA-2s, going off in pairs over Vietnam. When we talk about at a time like this, our troops are fighting. Not once did I ever worry about what was going on in Congress. I worried about the strike mission, about where the SAMs were, where the triple A (anti-aircraft artillery) was, about getting back to my carrier alive. They do not care what is going on here. They want this over, too. That is not a factor in this. Our men and women are fighting and dying. I have got a friend named Bug Roach. He was flying a 25-year-old aircraft, an A-4 Skyhawk. His engine quit over Whiskey 291. It is a training area in the Pacific, west of San Diego. When he tried to eject, his seat did not work. Do my colleagues have any idea what it is like to talk to his family? Do not cut defense any more. If my colleagues want to support our troops, do not cut defense, with the Progressive Caucus that wants to cut it an additional 50 percent. Bolster our troops.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, one day I was fortunate enough to shoot down a MIG 21 over Vietnam, and all 5,000 men and women were up on the flight deck. And as they crowded around the airplane, my plane captain, Willy White, an African-American, broke through the crowds. He knocked over Admiral Cooper. He jumped up on the left wing, just as I am trying to get the ejection seat pin, and he reaches over and grabs me by the arm and he says, Lieutenant Cunningham, Lieutenant Cunningham, we got our MIG today, didn't we? What was Willy telling me? That every single member of the armed service is a part of a team, and they feel very, very much a part of each of those victories and those losses. I saw plane captains cry when their pilots didn't come back; cry, it is that tight. We don't need any L.A. protesters, the Tom Haydens, the Jane Fondas, and Americans protesting in foreign countries. What we need is to be 100 percent behind our troops. Regardless if we agree or disagree politically, we need to get behind the President. We need to fly his wing on this. We need to go in and take care of Saddam Hussein. That is important. It is not important to you and I, it is important to those men and women that are serving. I would ask my colleagues, some on the other side of the aisle that continue to want to cut defense, our kids are operating at 300 percent above the op tempo level of Vietnam. Our procurement is down 70 percent. We are only keeping in 23 percent of our enlisted. Our experience is gone. We have 1970s technologies in the F-14s, F-15s, and F-18s. We want to support our kids, not just in our speeches, but support our kids in deed, and make this country the strongest country, with peace through strength, not walk softly and carry a big stick of candy.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us tonight is vastly different than just even 2 days ago. The dollar fights willed the liberal Democrats to spend $150 billion more above the balanced budget and increase fees and taxes by $130 billion, is what this whole fight has been about. The hundred thousand teachers that the Democrats debated in support of last week is a totally different bill today. Why? Why are Republicans now supporting it? Because it is political thing to do? No. Because the President demanded it? No. But because it is paid for, it is paid for. It is paid for out of the other priorities that the President wanted, not out of increased taxes, not out of the surplus, but it is paid for, and that is all the Republicans ever asked for so we can come to the table and agree on that today. I would ask that the public take a look at what we have funded. Special education has gone from 6 to 12 percent just in the last 2 years. Impact aid for Native Americans and Federal employees, the President totally zeroed that out, and we put in $250 billion in impact aid. Head Start we increased, student loans we increased by 50 percent, and not a cost to the Federal Government, but because they were done with private firms. Pell grants for poor children we increased. But the President wanted to increase his priorities $1.1 billion above the balanced budget, and Republicans said no, we want you to pay for it. In the negotiations he had choices. He could pay for it out of the surplus, but he already said he was going to support Social Security with that. He could increase taxes, which he asked to do, $130 billion to pay for it, and Republicans said absolutely not, no taxes or fees. School construction. They could have saved 35 percent by waiving Davis-Bacon just for school construction, billions of dollars. And would they do that and support children? No, they choose to support their union bosses. They could pay for it out of the balanced budget and pay for it, which they refused to do. But tonight the President has agreed to pay for it, and now Republicans support it. Why else? Because there is local control, not federal control that the Democrats wanted. There are local regulations, not Federal regulations, in the bill. There is no Federal paperwork. It is based on the local level. The elementary schools can hire special education credential teachers, not just regularly credentialed teachers, and that is a big difference. But that is based on the local decisions and their needs, not some bureaucrat here in Washington, D.C. So we support that. And there is no national testing. It is arrived by both State and local. So this is a win-win. A hundred thousand teachers; who is going to be against improving education? My Democrat liberal colleagues say, well, the Republicans do not want to improve education. That is a joke. They had 40 years of control of this House, we are fifteenth of industrialized nations in math and science, fifteenth, and almost last in literacy, and we are trying to make a change. We are trying to send the dollars down to the local classroom. I had a hearing when I was chairman of K through 12 education. I had eight different witnesses, some half Democrat, half Republican; did not limit it as a chairman. In those districts everyone thought they had the greatest program, and I asked them at the end, I said how many of you, any of you, have the other 7? And they said none. And I said that is our entire Republican issue by giving you a block grant and not mandating that you have all 8 programs in your district, but you take the money and make the thing work, the program that works in your district because Wisconsin may be a lot different than New York or San Diego. And I want to tell you Atlanta is a lot different after the Padres beat them this week. But I want to tell you the whole Republican agenda is local control where parents and teachers, administrators and the community can make those decisions, and to have the bills paid for not out of increasing the balanced budget, but by paying for it, the President has agreed to do that. Totally different than my colleagues debated just a couple of days ago, and now they say Republicans now support our agenda. We always supported 100,000 teachers. It was how you paid for it. The President has agreed to do that with no federal control, local control, and we support it a hundred percent.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, talk about the President's leadership. He has only had two cabinet meetings in this Congress. But yet he has had over 80 fund-raisers in different areas raising millions of dollars each time. He was scheduled to go to Florida while we are sitting here working. But that is not what I am here to talk about, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to reiterate what the previous speaker said. I want to point out some areas where there is wasteful government and the difference between my colleagues on the other side that believe that government can do things better and on the Republican side and some Democrats feel that the people can do more with their own money. Any time you send dollars to Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker, about half of it is wasted. In welfare reform, less than 50 cents on the dollar gets back down to welfare. In education, less than 50 cents on the dollar gets down to the classroom because of the bureaucracies. Let me go through to be specific. In the previous Congress, I was chairman of a subcommittee on education, K through 12 education, basically. There was a direct lending program, a government program to where student loans emanated out of the government. The GAO did a study and in their report said that it cost, this was capped at 10 percent, only 10 percent of government loans. It cost a billion dollars annually, billion, not million, to run the program. It cost 5 million to collect it, because the government did not have the agencies to go out and collect it. So what we wanted to do is privatize it and cut those losses. We did that. In the balanced budget, the President wanted $3 billion for a new literacy program. California is 50th in literacy. Much to do, I think, because we have a lot of immigrants that come to California and the border States. But it was 50th in literacy. So when the President announced $3 billion for a new literacy program, it sounded pretty good, until we took a look. There are 14 literacy programs in the Department of Education. Fourteen of them. What is wrong with taking one or two of those, Mr. Speaker? And when we have an authorization, we may authorize this much, but when it comes time for the dollars we may only authorize and appropriate this many dollars? What is wrong with picking one or two of those and not just fully funding them but actually increasing them? Title I is one of those that is underfunded by the Federal Government. We could get rid of the bureaucrats, because every one of those programs has bureaucrats that have a salary and retirement. That comes out of the education funds. They have a building here in Washington that we pay rent on. The paperwork that they generate takes dollars away from the classroom. There are 760 Federal education programs, Mr. Speaker, which allow us to get less than 50 cents on a dollar down to the classroom. What we want to do is get 90 or 95 percent of the dollars down to the classroom so that the teachers, the parents, the community and the administrators can make the decisions for their children instead of the bureaucrats here in Washington, D.C. I had a hearing and we had eight different areas testifying. They all had the greatest programs since sliced bread. At the end of the hearing I asked which of them had any one of the other seven's programs. None of them. I said, that is the whole idea. Everyone likes their own programs. We want to give them each a block grant, instead of mandating all the other seven programs in all the other districts, in which there are only minuscule dollars then to run the programs that they like. We could give them a block grant, and they could pick the program that is good for them, because Wisconsin may be a lot different than San Diego, California, or Hoboken, or wherever it happens to be. Washington, D.C. My colleagues talk about school construction. Washington has some of the worst schools in this Nation. Over 70 percent of the children graduate functionally illiterate. The school houses were falling apart; their roofs caving in. School was canceled. Fire codes were not met. Schools did not start timely last year because of construction. The average age is over 60 years. We wanted to waive Davis-Bacon requirements, which is the prevailing wage or union wage, to construct those schools. And my colleagues said, oh, they are for the children. Well, we could have saved $24 million to build new schools in D.C. on that limited budget, because it cost 35 percent, Mr. Speaker, by going to union wage. We could have saved $24 million that would have gone to build those Washington, D.C., schools and repair those roofs. But did our colleagues choose the children? No, they chose their precious union, because it finances their campaigns. Watch the media if anyone has any doubt about that. Mr. Speaker, we had the Individuals with Disabilities Act; special education. It had never been fully funded, and the Republicans funded that. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and I worked and put the two factions of the schools and the parents together, with no food or water, until they came out of the room and, finally, we came up with something fairly good. There are still problems, but we funded it up toward the 40 percent level. Impact aid. The President totally cut out impact aid, education aid for military and Indian reservations. We have done a lot, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in honor of John D'Amelio, the president of the California School Boards Association of 1998 of his continuous efforts on behalf of children and education throughout his community and throughout the state of California. John D'Amelio, a retired teacher, has been a board member of the Escondido Union High School District in San Diego County for eight years. In 1996 he was appointed by Governor Pete Wilson to serve on the Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards. D'Amelio has been an active contributor to CSBA, and has served as a member of the association's Delegate Assembly since 1990 and as a regional director since 1992. In addition he has served on a number of CSBA committees, including the Legislative Network, Education Legal Alliance Committee, Nominating Committee, Annual Conference Committee and Assessment Task Force. Throughout his many years of serving the community as a teacher and board member, D'Amelio also found time to volunteer outside of these roles. He founded a community organization for at-risk minorities, served as a director on a preschool board, and became a classroom ``grandpa''. Mr. Speaker, I wish to publicly thank John D'Amelio for his dedication to the youth of California. He is one who understands the value of education and has had the generosity to sacrifice much of his life to such a noble cause.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree with my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) on Gulf War syndrome. Also FEHBP, we need to work on that for our veterans, as well, next year. I would say that this has been crafted in a very narrow way. It is a good bill and I rise in support of it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is every individual's right whether to support trade or not to support trade. I personally feel that during GATT, during NAFTA, during fast track, I think each and every one of us had pluses and minuses in those agreements. Why? I think our worst fear is not for the trade itself, but because under either a Republican or Democrat White House, I think you have to eat pabulum to be a member of the State Department. Because when it comes to the protection of our rights as Americans and our workers as Americans, we back off every time. Let me give my colleagues a classic example. In China over 200 years ago, when we first had ships going into the China ports, there was a sailing ship, they tossed a bucket with a line over and it actually hit a Chinese worker. It killed the young lady. Well, the Chinese stormed the ship, and the Americans repelled boarders, and they would not let the sailor, would not give him up. Well, then they said that if we did not turn over this worker, then they would cut all trade off from the United States. Well, what happened? With that, the United States gave in. They took the sailor and they executed him. So it seems, every time. An example with avocados in NAFTA: We begged the administration not to let Mexico import avocados, for the farmers. But yet the White House insisted that they did, against all of the Members from the States that raised avocados. And right now, California's crops are at risk. I do not berate my friends on the other side for being concerned. We need to focus on implementing these trade agreements in the White House under Republicans as well. But in this case, just like in the fast track, the words that I listened to from our farmers and our ranchers and many of my colleagues who represent agriculture districts is that this was the most important vote of the decade for our farmers and ranchers. For one reason or not, some chose not to vote or to vote for it. But I think in agreements like this, we need to focus on what is good for our American workers, and then focus on the White House and the State Department to carry those through. That is my concern for any trade agreement, not that the Republicans are doing this and the Democrats are doing that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, this debate is almost hilarious. My colleagues on the other side say there is no budget. But each appropriations bill we have in the balanced budget has a cap. Every appropriations bill has a budget in it, all 13 of them. There is your budget. And in every case, every single case except one that the liberals always want to cut is defense, and our national security is the lowest it has been in 30 years. That is your cash cow. In every single one. You say, well, education. Your party over 40 years has screwed up the education program to where we are 15th in the industrialized nations in math and science. We are last in literacy. And for the first time we have taken the 760 federal education programs so you can rein down your excessive money and limit it and get the money to the classroom. Instead of 50 cents on the dollar, we are going to get 90 cents on the dollar down to the classroom. You call us extreme. Well, yesterday's fiasco, so that you can generate your base, we are trying to lead the country based on the Constitution and here you are with a gimmick to try to generate your base. And now you are over at the White House saying, Mr. President, we need to spend more, we need big government, we need to tax more, and do you think we are going to stick around and let you do that? We are going to stick around, but we are not going to let you get away your liberal spending, liberal tax and liberal bigger government. Absolutely not. I feel sorry for my colleagues on the other side. They look at the polls and they know that many of them are not coming back next term. The only thing they can do is sit here and demagogue and push the White House to spend more money. We are not going to let you do it. Because the American people know exactly what you are trying to do. When you say education, what about the children, well, what about Davis-Bacon? We could have waived Davis-Bacon for construction on schools in D.C., Mr. Bonior, and your union bosses preferred union bosses instead of children, instead of building and putting roofs on our D.C. schools. Let us call it like it is. You talk about increasing education. The money that is in there for education out of the President's budget is not there. It is above it. And the only way he can increase it is to take it out of the surplus. And you take it out of the surplus, I do not guess you want to take the surplus and put it into Social Security anymore. I guess you have changed your mind. Because of all these great spending programs you have, you want to keep spending and spending and spending. You cannot have it both ways. You have got to adhere to a balanced budget that the President signed which you on the left do not want to do. I feel sorry for you. Because not many of you are coming back.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to say what a fantastic job that the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) has done. He will be leaving this Congress at the end of the year, and so I do not have to say nice things about him because he is going to be back as chairman. But I will say it because of what a good job he has done. California has taken the lead in charter schools, and has over the last 5, 6 years. I would like to also say what we have done, with my colleagues' support on the other side, with the charter schools in the D.C. bill, the Washington, D.C. bill. The schools here are dismal in this particular district that we are sitting in. The new school superintendent came out in support of charter schools and we fully funded them. One of the problems was some of the money was taken out of public schools. Our position was, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) and myself and the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), that the schools are doing so well, let us not penalize them. Let us reward them for the good work that they are starting to do in the City of Washington, D.C. So, we were able to fully fund the public schools to, add the money for the charter schools. We had 20,000 students to beg for summer school. First time. And it is not because they had to go to summer school; it is because they wanted to go to summer school. They wanted to learn. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Goodling) and the committee for that good work, not only in charter schools themselves but in Washington, D.C. They are starting to turn the corner. We have a long way to go. And I beg my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let us stay focused on it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make note that the National Association of Federally Impact Schools this year celebrates its 25th Anniversary. The NAFIS represents school districts that are federally impacted-- that is, their streams of state and local sales and property tax revenues are affected by the presence of military facilities of Indian lands. The federal presence in each American community represents a clear and convincing federal responsibility: that until the federal government pays local property and sales tax, it owes the schools a full and fair measure of impact aid, so that these schools may provide an excellent education to the children of military families and Native Americans, and to all children in affected communities. This association represents hundreds of American school districts, including the San Diego Unified Schools in my congressional district. It also plays a vital role in informing the bipartisan Congressional Impact Aid Coalition, of which I am a member, so that we can keep current on issues with respect to this federal responsibility of impact aid. I want to take note that NAFIS, on October 6, 1998, will honor the past presidents of the Association. Since 1973, these individuals have worked for fair treatment of our federally impacted schools, and for fair impact aid appropriations. In order of their service, these NAFIS presidents were: Lance Eldred, Dave Fish, June Quint, Thomas Bobo, Glenn Barnes, Don Bruno, Pat Hayden, Bob Thomas, Clarence Ham, Dave Kinkaid, Ed Hennessee, Ivan Small, Steve Pratt, and the current president, Lowell Draffen. I also want to recognize NAFIS Executive Director John Forkenbrock and his staff, who work very hard to keep lawmakers, congressional staffs, and association members themselves well informed about impact aid. In addition, at the same event where NAFIS honors its presidents, the association will pay a special honor to one of our colleagues: the distinguished chairman from Illinois and chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, the Honorable John Edward Porter. NAFIS will award him the Harry S. Truman Recognition Award for his vigorous advocacy in support of impact aid as a clear federal responsibility. Year after year, President Clinton's budgets have slashed and gutted impact aid, and year after year, Chairman Porter has courageously and successfully fought to ensure that the federal government meets this fundamental responsibility to our schools, our communities, and our military and Native American families. It is worth noting that Chairman Porter is only the second person ever to be recognized with this honor, the other being our late colleague, the gentleman from Kentucky, Representative Bill Natcher, a great and respected member of this House who earned and received the respect of us all. Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States now note this tribute to the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools on its 25th anniversary, on its presidents and staff, and upon impact aid's great champion in Congress, the Honorable John Edward Porter, in appreciation for their service and dedication past, present and future.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, one of the things we have done in this bill, which is very important to me as a cancer survivor, is since we took the majority in 1994 we have increased biomedical research by over 24 percent, and the Speaker is committed to doubling biomedical research. That is very important for us. For example, for care of diabetes, diabetes takes up about 23 percent of the Medicare bill. Just by early detection we can save two-thirds of the amputations, two-thirds of blindness. That not only means quality of life, or life, but it means money that we can use in other fields. Cancer research has more than doubled, but yet prostate cancer has mortality for men and among especially African Americans higher second only to AIDS, but yet it is one of the lowest funded. Now, another area I would like to speak on, I am pro-life, and I am not here to convince people for pro-life or pro-choice, but I had a very interesting perception of family planning units. That perception was wrong, and I speak as a pro-life member. I went to a family planning center in San Diego and I saw women's health care where we should at least come together on family planning. I saw women there that in some cases would not receive health care in any other areas. I saw them getting mammograms. I saw them getting pap smears. I saw them getting doctors' evaluations, x-rays for lung cancer, and many were indigent people coming across the border. It is going to save a lot of people's lives, and a lot of people from even becoming exposed to cancer. I think another area we need to come together in the family planning issue as pro-life and pro-choice is to support family planning's methods which prevent unwanted pregnancies. Federal dollars are not used for abortions by family planning. It is all private. At least we ought to be able to come together on those issues that are for women's health care and those issues that stop and eliminate unwanted pregnancies. I say that again as a pro-life member. Secondly, biomedical research to me is one of the most important things that this body can invest in. There are a lot of things. LIHEAP, I will be frank, was established when fuel costs were very, very high. You cannot get rid of a Federal program. Whether the fuel prices are low, whether they are high or whatever, as long as you have money going out to a certain group. I am convinced it is very difficult to stop it here in this body. LIHEAP is one that I think should be totally eliminated, just like the National Endowment for the Arts. Some of the people on the other side disagree and think there are other cuts. But as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) said, we are operating under a budget, and the priorities I think that he listed, I believe that every single Member on your side of the aisle would support those priorities. But we cannot have the funds under a balanced budget to meet all the priorities.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from American Samoa.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think if you take a look at what this entire subcommittee and committee has done this year, it is very, very noteworthy; from a disabled bill, to a tuna-dolphin bill, as well as future legislation, in a bipartisan way. It is gratifying when we have so many bad days, ``bad hair'' days here in Congress, that this subcommittee and committee has ``good hair'' days for us, and I appreciate it. The gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega), see, that is not bad for an Irish kid from northern L.A., but I would like to thank him for his support for this. Who I would really like to thank is a staffer named Tim Charters. Tim has poured his life and his lifeblood into this. Here is a young man that knew very little about conservation and the outdoors; and in the last 2 years, I cannot keep him out of the woods, and I cannot keep him out from looking and working in conservation programs. So I would like to thank Tim Charters. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), that have helped make this possible, and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) in the full committee, along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone). It is gratifying. But I will not reiterate some of the things that my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), chairman of the committee, has said, but this money used from the duck stamp is basically used to buy property for conservation. In every State, we have lands where there is MSP or whether we are trying to connect lands so that critters can grow and have a quarter to prosper, there is never enough funds. With a dwindling of the duck stamp, we are looking for new ways to generate revenue. The duck stamp group had, there is precedence for this because what they have done in the past is even made quilts and got a contract to make quilts with the duck stamp on it and other images of it, and we sell that to earn money to buy property for the environment and conservation programs like this one. So it is a good bill, and it is bipartisan. Very few people know that this entire program started in 1934, the duck stamp. It has been immensely popular and it has been successful and at the same time responsible. One supporter of this plan is Mr. James Mosher, a conservation director for the Izaak Walton League, who says this legislation will significantly increase revenue from duck sales, consequently leading to the enhancement of habitat acquisition and migratory bird conservation. We have some tremendous problems with migratory birds, for example, the Salton Sea in which the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) is trying to save. Migratory birds are at risk. We need to protect them. Some of our wetlands are at risk. This bill helps that. I would like to submit the rest of my statement for the Record, and it is with gratification and much happiness that I support this bill, ask my colleagues to support it and want to personally thank them for all their help.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is a private/public partnership in which we engage, and I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Promotion Act (H.R. 4248). I am proud to be joined in this effort by my fellow Sportsmen's Caucus Co-Chairman John Tanner and Migratory Bird Conservation Committee members, Representative John Dingell and Representative Curt Weldon. This legislation will allow the Federal Duck Stamp office to use money from the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (MBCF) to create an advertising program for the promotion of the federal duck stamp. This promotional program will be similar to the program used by the Postal Service to promote its stamp sales and stamp collecting. Since Congress created the Federal Duck Stamp in 1934, it has been one of America's most successful conservation initiatives. It has generated more than $500 million for the conservation of wildlife habitat. This money has permanently protected more than 5 million acres of prime wildlife habitat. This program is successful. It is also responsible, because it focuses 98 percent of the program's revenue to purchase habitat. H.R. 4248 is important because in recent years duck stamp sales have leveled off. Unless we find new ways to promote the Duck Stamp and generate additional revenues, the MBCF will be unable to keep pace with the increasing costs of purchasing land for conservation. By passing this legislation, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission will be able to promote the benefits of the Federal Duck Stamp. In doing so, they will sell more stamps and generate more funds for habitat conservation. One supporter of this plan is Mr. James Mosher, Conservation Director for the Izaak Walton League, says this ``legislation will significantly increase revenue from stamp sales, consequently leading to enhancement of habitat acquisition and migratory bird conservation efforts.'' This legislation has some precedence. In 1984, Congress allowed the Migratory Bird Conservation Committee to use MBCF funds to administer a program to license the image of the Duck Stamp. Today the Duck Stamp image is printed on products like throw rugs, T-shirts, ties, and other items. These licensing agreements generated $65 thousand in 1997, and more than $770 thousand since 1984. This additional funding has been added to the MBCF and useed to protect and preserve habitat. Mr. Chairman, one may ask whether money we use for the Duck Stamp promotion program wouldn't be better invested in habitat conservation. In fact, Ducks Unlimited, one of America's most prominent conservation organizations, addressed that exact issue in its letter of support for this legislation. Quoting from Mr. Scott Sutherland and Mr. Fred Abraham's letter, ``While Ducks Unlimited is always concerned that the maximum amount of funds raised actually go into protecting habitat in the refuge system, we believe that this temporary set-aside for marketing will eventually lead to more funds being available for the refuge system.'' This legislation is supported by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Duck Stamp Office, Ducks Unlimited, the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, and the Izaak Walton League. I urge my colleagues to join me and pass this legislation and preserve more of our nation's wildlife habitat.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue of principal. If an individual makes a loan, it is simple, they pay it back. When an individual goes in to borrow, whether it is from their colleague, a bank, whether it is a savings and loan or whatever, they know what the interest rates are and they should adhere to the rules of that loan. If they do not, it is called responsibility. They should take responsibility for that action and pay it back. And if they cannot, then it is called accountability. We must all account for the fact that we did not take into account all the different areas in which we cannot pay back that loan, whether it is from our brother, a bank or anybody else. The gentleman speaks about the rich versus the poor and the credit card companies making all this money. No one makes an individual go get a credit card. No one makes an individual borrow from their uncle or father or whatever it happens to be. But if they do, they darn sure better pay it back, because we do have laws in this Nation, versus someone saying, oh, someone is preying on the other individual. Interest rates, according to Alan Greenspan, are below 2 and 8 percent lower than if a liberal Congress would have ruled since 1994 because of the balanced budget. Now, think how an 8 percent increase on a credit card would have affected these people. It would have been disastrous. The other liberal answer is to tax people. And they talk about how in 1993, that, oh, they balanced the budget by increasing taxes on people. Well, they increased the tax on Social Security, some of our poorest people in our Nation. They increased the tax on the middle class. They cut the COLA of the military and the veterans. But yet now they cry the rich versus the poor and the profitability of credit card companies. It is based on principle, Mr. Speaker, it is based on responsibility, and it is based on accountability; some things my liberals friends fail to recognize.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm). I think of all the debate today, that he was very rational. He asked both sides to take a look at this and come together, instead of the partisanship from either side. I laud the gentleman. I was undecided. I have been treed, I have been lobbied, but never threatened, because I said I did not know if I was going to vote for this bill, and I came here today to listen, and I am appalled. I would tell my friend from California, I am appalled, because when we sit down, the thing we talk about that we hate the most about this job is the partisanship at times. And I want to tell you, this debate has sickened most of us on this floor, that when you want to talk about an issue and you are well rehearsed in unison partisan attacks on the Republicans, it sickens this debate. I grew up in Missouri. I have friends that have farms that are having to work second and third jobs just to hang onto their farms. I have got ranchers in California from whom you can buy a cow for about $500, about one-third of the value that it should be. They are dying. The most important thing that I hear today is that this is the most important vote that we can cast in this body for our farmers and our ranchers and our small business people. But yet we would rather stay up here and say the Republicans are only doing this to embarrass the President. This gentleman is not doing that. I came to this floor to listen to an honest debate, and I am sorry and saddened by the debate that has taken place today.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time, my Marine Corps friend, but let me state one thing in correction. The movie Top Gun was not based on my life. There were several of the scenes based on real-life events. We never overstate in this business our qualifications. But I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about a few things, and I think 99\9/10\ percent is positive. There are some things in here on a bipartisan basis. I left the Committee on National Security, the authorization committee. It is show-me-the-dollars to the Committee on Appropriations, for defense. But the two committees work hand-in-hand. And one of the biggest reasons I hated leaving the Committee on National Security was my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton), and the work we did there. But let me tell my colleagues a couple of things that we did, and I think things we need to do in the future as well. The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. J.C. Watts), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Mac Thornberry), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Jim Moran), the gentlemen I just spoke of, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ike Skelton), and myself fought to get FEHBP for our veterans. A worker in the Pentagon that is nonmilitary, after they retire, during Medicare they qualify for FEHBP. Someone we ask to fight our battles does not qualify, and that is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and we need to change that. But the folks I mentioned before fought for that. And I would also like to give thanks to a gentleman that we lost this year, and that is General Jim Pennington, who passed away, and this was one of his dreams, to bring FEHBP to veterans. He lived long enough to see this come to fruition in a pilot program, and we need to carry on with that as well. After the Committee on National Security heard the classified briefings on Long Beach Naval Shipyard and the Communist Chinese Shipping Company, COSCO, there was a vote, I believe it was 45-4, to keep the Communist Chinese from taking over Long Beach. Now, I have never been against them staying as a tenant just like they are in other ports, but to give them absolute control when the reason we went into Afghanistan and some of our other sites, it was COSCO that shipped those chemical and biological and in some cases nuclear parts to those things from China, to give them access to Long Beach Naval Shipyard was just wrong, not access but complete control. That is in this bill. Something we worked on very diligently from a very bipartisan group called the Sportsmen's Caucus was the disabled sportsman. What we found is that a lot of our military bases are now opening up to disabled sportsmen. You can imagine being in a wheelchair and wanting to go fishing and you go out on a dock that does not have a handrail. This was also in the bill, in the disabled sportsman portion of it. Let me speak and say something to my colleagues. Very bipartisan committees, both the authorization and appropriation. Where we get outside of that is where I would like to speak to my friends that do not believe that we need more defense spending. We could survive under the balanced budget agreement with defense spending. But we cannot survive with that limited budget and then take 300 percent, the overseas deployments, and take those funds out of that already limited bill. The reason that we only have 24 percent of our military, of our enlisted staying in is family separation, and pilots are leaving in droves, the economy is good and they can get jobs on the outside. That experience is going. We are going to lose great numbers of airplanes over the next five years, even if we invest now. Because when you have your experience going out of your enlisted, your pilots are gone, you are having to take cannibalization. Oceana has four up jets, they normally have 45, because they are cannibalizing parts. So your training back here in the United States for your brand new pilots is very limited. All of these are factors in this readiness. I am happy that the President is going to put a billion dollars into the emergency supplemental. But the Joint Chiefs told him he needs $15 billion over a period of time, and Shalikashvili said that we need to increase procurement spending by up to $60 billion. A billion dollars just will not do it over the long haul. I am thankful that the President and some of my colleagues realize that the Cold War is not totally over. I would like to thank both sides of the aisle for the bipartisan work on this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the United States of America is the envy, I think, of the whole world on our high-tech accomplishments and our industries. Take a look at our biotech industry. Look at QualComm all over the world. Look at our health care. Look at our universities in health care. Look at the supercomputers that San Diego and other schools have. We need to keep that going. My nephew had a full scholarship to MIT. His fiance is finishing up her Ph.D. in biotech at the age of 27. Their future is set because of the shortages that we have in the technology field. In San Diego we have a program that takes displaced aerospace workers and trains them in these high-tech fields. However, I would like to tell the Members that workers at a beginning entry level do not have the same productivity as someone that has a Ph.D. and experience in the field that could produce the jobs, the biotech, the health care remedies and those kinds of things that we need. If we look at the aerospace industry, we are in a sine wave with jobs. At times there are high peaks, and right now we happen to be in low peak, and we need people to replace them. What this bill does is takes that valley and levels it off, and at the end of that valley we allow for the American worker to have priority over a foreign worker, and they are out. That is all we are trying to do. Here is the challenge. Remember Jaime Escalante? He said, just because a child is a minority she is not any ledss capable than other children. I can teach that child math. The community thought he was nuts. The teachers thought he was nuts. The children thought he was crazy. Yet, he taught those kids math. Then the community rallied behind him. That is what we need to do with the American education system. We need to invest in the public education system, through private and local initiatives. But at the same time, we cannot continue to only get about 50 cents on the dollar out of our Federal programs. That is why our Dollars to the Classrooms Act, getting 90 cents out of the dollar for classrooms, is very, very important. We need to invest in those kinds of things. This bill is a balance for American workers and American jobs. When we take a look, we, the United States of America, are 15th of the industrialized nations in math and science. That is a crime in itself. Look at the D.C. schools. Children are graduating, and over 60 percent are functionally illiterate. If we want a long-term solution, it is--and I agree with my friend, the gentleman from New York--it is education, and making sure that we have those effective kinds of programs. We do not do that in this country, to a large degree. Overall, we have a shortage in the field that we need to fill. This bill allows us to do that. Are there problems with it? Yes. But I think it is a bipartisan agreement in most areas, and I support the rule and the bill. Mr. Speaker, America's high-tech industry is the envy of the world. It powers our strong economy. And it is making our lives better. Advanced technology requires people with advanced skills to keep these innovations coming. Our high-tech industry spends far more per worker on training and education than other industries do. But the Commerce Department, the American Electronics Association, my local San Diego Chamber of Commerce, and many of the employers in my district--like Hewlett-Packard, Qualcomm, UCSD and others--all agree that there are not enough of these high-skill workers to go around. Moreover, our colleagues and universities are not producing enough science and engineering graduates to meet demand. And of those graduates, a large percentage are non-U.S. nationals. So what can we do? First, America's schools must do better than last place among industrialized countries in math and science. Our ``Dollars to the Classrooms Act'' and other local initiatives will help meet that challenge. But it will take time. Second, we should encourage more young people to pursue the high-tech field. Again, this will take a long time to bear fruit. But we can do it. Third, we should adopt this legislation, H.R. 3736, the Workforce Improvement Act. The Workforce Improvement Act temporarily increases the number of high-skill worker visas. It will help American employers address the current high-tech worker shortage, so they can strengthen America's economy, help create American jobs in America, and maintain our global leadership in technology and innovation. The bill contains a reasonable balance of checks and balances-- helping to keep the H-one-B visa program from being abused, while resisting the temptation to have the U.S. Department of Labor involved in every private hiring decision. And the fees from this program will help pay for advanced American worker training and education. This bill is not perfect. I would have preferred that the increase in H-one-B high skill worker visas was offset with a reduction in other visa categories. But the measure is a product of compromise. And on balance, it is in the national interest. For American workers, American jobs, and a strong American future * * * support this important legislation, and oppose the Watt substitute and the motion to recommit.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, why is the left against this bill? Because they want big government control for education and they will fight to keep it. They will do anything to keep those 760 Federal education programs which strangle the dollars going to the classroom. Let us take a look at the D.C. bill. We could have waived Davis-Bacon for construction and saved $26 million, but did the left choose children and schools? No, they chose their union. We had 8 witnesses in a program, and the gentleman from North Carolina talked about block grants, all different programs, all good programs. The gentleman, when we asked which one of those that the other 7 had, they had none. The whole idea of a block grant is where parents and teachers in the community can make the decision, instead of a bureaucrat here in Washington D.C. that does not know your children. The left would fund all 8 programs, have bureaucracies here in Washington D.C. which take money away from the classroom. Let us take a look at 100,000 teachers. Well, I do not guess my colleagues wanted the money, the surplus money for Social Security, because that is where the 100,000 teachers would pay for. The left said they want all the money for Social Security, but yet to pay for the 100,000 teachers, under the balanced budget agreement that the President signed and many of the Members signed is not there. Mr. Chairman, $3 billion in literacy that the President wanted. There is 14 literacy programs. What is wrong with taking 1 or 2 and not just fully funding it, but increase the funding of those that work and get rid of the building, get rid of the bureaucrats that we have to pay their paycheck and their retirement which takes away from the classroom. That is why the left does not want this bill. They want the big bureaucracy, not for children.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of this committee, although I am a member of the full committee, and I came to seek time because there is an increasing problem, and I have heard the same problem from both sides of the aisle. With increasing trade agreements, we have more and more American investors investing abroad, and our American citizens are getting ripped off by the same countries that we are giving foreign aid to. A good example, in Bulgaria, one of my constituents invested $4 million, and the bank acknowledges receipt of the money. But yet, one of their employees took off with the money and they do not want to take responsibility for it. It has to go into the courts. Three years later, nothing has happened. Dr. Raffee, known worldwide as a computer expert, was asked under Prime Minister Zia in Bangladesh to invest in a high-tech company in Bangladesh. Well, to give my colleagues an idea, Bangladesh was established by 2 men, 1 civilian, 1 military. The civilian was the first President, the military was the second President. The civilian is the father of the current prime minister, the military gentleman is the father of the previous Prime Minister Zia. Each feels that the other woman had their entire family murdered. So my colleagues can imagine the situation that exists there. It is a blood feud paralleled not even close to the Hatfield and McCoy blood feuds. And our businessmen are getting caught right in the middle of it, and that is wrong. What I would say is that when we have our trade agreements that there be a rule of law established and enforced that maybe the State Department could have an antiAmerican business alert, and even this committee, in extreme cases, review and take a look to make sure that our American interests are secured in these extreme cases, because there is an increasing problem. I have talked to many of my colleagues on the other side, and they have constituents with the same problems. I would appeal to the committee and the subcommittee to take a look into this area and withhold funds not only in human rights, but American rights, just as we have in the past. I thank the chairman for allowing me to have the time to express these concerns.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, I am a strong fiscal conservative. That is where the disagreement is. We feel that to fight this war and give it to the people that are very effective is the best that we can do, because it saves a lot of money in our own country and other countries fighting this. I think that is where the difference is, that we feel that there are people in Mexico and Colombia that are fighting this war effectively. If we accept the gentlewoman's amendment, then we lessen that war.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise in opposition to the amendment because I know the gentlewoman from California, a colleague of mine, does fight in every way she can to remove drugs from the streets. I think her heart is in the right position on this particular amendment. I do see it a little bit differently and I would like to go through why we have those differences. Almost every family in this country has been affected negatively by drugs one way or another, including my own, not only from usage but sale of drugs. I want to tell you how disappointing, how hurtful it is and how damaging it is to the family. It is not easy to deal with those kinds of things. We have had a lot of activity, President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton. I think President Reagan and President Bush made more of a dent in antidrugs than many of the other Presidents, but we have never really had a war, a real war on drugs. That is what it is going to take. It is across the lot of broad fronts. Is it education? Absolutely. Interdiction. Border control where most of it is coming from. The cargo containers. That is why one of the reasons we did not want Long Beach Naval Shipyard to fall to the Communist Chinese because they have been known to sell drugs along with AK-47s and the rest of it. Diplomatic, trade agreements ought to include these things and be real tough, and also penalties. Many times we come to the floor to penalize the people that are really selling these poisons to our neighborhoods and many people feel differently, that we should not do that. Mr. Chairman, you remember a man named Enrique Camerino, a Border Patrol guy just east of my district and the district of gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter). He was buried alive after being tortured by Mexican officials. Yes, Mexico does have a problem. But I want to tell my colleagues, I live down on the border. There are citizens in Mexico that feel the same as we do, they are fed up, they are exasperated. They want drugs out of their country and they do not want drugs being sold to other countries. There are law enforcement agents in Mexico that feel the same that we do. There are politicians that feel the same. Are there problems? Yes. But I would say to the gentlewoman, if we are going to have this war, first of all we need to make sure that the resources go to where it is going to do the good and not pilfered. But if we take away those resources with the gentlewoman's amendment to people that we think are really fighting this war, then we are going to have problems. Because there are people in every one of those countries that are good citizens, whether they are law enforcement, politicians or just citizens. I would remind my colleagues, it was right here in the House when we closed the Post Office, there were members, not Members of Congress but there were individuals selling cocaine right here in the Capitol of the United States. We have the Mayor of Washington D.C. that went to jail for cocaine. Does it affect a lot of people? Is it in the political world? Is it individual? Every Member is being affected. I would say with the most humility, the gentlewoman's heart is in the right place in this amendment. I just happen to disagree with the amendment itself.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The gentleman fails to remember that it was the Democrats that increased the tax on Social Security in 1993 and it was the Republicans that saved us from dipping out of the trust fund so it would not go bankrupt. But I am here to talk about the missile that North Korea fired and its importance. Most of the press reports that the missile can reach the United States, some 3,300 miles. That is true. But tactically the THAAD and the Upper Tier, the Upper Tier is the Navy antimissile defense program, THAAD with the Air Force, any time we have a ship, say if South Korea is invaded, we cannot bring our carriers north of Cheju which is on the southern tip. That means they can be hit. Our forces deploy out of Japan and Taiwan. They can be hit there as well. So it is not just the threat of a missile reaching the United States. It can reach all of the ports to where we deploy against any country. That is important. That is another reason why we need antimissile defense.