Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I do not think there will be peace in the Middle East or Ireland or in Bosnia in my lifetime, and I do not believe that racism will be dead in the United States of America in my lifetime. I truly believe that. But I also believe that affirmative action creates a lot of negatives and that it is detrimental just like I think bilingual education is detrimental. And I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Riggs) that the best thing we can offer to all children and to all Americans is an equal opportunity, especially by focusing on kindergarten through 12th grade. A large portion of our Hispanic population drops out of school. That is wrong. And what chance do they have at the American dream? A large portion of the African-Americans that attend college are in remedial education, so in both groups the best thing we can do is offer all children the best we can in K through 12. But yet in this country we do not do that good a job, even though we have good teachers and good schools. My wife is one of those. I was one of those. My dad, who died three years ago, he was a Democrat, and he said: Son, my ideal of the American dream is getting a good education and working hard. And if you have those tools, you can pursue happiness. It is not guaranteed. But if you pursue happiness and you have those tools, not every day but most days you can make tomorrow better than it is today. And I truly believe that. But I think turning the clock backwards, which many of my colleagues are trying to do, is wrong also. No, we are not to where we want to be, but I think the focus is on equality. Look at our colleges. Most of them are thick and strongly populated by the Asian community because they focus on education at a very young age. I have a large Asian population in my district and they focus on the family. They focus on education from the day that they are in kindergarten and those kids volunteer for every single event that will foster them an opportunity to go to school. And as I look at our inner cities, what chance do they have at the American dream, Mr. Chairman? Almost none, because of the welfare system that was set up, because of the problems that they had, and the lack of values, and the crime and the drugs, and on and on and on. So if we really want to help all children, let us do away with affirmative action and I truly believe that. The gentleman knows I worked with him on the committee. And I believe that if we do that, that then we are going to help this country, not hurt it. Is it a perfect country? Absolutely not. But most of us, believe it or not, will work with you in that direction.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I would add my wife is a public school teacher as well with a doctorate degree. Madam Speaker, I had a high regard for General Julius Becton who led D.C. in an almost impossible task, and have worked with Arlene Ackerman who is going to take his place. But I want to say, Bishop McKinney came, an African American from San Diego, that has a school of at-risk black children in the school system, at-risk children that over 90 percent of them go on to school, and they work with special vouchers in the program. I live in Washington, D.C., and I have met some good teachers, and I have met where they work to have good schools. That is true in any city, and we can find bad schools in any city. But I want to tell my colleagues, per capita, the schools in D.C. are worse. Sixty years old, the average. They have not done a very good job of managing their own city. Roofs that they had to close down the systems, and I get sick and tired of saying we are going to take money away from public education when we could have saved 35 percent for school construction out of public education by waiving Davis-Bacon to repair and build schools, but would they do it? No, because the unions did not want it. Thirty- five percent saving of money, but they would not even do it. They would not even vote to have the NEA pay its fair share of taxes in D.C. so that that money would go to the school, because, quote, that was a union. But I want to tell my colleagues, they are behind the power curve. I lived up by the train station. My car was broken into twice. Someone died and was shot right outside the driveway. Two ladies were mugged going into the area. A large portion of the students graduating from D.C. are functionally illiterate, and that is not what we want. We want to give them an opportunity. Madam Speaker, the wealthy do have a choice. The President, the Vice President, and guess what, the delegate to D.C. have their children in private schools. Give the students that are trapped the same opportunity.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is wrong for either President to increase, and my whole point is let us not tax annuities in savings, let us give incentive.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a healthy dialogue that we have here today. As my colleagues know, the very first time I heard of Social Security problems was when I first came in Congress. A group came to me and said, ``Hey, Duke, do you know anything about the notch?'' And everybody that is in this body knows about the notch babies and the problems that it has precluded for most of us. Also, I do not believe that Social Security was ever meant to be a retirement system, but for many people, and not so many in my district as we have in other districts, but many of them, especially in our lower income, Social Security is all they have, and I think it would be healthy to look at a dialogue in which we enable people to have more than Social Security. I thought it was wrong in 1993 when the President increased the tax on Social Security because I think we do things backward in this country. I think we tax annuities for savings. I think we ought to give an incentive for taxing annuities, for, excuse me, for saving for our chronologically gifted years and one's time. We tax work. I think we should not tax work, but we ought to give incentive to work. But if we look, we ought to have a national dialogue in which we can allow people to plan not only for retirement, to protect the Social Security. And the first thing we did is say, ``Keep your hands off the Social Security Trust Fund. Because any time you run in a deficit, then you have to put an IOU into that account and draw it back. And the only way you can ever replace it is when you have a surplus like we may have coming up, which really isn't a surplus because we use those accounts to balance the budget,'' and that is wrong, too, I think. But, yes, we ought to save Social Security and protect it as it is, but the dialog should be, how can we make it better? With the gift of compound interest, instead of ending up with one's investment of, say, like $175,000, one can end up with almost a million dollars. They can draw $60,000 a year just on the interest. I mean, that is worth. And I am not saying that is the way to do it, but is that not worth a dialogue with our chronologically gifted folks, with the baby boomers and with the pre-baby boomers to see if we can give them more than just what we have given? It is not enough, and too many people are on a fixed income. I thank my colleagues for engaging in the dialogue and on the issue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) in addressing the critical need for increased funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). I am submitting letters from my constituents who have shared with me the importance of NIH funding to their lives. These letters eloquently make the case for increased NIH funding. Again, I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for leading this debate tonight and encourage all my colleagues to support increased funding for NIH. Arthritis Foundation', San Diego, CA, April 24, 1998. Hon. Randy Cunningham, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Cunningham: This is to share our concerns and express the importance of doubling the funding to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Funding research is critical to addressing the causes, treatments, and prevention of arthritis, musculoskeletal and skin diseases. Over 40 million Americans have some form of arthritis and it is predicted that by the year 2020 that number will increase to 60 million. Arthritis occurs at all ages, destroys the quality of life for people who have it, and requires medical care over long periods of time. The current economic costs are estimated to be at least $143 billion. Arthritis and related diseases are the most common causes of chronic illness in the United States and are the leading causes of time lost from work. Arthritis researchers are making great strides in understanding these diseases. Some of the advances sponsored by NIAMS include: new understandings of the roles of immune system abnormalities, infectious agents, and genetic factors in rheumatoid arthritis; development of new experimental treatments for osteoarthritis, significant insights into the specific genetic factors involved in lupus; and improved total hip replacement materials and techniques that have enhanced quality of life and productivity for many people. While these are significant advances, we need to continue to support researchers and new investigators so that more answers can be found to reduce the incidence and prevalence of arthritis. The Arthritis Foundation spent $16 million in 1997 on arthritis research and has committed to more than doubling that amount to $37 million by the year 2000. Please support our commitment by doubling the funding to NIH so that we can work together towards finding a cure for and prevention of arthritis. Your time and efforts are greatly appreciated by all who have arthritis. Sincerely, Julie Schwartz, Associate Vice President.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I understand those that may want to support the IMF, but if we look, economists themselves are split whether the IMF does any good or not. And then those that say even that they doubt that we need it to bail out southeast Asia. But yet $18 billion. As my colleagues know, this body has wrestled with emergency flood, emergency El Nino, emergency supplemental for defense, and yet we are having to try to offset it so we do not break the budget caps through domestic spending. But yet we are going to give away $18 billion. Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, $16 billion in operations that we get no credit for from the U.N., but yet there are those that want to give money to the U.N. in support, $16 billion, $18 billion, $5 billion more for the extension in Bosnia. My colleagues, where does it stop? The American taxpayers have to pay for this. It is not our money. It is $18 billion, not even million dollars, and we are going to give it away, Mr. Speaker. That is wrong. My colleagues rap on the Republicans all the time for having to offset money. We want to break the budget caps, we want to spend more money. Well, it is easy to spend it but it is difficult to go to the taxpayers and ask them to pay for it, and then even more difficult to say where are we going to take it out and still not break the budget caps? Alan Greenspan said if we do, interest rates will go back up, the economy is going to go to hell, and it just does not work. But yet here they are asking us again to spend, to spend, to spend, bigger government, higher taxes, spend money. It is the same old rhetoric, and I do not support it, and I do not think the American people do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in tribute to Commander George W. Hoover, who passed away last month and now lays at rest in Arlington National Cemetery. Commander Hoover was a friend to me, a friend of America, and one of the greatest intellects the country will ever produce. It is one thing to briefly summarize his life: born April 24, 1915, in New Kensington, Pennsylvania; joined the Navy in 1934 and served a distinguished career as an aviator and an engineer; married, father of two children; consultant to numerous government agencies and leading engineering and aviation firms; and responsible for several innovations critical to the progress of aviation engineering and instrumentation. I want to focus on a couple of things that were particularly meaningful to me. First, in 1945, Commander Hoover was designated Navy Helicopter Pilot Number 10. Today as we take for granted the availability of helicopters for military and civilian use, Commander Hoover ranks among the pioneers of aviation as one of America's very first helicopter pilots. Second, Commander Hoover was responsible for bringing the Martin Baker Ejection Seat from Great Britain into the United States. On my 300th air mission in Vietnam, May 10, 1972, my RIO Bill Driscoll and I rode the descendants of the Martin Baker seat to safety upon the explosion of my F-4 Phantom. Thanks to Commander Hoover, the availability of this seat, and the improvements he and others made to it, ensured that a pilot could eject safely from a disabled airplane, even from an altitude of zero, on the carrier deck. No remarks I make can possibly pay appropriate tribute to Commander Hoover's remarkable career. It should be noted that in 1999, Commander Hoover will be nominated for induction into the National Museum of Naval Aviation ``Hall of Honor'' at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida--the cradle of all Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard aviators, and the place where a worthy memory of his many accomplishments can be kept. His memory will also be kept by his widow, Lona, and his two children. The life of a Navy wife is hard. Her husband is sent on deployments for months at a time. For the decades that Commander Hoover served his country in the Navy, I want it to be recognized that his wife Lona served America and the cause of freedom with vigor and distinction just the same. Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States now pay tribute to Commander George W. Hoover, and to his widow Lona and his family. God bless them for their service to America and to one another.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Credit Union Membership Access Act (H.R. 1151). This legislation will reverse the February 25, 1998, Supreme Court ruling (AT&T Family Federal Credit Union et al. v. First National Bank & Trust Co.) which sent shockwaves through this Nation's 70 million credit union members. That decision threatened the future and financial safety of our Nation's credit unions. The 51st District in California, which I represent, is served by more than 230 different credit unions with more than 305,000 members. By passing this legislation, we will ensure that not a single credit union member will lose their choice of financial service provider. This legislation affirms the commitment of this Republican Congress to keep a healthy, competitive financial service industry in America. I call on all my colleagues to join me in support of credit union members and to vote for H.R. 1151.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of this rule. Like all the bills that we have, I do not know of a single bill that we have that there are parts that we do not like. I like the section that we just talked about, protecting the veterans, and I think the case that can be made in order is a very good one. The chairman may disagree with that. But I was disappointed at one area, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) has an amendment that would draw down drunk drivers down to .8 percent and put penalties. It is a stick. There are measures in the bill that is a carrot and a stick, but I think in the case of drunk drivers we need more stick than we do carrot, and I am disappointed that that is not allowed. It is in the Senate version, and I would ask the chairman and the ranking minority to support that in conference even though it is not in our bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this is very difficult for me, because there is nobody on the other side that I respect more, and he knows I speak that from my heart, than the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha). The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who is a veteran, I have a lot of faith in. Mr. Chairman, I soul-searched this very issue myself, and the bottom line is it is our responsibility as Members of Congress, and I think that is where the line splits. We have a responsibility. It is difficult for me to blast the White House on getting us into the Somalia extension, putting us in Haiti against Congress, and putting us in Bosnia, arming the Muslims against the wishes of Congress and putting up billions of dollars, and then come out in support of this bill that does those very same things. This makes Congress uphold its responsibility, and I think it is very, very important that this debate is going on. President Bush came to Congress and asked Congress to vote on this. President Clinton never does that. He just goes ahead and does it. In the case of Somalia, as we downsized, we denied armor, the White House denied armor to them and we lost 22 Rangers. In the case of Haiti, and especially in Bosnia where we are arming the Muslims and there are 10,000 Mujahedin and Hamas there, that is going to cause in my opinion World War III. So with bad decisions on foreign policy and military deployment, and when we are operating at 300 percent the OPTEMPO and killing our military, we need this amendment and I ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, let us talk about those piggy banks. The gentleman from Missouri and his statements, I would like to speak directly to those. First of all, for 30 years, Democrats controlled this Congress; and the debt has soared, where we pay over a billion dollars a day on just the interest. That is before law enforcement. That is before education. That is before anything that we want to pay for. The liberal Democrat leadership was against a balanced budget because that limits their ability to spend. They were against a tax relief for working families. They were against welfare reform. They just wanted to spend more money for it. Who has to pay all of those extra costs for not having a balanced budget, for not having tax relief? They increase taxes and they put increase on Social Security tax. They cut veterans and military COLAs. They increase the tax on working families. So the record is very clear. But who is going to pay for that? We had a D.C. bill where we would waive Davis-Bacon to pay for 60-year-old schools. The word ``children'' was mentioned, but do we think the leadership would waive Davis-Bacon that saves 35 percent to build schools in Washington, D.C.? No, because they are tied to their union brothers. It is 35 percent savings. Again, who has to pay for that 35 percent? Working families and senior citizens. Alan Greenspan has told us that we cannot bust these budget caps because the interest rates right now are between 2 and 8 percent lower. Now, what does that mean to working families? That they have more money for education, for their children. They have more money to buy a car, or even a double egg, double cheese, double fry burger if they want. But it is more money in their pocket instead of having to pay for the debt or come back in Washington, D.C. They want to pay for IMF, $18 billion, when the economists debate on the value of that. It is $18 billion, but yet we are having to find offsets. Yet, the gentleman from Missouri wants to pay. The United Nations, we pay 30 percent of all peacekeeping. The President has put us in Somalia without Congress. They put us in Haiti without Congress. They have kept us in Bosnia without Congress. Yet, we have to pay for it. Yet, our European nations have not paid for their share. They say, why can we not pay our bills? Well, who pays for that $18 billion? Who pays for the billions of dollars that go to the U.N.? The working families. That is what I am saying. There is a big difference between our plan and what the Democrats want to do, which is just spend more money without offsetting it and continue with the 30 years of tax-and-spend big government, liberal government. We are not going to allow that to happen. Now, it is legitimate. They feel that big government can do everything. We do not. There is a difference in the choice, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Alan Greenspan has told us that we dare not break the budget caps, that the growing economy, interest rates, low inflation are because of that, that the balanced budget is a very important document that we bipartisanly worked on in this House. But if my colleagues take a look, we pay nearly a billion dollars a day on just the interest of the debt. That is before we pay for anything, one area. Now some of us feel that those offsets, some offsets are good, but one cannot find any offsets in this body that people will agree on that is not painful, should it be National Endowment for the Arts, should it be AmeriCorps that costs $27,000 per volunteer, should it be such things as bilingual education, which over 72 percent of Californians want to get rid of because we are last in literacy, it has been in effect all this time. But regardless, it is difficult, and we are going to have to make those kinds of decisions, but we feel that instead of going ahead and spending the money, which when we did not have the majority was the case for 30 years that put us into debt, then we have got to offset these and it is going to be painful. I disagree with my own side on the housing issue; I think that is one area where we need to invest, but I would also say that Somalia was put there by the White House. The White House did Haiti without our input, they armed the Muslims in Bosnia without our input, they kept us in Bosnia, $16 billion without any offsets or just increases in spending. And so when we make these deployments, 300 percent uptempo increase for our military while it is about half the size, it means our kids are overseas and doing three times the work and we have a retention rate of our senior enlisted of only 24 percent. That means the quality. Our equipment is 1970s technology. I have got squadrons that have one or two airplanes left in the United States because their parts and all the equipment has got to be to the deployed units. And our kids are saying, ``Enough is enough, in a growing economy I can't hack this away from my family.'' We need to offset this. The fraud, waste and abuse in the military and other areas we need to eliminate, and it is going to be a difficult job, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, when the other side says that they support the working man and woman, it is not true. Over 90 percent of the jobs in the United States are small and large business, nonunion affiliated. What they support are the big union bosses. That want bigger government because they want the power; and that causes higher taxes, higher spending, which goes right along with the Democratic leadership. Secondly, that over 30 percent of union workers are Republican, 10 percent of the workers are third party, and they are coercing that 40 percent to spend their money on campaigns against candidates that they support. And that is wrong. What this bill does is says that the union has got to ask those members, if they use their dollars, can they use them against the opponents. And that is wrong. Thirdly, let us say that a Republican, there are a great number of them that represent union districts, let us say that they vote along with the unions. The President will veto anything that is kicked out against the unions because he wants that power also. If the Republicans vote along with the unions, we lose that. If they vote against it, the President vetoes it; and the Senate probably will not pass it. But let us just say that the union stuff is kicked out. That leaves a disaster in campaigns, because it throws the majority of power to the Democrats. That is exactly what they want. That is why they want the campaign finance reform, because they know it is a lose-lose situation. They want their unions to be able to contribute hundreds of millions of dollars. They want the Lincoln bedroom. They want the Tries, the Riadys and the Jeffersons and the rest of them to contribute, but yet they do not want the other side of it. They caused the problem in 1974 with the PAC money. We are trying to clear it up.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is laughable. Now the unions have won World War II. This is the same group that said that sharks still follow the ships because of the number of slaves that fell over. The gentleman is factually challenged. He talks about American families, American working families. Over 90 percent of the jobs in this country are small business and business, nonunion. Over 90 percent are nonunion. But yet the people that support this do everything they can to kill small business. The issue, salting, you go into a small business and you try and destroy it. How many of them have ever been organized? Zero. Yet you go in and tie them up before the board and actually force them out of business. When you talk about the working family, talk about the 90 percent that are nonunion. You talk about Davis-Bacon, you say, ``Well, I'm for the children.'' In Washington, D.C., schools, the buildings are over 60 years old. We could have gone in and waived Davis-Bacon to build schools and saved 35 percent. But are you for children or union bosses? No, the union bosses. Why? Look at the paper. The AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, hundreds of millions of dollars that go to the DNC tied to organized crime, but yet they support their campaigns. Less than 10 percent. They know that small business cannot organize. Then 30 percent of those less than 10 percent are Republicans, 10 percent are third party, and they charge that 40 percent union dues to be used against candidates that they do not support. The gentleman talks about working families. Why does the gentleman not support the 90 percent of working families that are out there that the unions try and persecute? No, because they fund the gentleman's campaigns.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank both sides of the aisle for bringing the legislation forward. I know that in the case of Greece, Greece has been our ally for a long time. I recently went with the Chairman on my first trip ever in 7 years to Greece. I know the problems associated with an ally of ours, just the fact of trying to get a visa. Since my wife is Portuguese, of course I support that as well. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) and the Members on the other side of the aisle for the legislation. It is good legislation and a long time overdue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Appropriations went forth on, quote, emergency supplementals in different areas. One was for IMF, the other was U.N., one for emergency spending, and the state of defense. Let me talk about the state of defense. In 30 years, Mr. Speaker, our national security is the worst and the lowest I have ever seen it. We have gotten there because Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia policies set forward were not paid for. They have cost $16 billion out of an already low defense budget. Those dollars come out of operation and maintenance of a 1950s budget. The other problems that we have in emergency spending, we have got to find some offsets for those. It is going to be difficult in the upcoming weeks to find those offsets so we do not break the budget. Alan Greenspan has said if we break the budget caps, then the economy we have, the interest rates and everything else is going to go down. We need to work together to find those offsets, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, let me give a little different perspective. I do not disagree with my colleagues, but I would add maybe some enlightening information. First of all, during World War II, it was the Serbs that fought with the Allies and the United States. I attended a dinner, a banquet of some 400 Allied and U.S. Air Force pilots that were giving their thanks to the Serbs for getting them behind and through the Croatian and the Muslim lines that fought with Nazi Germany. I feel that in most cases during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia that the Serbs have been pointed out, maimed and not given equal treatment. I do not want special recognition, but I ask for a more evenhanded look at the Serbians in this conflict. I do not think there will be peace in the Middle East in my lifetime, nor do I think there will be peace in the former Yugoslavia in my lifetime, but most certainly until we get rid of Milosevic, until we get rid of Izetbegovic, until we get rid of Tudjman, to me, this is the main problem. We need new leadership, we need youth, and we need a new direction for that to go. If we want a real resolution, let us stop arming the Muslims that are tending to go further and further toward Iran and Iraq and surrounding themselves with the mujahedin out of both Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. If we want to look at a real potential for the future, when we do end up pulling out, it is not going to be the Serbs coming after the Croatians or the Muslims, it is going to be the Muslims coming out for the Croatians and the Serbs if we continue with that. I commend the gentlemen, but I would like to see more of an evenhanded approach. If this opens up for investigation into looking at the allegations, then it is good. But if it is just chastising one group over the other again, as it has in the past, then I do not think it is so good. So I will take a look at the resolution, and I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, one of my favorite speakers is a guy named Will Rogers. First of all, he tells stories and he relates to people. And my subject tonight is the readiness, the national security of this great country. We just finished a hearing in San Diego headed up by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman). Our Republican and Democrat colleagues, I was very, very proud, they listened. They watched. And they unanimously contended that the readiness state of our armed forces in this country is at a critical state. I think it best relates, as my friend Will Rogers used to relate the stories, and it tells about a case of a gentleman that was in an accident and he was banged up. His horse was killed. His dog was killed. And the insurance agent came to the gentleman and said, Well, is it true the day of your accident you told the police officer that it was the best day of your life and that you had never felt better? And the gentleman looked at him and said, Yes, this is right. I did that. He said, But you had broken legs and broken arms. He said, Yes, but I still said that I never felt better. He said, Can you explain? He said, Well, my horse had broken legs and the policeman took out his revolver and he shot the horse. My dog was near death, and he reached over and shot the dog and the police officer looked at me and said, how do you feel? And of course, I replied I never felt better in my life, even though I had broken legs and arms. Kind of the truth in the same story could be related to our service chiefs as they testified before the different committees. A four-star General or Admiral will come before the committee and state, ``Our readiness state is high, we are well trained, we are well prepared.'' And these are the same words that they said in the '70s when we were at an all-time low. But we know and they know if they do not agree with the President's budget and they say otherwise, the President will find someone who will agree. And there is the paradigm. If we take a look, the White House budget is a good one. But our service chiefs try and give us the information to read between the lines. For example, in the President's budget education impact aid has been cut. What is education impact aid? If a military service person signs up for aid in one State and moves to another, and they reside in that State and keep their registration there, their State taxes go to that State. And say that they go to California, the State that I am from, and their children go to that school. Well, they impact that school, but yet there are no State funds. Ninety-seven percent of education is paid for, excuse me, 93 percent, out of State funds, so there is a direct impact on that school. Yet the budget is okay, but education impact aid is not in the budget. The service chiefs testified that 80 percent of the equipment of all of our services, 80 percent, is of 1970 vintage. But the budget is okay. There is not enough money for modernization, because modernization over the past 7 years has been cut 70 percent. So our new tanks, our new aircraft, our new weapon systems, our ships cannot be built. But yet the system is okay. The bottom-up review that was charged by then Secretary of Defense Les Aspin pointed out that the Navy was going from 546 ships, but yet we needed only 346 to complete two combat zones at one time. They refer to it as a two MRC. It would take 346 ships to do that. But yet in the budget that we see today, in the outgoing years and this year, we are only building three to five ships, which will put us well below 300 ships. But yet the budget was okay. There are limited parts, so bad that many squadrons in the United States have but one or two aircraft that will fly because they have had to take the parts off of those aircraft and send them to Iraq and Bosnia and our other contingencies on the front line, and that means that the aircraft that are left here are down so that the pilots here cannot train or cannot fly those aircraft. They have to operate a maintenance practice called cannibalization, in which they have to take a part off of one aircraft, they have to put it on another aircraft, and then take a third part and put it on the original airplane, and in many cases that does not work. The load for that maintenance worker is three times the amount of work that a normal maintenance worker has to work. But the budget is okay. Operation tempo. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. The operation tempo since the Cold War has increased 300 percent. But yet the budget is okay. Our men and women are getting out of the service. The retention rate is 24 percent. Pilots in the Air Force, they had to give bonuses. It was 29 percent, and they were able to boost it up to 33 percent. The Navy is similar. What does this mean? We interviewed in San Diego our top enlisted, our staff sergeants, our gunnies, our master chiefs, our chiefs and enlisted. Most of their senior enlisted personnel, because of the time away from home, because of the increased tempo, because of three times the workload, because of having to deploy and be away from their families, are getting out of the service. So we do not have that experience level to man the readiness of our equipment, in which in the States we do not have because it is being forced on the front lines. But yet the budget is okay. Older equipment from the 1970s is much more difficult to keep up, Mr. Speaker. Cannibalization that does not work, 300 percent increase in op tempo, and a budget that is lower than in the 1950s. But yet the budget is okay. Now, with that 1950s budget, Mr. Speaker, with that 1950s budget for our national security, all of the contingencies, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, there was $16 billion spent for which Congress did not support. We did not support the increase and lengthening of Somalia, we did not support Haiti, and we did not support going into Bosnia, but the President ordered it. It cost $16 billion, which comes out of the operations and maintenance funds which our service chiefs, our enlisted and our commanders have told us there are no parts. We are not maintaining our equipment because it is already coming out of there. One thing they said unanimously, the service chiefs. We have a supplemental called a defense supplemental coming up, and if they do not receive this supplemental, all services will not only go into a hollow force, they will be inept. That is the words of our service chiefs. And this is critical. Without the supplemental, we will not only be in a hollow force but we will be inept. With the experience leaving the services, we have a real problem. With our groups training, the low level, we have less and less and less. Let me talk about the troops getting out with a Will Rogers type of story. In Vietnam I was fortunate to shoot down a Mig 21 over Southeast Asia. When I came back aboard the U.S.S. Constellation, which was the same ship we held this hearing on, all 5,000 men on that ship were up on the flight deck because no Mig had been shot down in almost 2 years of fighting. As I taxied over to the elevator, I looked and there was Captain James D. Ward, skipper of the U.S.S. Constellation, Admiral Hutch Cooper, who was commander of Task Force 77, and all 5,000 guys were there cheering. And I looked at my plane captain, his name was Willie Lincoln White. Willie Lincoln White, in his enthusiasm, Mr. Speaker, broke through the crowd. He knocked over Admiral Cooper, and you do not do that in the Navy, and he ran across the flight deck. In his enthusiasm, he ran by the tail feathers where the engines were still going and jumped up on the port wing. We are trying to get the ejection seat pins in and the safety arm for the weapon systems, and Willie White leaned over and grabbed my arm and said, ``Lieutenant Cunningham, Lieutenant Cunningham, we got our Mig today, didn't we?'' Well, what was Willie Lincoln White telling me, Mr. Speaker? He felt a very important member of a team, and rightfully so. We shot down a lot of Migs, but we only deserve about 1/5000th of the credit. And those men and women serving in our military feel like they are part of the team. But this Congress and the White House is letting down that team, Mr. Speaker, because when men and women who are dedicated, dedicated to serving this country, are forced out because of a 300 percent increase, because of cannibalization, because of no parts, because they cannot train and that they are kept away from their families, that is wrong. Let us take a look at the U.S.S. Constellation in port in San Diego today. She returned from a 6-month cruise overseas. Now, during the months of April, May, June, July and August she has to go up to Bremerton. She is an old boat and she has to get repairs. Now, Bremerton is not where the families of those men and women serving on that ship live. They live back in San Diego. So after a 6-month cruise, they are going to have to go up, months away from their family. This is supposed to be a time called shore duty on the rotation, 6 months on, 6 months off, that they have to spend some time with their families, but they cannot do that. After they get through with this time in Bremerton, they have two 40- day workup periods. Why? Because the aircraft they have does not have any parts. In some cases they do not even have the airplanes. They have to get them back from sailors that are coming back off another ship, beef up their airplanes, go out and train them, because they have not trained their new kids that have just joined the squadron. So we have kids that are not trained as well as pilots and aviators. And even the weapons people to onload the weapons are new. So they have to gear up to that because they could potentially end up in combat. But yet the budget's okay. Let us take a look at how foreign policy has damaged the readiness of our forces in this great country. We went into Somalia with a humanitarian message and mission. There was an extension after George Bush left and the President took over in the White House. They extended Somalia. Most of us voted against that because there was no mission, there was no clear time to get out, much like there is in Bosnia today. The extension changed from humanitarian. And Mr. Speaker, I think you will remember that the mission went after General Aideed. Well, during that time there was a humvee, which is a vehicle that our Rangers were driving, and they were trapped by the forces there. They were cut in four pieces with chainsaws and their remains were drug through the streets of Somalia. Our military leaders asked for armor. And at the same time the mission changed from humanitarian to going after General Aideed, the President drew down our forces, making us vulnerable to attack. And so our commanders again asked for armor and they were denied. There was a helicopter that went down, Mr. Speaker. The same thing. Two of the members were killed outright, the one survivor was taken out and cut to pieces and his body parts were drug through the streets of Mogadishu. And again they asked for armor, because they could not get to them through the streets. Then we put in a strike going after General Aideed, downtown Mogadishu. Our Rangers were trapped. It took 7 hours to get to them because they did not have armor, and we lost 22 of our soldiers unnecessarily. And another reason that I do not support the United Nations is because at that time Boutros Boutros-Ghali could have ordered in our tanks from other U.N. nations and did not. We lost 22 men, Mr. Speaker. Let us look at Haiti. Oh, and guess what? In Somalia, General Aideed died last year but his son is still there. They still have the same corruption. They still have the same poverty. They have the same problems that they did for the humanitarian reasons we went there and it cost billions of dollars. Now, we take that out of Medicare, we take that out of Social Security, we take it out of education, but it is dollars that we do not have overseas. Let us take a look at Haiti. In my opinion, Haiti could stay there for another 200 years and not be a threat militarily or economically to this country. But yet, on the President's orders, against the will of Congress, we went into Haiti. Who did we send in there? A mad dog named Aristide, who used Haitian neckties, which is a tire around the neck of his opponents filled with gas, and lit them. But yet he was our ambassador. He was going to be the head of Haiti, supported by this administration. Billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker. Aristide is still there, the government is still poor, the people are still poor. There are still boat people coming from Haiti, and all of the same problems we went there for. But yet it cost billions of dollars. Let us take a look at Bosnia. In my opinion, if we pulled out of Bosnia today, would there be conflict? Yes. Look at Kosova. Look in the news today. But if we pull out 5 years from now, the fighting is going to be even worse because of our failed foreign policy. And let me be explicit. The White House sent arms to Izetbegovic, the leader in Sarajevo, head of the Muslim forces, to balance out, quote, ``balance out the force.'' We are continuing to arm and send our troops to train the Muslims. There are between 10 and 12,000 Mujahedin surrounding Izetbegovic and essentially trained under Kadafi, and that government is going closer, and closer, and closer to Iran and Iraq. And if we pull out in later years, it is not going to be the Serbs, it is not going to be the Croatians, but it is going to be the fundamentalists, the Mujahadin and Hamas that are going to strike a blow, and Iran and Iraq is going to have a foothold in former Yugoslavia, and it is going to threaten Europe, and it is going to threaten Greece, and it is going to threaten the United States of America, Mr. Speaker. And that is wrong. The President's budget represents the 14th consecutive year of defense spending decline. The President's request represents 3.1 percent of GDP, down by 50 percent in the mid 1980's. The fiscal year 1999 request represents the lowest defense budget since before, before the Korean War; Bosnia, $7.1 billion; southeast Asia ops, 4.7 billion; Haiti Cuban ops, $1.4 billion; Somalia, Rwanda, $1.9 billion; $16 billion that, again, comes out of an already low defense budget. Since 1993, three times more spent on contingency operations than all of the United States Marine Corps procurement. Bosnia deployments are estimated to have cost an additional 10 to $15 billion when we do not pull out this June, as the President said he would a year ago. Air Force officials have established 120 days per year as the desired maximum number of days an individual should be away from his home station. Many of our troops are away from their homes over 230 days, and then because those critical rate shortages of our senior enlisted getting out have got to either cross deck, or go to Air Force units, or turn around and go right back to fulfill those voids. And that is another reason why retention is so low. It is another reason why our readiness is low because experience is leaving. And it is a self-contained cesspool, Mr. Speaker. Do more with less. Brigadier General William Wallace. Remember William Wallace in ``Brave Heart.'' This is Brigadier General William Wallace. And I quote, ``We tend to see leaders that are well-educated, but not well-practiced.'' Why? Because their quality of experience is lacking. Before many of us went to Vietnam and even in Desert Storm, we had strong training; we had strong control with our leaders. Our leaders were war-tested and trained. Now that is fading, Mr. Speaker. We had adversary squadrons. We were able to fight against A-4s that simulated the MiG-17 and MiG-21. We were able to fight F-5Es and other aircraft which simulated MiG-21 and MiG-29. But we do not have any more of those adversary squadrons. The budget does not allow for those aircraft. I am alive today because of the training and the superior equipment I had in combat. And our troops are losing that edge. Mr. Speaker, did you know that Captain O'Grady, when he was shot down in Bosnia that made the news, was not qualified at air combat maneuvering, because they are not training here in the States. And when you get overseas on the front lines, you are flying these missions, you cannot afford an airplane, you cannot afford to fly and train in many of the areas because they will not allow us the air space to fight with live ordnance on. So you end up drilling holes in the skies. And yes, Captain O'Grady was shot down with a sand missile. You saw him being picked up by Navy and Marine forces. But he was not qualified for air combat when he was shot down. That is a crime that this country would send our men and women abroad with the lack of training, lack of parts, 70-year-old aircraft, and on and on and on. According to Army briefing, 125 infantry squads are unmanned. That is equal to five infantry battalions, and they are not even manned because we do not have the personnel. And if we did, we do not have the senior noncommissioned officers to train them. Additionally, there are 134 tank crews and units based in the United States which are undermanned and unqualified, more than 40 percent of a division of armored fighting power, and this is according to the Army itself. This briefing also identified 199 crews, Mr. Speaker, of Bradley fighting vehicles in the United States that are undermanned or unqualified. That is 60 percent of a division's infantry fighting power. But yet the budget is okay. The widespread belief of trainers interviewed in the NTC, which is Naval Training Center, 29 Palms, and U.S. Air Force Air Warfare Center at Nellis Air Force Base is that units are arriving less prepared than they used to be and not as proficient when they complete their training as in the past. Deployed units numbers of overdue training events which drives increased workloads in order to catch up is forcing our men and women out the service. The report states that service secretaries have confirmed that while readiness has traditionally fluctuated, meaning it is a moving target, depending on where the unit was, either deployed or at home, from all the services was at troughs of lower readiness are deeper and longer in duration. Many pilots and maintenance personnel interviewed report that aircraft are increasingly being stripped of parts as soon as they return from deployment in order to support other aircraft that are deploying. Personnel in an S-3ASW aircraft squadron noted that it had returned from recent deployment and had no aircraft to train because the aircraft were needed to support the ongoing deployment of aircraft on the U.S.S. Kittyhawk. An ES-6 squadron only had one aircraft left. They had to get rid of all their airplanes. Fighter squadrons are leaving with no parts. Back here in the United States, they cannot fly them so they cannot train so that we can support all of these contingencies. And I quote, Never before have squadrons come back with no planes to train with. The Marine Corps: Marine aviation weapons and tactical squadrons noted that fixed-wing pilots coming to school used to have approximately 1500 hours of flying time in a particular type aircraft. Today the average is closer to 400 hours. And these are your pilots that are going to go back and train the remaining pilots, and they only have 400 hours. They are beginners, Mr. Speaker. Helicopter pilot students used to average approximately 12 to 1500 hours flying time. Now the average is near the minimum, 700 hours. So quality, experience. And we can neither accept or tolerate anything less than superlative in our air crews and in our men and women who maintain those machines. Officers expressed their belief that a gradual decline in marine tactical air combat readiness was underway due to a combination of factors: Reduced experience levels, reduced turnaround time between deployments, pilot resignations, degradation of aircraft readiness and training, ordnance shortages, and a lack of trained personnel to maintain those machines. Approximately 12,000 DOD service members are on food stamps and that many others qualify. Is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that our servicemen and women are leaving? But yet, the budget is okay. A 1990 survey found that 61 percent of Active enlisted soldiers and 47 percent of officers were dissatisfied with the amount of time that they had to be separated from their families. For the last 30 years, Mr. Speaker, the number one reason for a lack of retention in our armed services is family separation. And we cannot increase an operation tempo by over 300 percent and expect to have any kind of retention figures. Increased drug and child abuse are attributed to high pace of operations within the armed services. In 14 separate studies, 25 percent of the senior NCOs and officers indicate that they are leaving service either earlier than planned or undecided due to downsizing. Increase of PERSTEMPO, increased stress, concern about job security, declining satisfaction with quality of life, and concern for their families. Job satisfaction is down two-thirds, and leaders say organizations are working longer hours. The force is tired, Mr. Speaker, concerned about the uncertainty of their future. Morale is low. The service chiefs will tell you that is not true, but just go out and talk to the kids. Morale is low both at individual and unit levels. And that is from the commanders of those that risk their careers by letting us know these facts. Fully one-third of both Active and Reserve Army leaders surveyed reported the problems with outdated or aging equipment; 80 percent of their equipment is beyond the year 1970. Air Combat Command was reporting that F-15Es, the Strike Eagle, had dropped below its mission capable standards. Cannibalization of parts and deploying aircraft are increasing, overextended maintenance crews. Air Force NCOs recently testified before the House National Committee that ``higher demand for aging aircraft parts and fewer resources due to cutbacks in funding drives us to cannibalization which triples our workload. Readiness is reduced to lower numbers of aircraft. Our pilots can't train. Fewer available missions capable of aircraft results in fewer trained pilots and mission accomplishment.'' Mr. Speaker, there is another factor that has decreased our readiness. In our downsizing, which was important, we had too many overseas bases; it drew too much from taxpayers and it drew too much from our services. But it has been overdone. Raising both the workloads on forces and costs of operations, CONUS-based forces must travel farther now and longer to reached deployed areas. Of the 674 Army facilities closed worldwide since 1989, 593 were overseas. We used to go to those overseas bases. We used to get our parts. We used to get maintenance supplements. We used to have our aircraft and ships worked on at those overseas bases. But now they are closed. So what do you have to do? You have to go to Guam and Japan and other places in the Atlantic. U.S. Air Force Europe reduced 16 main and 37 minor operating bases to six bases. Nine U.S. Air Force fighter wings, totaling 636 aircraft, were reduced to three wings, 636 aircraft to 168 aircraft, to do the same job. But yet, the increase in tempo is 300 percent and they are expected to do the same thing. Personnel reductions from 62,000 down to 27,000; post-Cold War operations, larger, more intensive, more complex, longer in duration, Air Force study describes the context of a new environment of degrading readiness. And I quote, ``The increase in demand for U.S. Air Force assets and personnel has come to a time when U.S. Air Force and inventory personnel, operating locations, and budgets have experienced dramatic downsizing. U.S. Air Force aircraft inventory has declined 31 percent during the last 5 years.'' Procurement, Mr. Speaker, has declined in the last 7 years by 70 percent. We need these new aircraft to survive. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, America has committed forces to nearly 40 crises. Deployments have increased, as I said, 300 percent since the Cold War, but yet funding below World War II levels. The combined result of a smaller size and increased activity is illustrated by the Air Force which deployed 28,900 of its 441,000 personnel in 1996. The figures rose to 63,000 deployed. The previous figure deployed was 29,000. This year 63,000 had to deploy. Army, General Reimer, the Army reduced manpower by 36 percent while increasing deployment 300 percent, increased the workload by 625 percent, with a decrease in force. Is it any wonder that our kids are getting out? The U.S. Air Force requires 13 of its 20 air wing equivalents to support current operations, or 65 percent of the combat fighter force. An average 50 percent of the Navy ships are out of home port. Roughly 30 percent are deployed. A good example. We are funded for 50.4 hours per quarter steaming in the Navy. But yet with increased contingencies, those hours have gone up to over 75 hours, the increases there. But the budget is okay, Mr. Speaker. Reserve forces are fairly cheap, until you actually use them. When you have to send them to Iraq, when you have to send them to Bosnia, when you have to send them to South Korea because North Korea rattles its sword, then you have to pay them and, Mr. Speaker, that is not in the President's budget. But it is okay. And there are no replacements. And op tempo continues to grow. In FY 1997 only 32 percent of the eligible Air Force aviators accepted a pilot's bonus to continue service. Our experience is leaving, our war fighters are leaving, our trigger pullers are leaving. Yet your service chiefs will stand up and say we are well trained, we are well equipped and we can go. But what can we go with, Mr. Speaker? We cannot fight a 2 MRC. The Army's MA2A tank, they are only upgrading one-third of them. It is one of the finest tanks in the world, but their only new tank does not come out until 2020, 25 years from now, Mr. Speaker. A lot can happen in that time frame. Let us talk about the threat and why we need these new aircraft. General Shalikashvili, for whom I have a lot of respect, he was appointed by the President, but yet he pushed the envelope, Mr. Speaker. He knew his troops needed more. They needed more of the assets. And he said we need $60 billion for modernization or we are going to go into a hollow force. The President's budget does not come anywhere close to that. But yet we need the F-22, we need the F-18E/F, we need the B-2, we need the V-22 for special ops. Why? Why do we need these aircraft? Why is it so important? First our equipment is from 1970. This chart that I have, Mr. Speaker, points out that the Russians today, the threat, they have aircraft, one called the MiG-29 which we have parity with it with our F-14s and our F-15s and our F-16s, but they have the SU-35 and the SU-37 which outmaneuver our aircraft. They have an AA-10 and an AA-12 missile. On the left side it shows the F-22, you can put an F-18E/F in the same position, but if you had an F-15 or an F-14 there and the SU-35, say, on this side shot or the SU-37 fired its missile, its AA-10 or AA-12 and we fired our AMRAM from an F-14 or an F-15, we die. It is a better missile. They have better radar and they can see farther, and our kids die. With the F-18E/F, the stealth characteristics built in those airplanes, instead of shooting each at the same time, we actually get closer before the Russian aircraft can see us. We are able to fire and leave and the enemy pilot dies. Yes, we need those aircraft, and they are expensive. But they give us increased range, they give us increased stealthiness, they give us increased capability. But yet that money is not in the budget to replace those aircraft in the numbers that we need them to continue with a 2 MRC. It is more intensive, it is more critical as we go. George C. Wilson, contributing editor to the Washington Post, is a former national defense correspondent for the Washington Post. He says, `` `We're having all we can do to fight no wars,' a flag officer told me ruefully, complaining that current commitments and force cuts have mooted 2 MRCs even though Clinton and Cohen won't admit it. The numbers bear him out.'' Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take up the whole hour, but I would also like to show this chart. It shows mandatory outlays in all other spending has increased by 35 percent. Domestic discretionary outlays have increased 15 percent. Defense discretionary outlays have decreased 33 percent. And procurement of new systems, like the F-22 that the Air Force needs as its number one priority, the Army's helicopter, the Marine Corps V-22 and even the Joint Strike Fighter is not there. Mr. Speaker, I was proud of the Republicans and Democrats on the National Security Committee and on the House Appropriations Committee, because they came to the defense hearing, our service chiefs gave as much between the lines as they could without losing their jobs, and I am very, very proud of them. Our commanders of the units in all forces got up and gave us these between-the-line instances that I have just given during these last few moments, Mr. Speaker. Our noncommissioned officers, our master sergeants, our chiefs, our gunnies said it the best. They said, ``Mr. Chairman,'' to the chairman of the committee, ``We cannot continue as men and women in the Armed Forces with the lack of readiness and the lack of support that this Nation is giving us.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say this gentleman's dream has guided a lot of us on this House floor on how to balance the budget and how to achieve that. He has been a leader across the board in how to have more effective government and yet reduce the penalties on the American people, and I would like to thank the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But that takes real commitment. We cannot just wish it away. And it is like fighting a war. We cannot just say education is going to stop drugs. We cannot just say interdiction is going to stop it. But we have got a gross base on which we have got to reach across and stop it. And that takes real commitment from the White House, which we have not had in the past. We can win the war on drugs. There are always going to be those that use it and sell it. Those are the ones that you put away and they never see the light of day. But what we are proposing is not just a word game to stop crime and drugs, but to actually fight it. Example: The $7 billion that we spent, and the quote was 100,000 cops, just like a 100,000 teachers, there was no 100,000 cops. The most they could fund is 20,000, and it was to rain money down to the big cities so they could get support for reelections. What we want to do is take the money, give it to the local police force. Just like my colleague was talking about with education, we want the teachers, the parents, the community and the extended communities and the administrators to be able to handle it. Because they know the needs, they know the first names of your children, not a bureaucrat here in Washington. And the same is true in law enforcement. You put the money in the area. Do you need equipment? Do you need standby? Do you need more force? And instead of controlling with strings back here in Washington, it takes an all-out war with generals. And that is why we are calling for General McCaffrey to get on with it and give us some information on what he forsees on this real fight and we will back him 100 percent.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think that also goes when we are talking about drugs, not to come across to MTV and say they would inhale if they could, the leader of our Nation. I have talked to drug agents and I have talked to people in rehabilitation. The kids sneer. They say, ``Look, the President said he would inhale if he could.'' That is the wrong message. Let me give my colleagues another example. Remember the young man that was caned in Singapore for spray-painting cars? I am not saying that we cane people, but I would guarantee that that individual, that young man, when he went back to Singapore would never spray-paint another car nor would any other individual. But yet look at our streets and the tagging and the graffiti and those kinds of things that take place because we let it go on. That is just a symptom of the lack of commitment, from drugs to graffiti, that juvenile crime has gone exponentially up, a 600 percent increase and the viciousness of it has increased, to be paramount. Those are the kinds of things I think the gentlemen are talking about. We need a commitment, not just words and not the wrong direction. You do not say, let us increase rehabilitation dollars and cut off why they are getting on drugs in the first place. I want to stop it so I do not have to put as many dollars in rehab, and save those children.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would like to compliment the gentleman from South Dakota. I know he has taken a leadership role in education. Again, a dream that the gentleman is talking about, a vision, it takes commitment. Mr. Speaker, those folks that started off to the West on covered wagons, they could dream about it, they could have a vision, but unless they were really committed, they would never make it. We look at Martin Luther King. He had a dream, he had a vision, but yet it would not have become a reality unless he was willing to commit, and he did that. But just like in education, if we get so little money out of the Federal Government down to the classroom, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, a State bureaucracy is just as bad as a Federal bureaucracy if it keeps the dollars away from the classroom. But if we get so little money, and I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues have ever tried to pass a school bond in their districts, but I know in California it takes two- thirds, it is very difficult. So if we have very little money from the Federal Government, if we cannot pass a school bond, how are we going to bring those classrooms up when we are last of the industrialized nations, 15th in math and science? And that was duplicated in a major study just this last month, where over half of the 4th graders could not identify the Atlantic or Pacific Ocean, and we got over half of our students coming out functionally illiterate. One of the commitments, and the President signed this bill in the balanced budget, and what we looked at is taking the 21st century education bill to where we take companies who are dumping computers on schools but the school did not have the technology or the teachers to upgrade them, and they ended up in a corner. So what we did is we said, okay, if you have a computer that is under 2 years old, you can write off that computer and we are going to give you a tax benefit for donating that computer. Now, we have a company, a nonprofit corporation in California and it is in 21 States, called Detwiler Foundation. They take that computer and they use prison labor to upgrade that computer. If they do not serve so many hours in working on education or work, they do not get their privileges. So it brings a triple force right there. They then turn that computer down to the school, ready to plug in. So that is what it takes as a Federal, a private, and a State partnership. But again, the focus should be on the teachers, the parents, the families and the community to make those decisions. But that is what we talk about as far as commitment, and making it happen and coming up with those kinds of solutions, which means less government.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, what the gentleman just said is what William Wallace, in the year 1312, I do not know how many saw the movie ``Brave Heart,'' in his death throes he screamed out ``freedom.'' We are giving those freedoms back to the American families that have given up those freedoms so Washington can rule and control their life. Just in these few short minutes we talked about a balanced budget, but yet a balanced budget in which we actually have education reform or education receives more and families and parents, administrators, teachers have more freedom to teach their children and the results are better. We can talk about DOD and reform, to have a stronger defense, but yet to have it reduced and more like a business, and welfare reform and saving Medicare. Remember the blast that we got from Medicare from the unions and from the DNC? But at the same time, this is the same Medicare plan that the President signed in the balanced budget, and everybody wins. We do have areas to go. When we have got a 50 percent fraud, waste, and abuse with food stamps and those areas in which, again, taxpayers have to send their money to the overhead of Washington bureaucracy to support, we can actually get more of the money down to the families, down to military, down to the welfare recipients and have good government, which, again, does not have to be an oxymoron.