Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar because California underwent when we picked up many seats, and I understand exactly the process. But we are saying an actual count of individual noses is much fairer and more accurate than just guessing which allows for 35 percent error in each district, and we do not feel that that will be used on the up and up, and that is the reason why we oppose sampling.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, why not sampling? Why not sampling? My parents always told me to cut to the quick. And two times in a political environment, people dance around the issue. It is because we do not trust you. And I will be specific. We do not trust the liberal leadership of the Democrat Party. The partisanship that has existed since we have taken the majority in every single case, we do not trust you. You want to guess. We want to count. For the first time in 200 years, you want to guess. The White House has bought off on that language. The White House. So I guess the White House is part of that Jihad that my colleague talked about. No. We want an actual count. Let us take a look at some of the issues. Anything goes to win. The end justifies the means. There is a story about a turtle and a snake. The snake could not swim across a river and it was poisonous, so he jumped on the turtle's back and said, ``If you take me across the river, I won't bite you.'' And the turtle says, ``No, you're venomous. I'm not going to take you.'' The snake says, ``I give you my word. I'm not going to bite you.'' So the turtle takes the snake across. As soon as he gets on the other side, the snake bites the turtle and in his death throes the turtle says, ``But you gave me your word you wouldn't bite me.'' The snake looks at him and says, ``I don't know what your problem is. You knew I was a snake.'' We do not trust you * * * all the way through since 1994 in partisanship. We do not trust you. Thirty-five percent error is allowed within sampling in each district. Where do you think that 35 percent error is going to take place? It is going to take place in Republican districts. Look at INS in San Diego. We had 2,000 new immigrants.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of working on the education provisions of this legislation. I would like to personally thank the chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Charles Taylor, and ranking minority member, the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Jim Moran, who not only listened but was cooperative and worked very closely with the committee. I would also like to thank and I think D.C. and this body owes a great deal of gratitude to Gen. Julius Becton, who has taken on almost an impossible task of cutting through not only economic problems but the political problems of D.C. schools. He has worked tirelessly in changing some of the rules and in helping children in the District. I would like to commend General Becton. Mr. Speaker, what education provisions are in the bill? It provides $3.3 million for public charter schools, that is good within this bill, but it also adds money for the public schools. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] fought for these provisions along with Republicans, and we find that it is in the best interests and will help. There is a technical improvement to the D.C. charter schools. There are about four of them. I will not belabor them, but I think these provisions will actually help. It was done on a bipartisan basis, both Republicans and Democrats. The National Education Association will finally pay its fair share of taxes, which is about $1.1 million a year that will go to help D.C. schools. We helped with that. One of the things that I am saddened by, Mr. Speaker, is that union bosses once again prevailed in stopping and preventing the aid to children in schools within D.C. by waiving Davis-Bacon. The average age of D.C. schools, the average age, is 86 years old, Mr. Speaker, 86 years. The roofs were so bad, schools were delayed. The fire codes are so bad that it was not even placed in the fire department, it is in the hands of a judge. Yet, union bosses prevented saving up to 25 percent on school construction by giving the school construction authority the ability to waive Davis-Bacon. Once again, the unions chose to line their pockets rather than come to the aid of children. I think that is sickening, Mr. Speaker. It is something that we need to change. The D.C. Student Opportunities Scholarship, which is not included in this, which my friend said is a Republican strategy or social strategy, is going to be in a freestanding bill to where he can vote up or down on it. Only a liberal would say that he does not want to help education and children have a choice of where they could go. There is no pay raise for properly credentialed teachers, which we felt was important.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has legitimate concerns. I do not know of anyone in the House that represents a more difficult area, and I believe her when she said she would spend her own money to help. I would beseech all of my colleagues to take a look especially at the education school system within D.C. You have got the majority of children that start the ninth grade do not finish. You have illiteracy that comes out of your juniors and seniors out of your schools. They need help. They are reaching out. Regardless of where our politics are on the different education issues, all of us need to reach out. But the average is $10,000 plus per student. The answer is not just more dollars per student but some of the reforms that we are going through to spend the money wisely. I would like to thank not only the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her energy but the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran], the ranking minority member, for working together on this bill. I urge its passage.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, although this bill deals primarily with missiles, I would like this body to consider, China just bought 200 SU- 27s from Russia, better than our F-14s and F 15s, along with AA-12. China has sold nuclear components and chemical and biological weapons to Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. China and Russia are not our friends, and I think it is time that we need to realize that. Yes, we need to engage. I do not think there will be peace in my lifetime in the Middle East, and we need to engage both of those parties, but they are still very, very dangerous. In Bosnia, there are over 10,000 mujahedin and Hamas surrounding Izetbegovic's government. Yet we in the United States continue to arm the Muslims in that portion of the world, when the balance has gone over. I would rise in support of this. The Cold War is over, but it is a very, very hostile world, and especially if you look at Russia today is building a first nuclear strike site. Russia today is building under the Ural Mountains a first-strike nuclear weapons site larger than inside the Beltway. That is huge. Why? Yet we need to arm the President, the White House, and this body, along with the other body, needs to hold firm. While we downgrade our own military, this is a first step in holding the line on proliferation for other countries. Why downgrade our own military, and let other nations build theirs up, which are not only a threat to us? If you look in Bosnia, that is a threat to Greece, it is a threat to Europe, especially with the mujahedin and Hamas. Yes, we are going to look at some of those same missiles ourselves. So I laud the gentleman in this bill and rise in support.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, many of us heard about the harassment at the voter polls in California for the first time last night. At the time I was flying fighters for the U.S. Navy. I thought, if this is true, it is truly un-American for anyone to harass any ethnic group or any American or non-American at the polls, if they are here legally. So I checked last night. Individuals wore brown shirts, INS shirts, at the polls carrying signs saying, noncitizens cannot vote here. The wearing of the brown shirts, I agree, would be mean-spirited, and they were fined for that. That should not be tolerated. But I agree with the idea that noncitizens should not vote. Why did they carry those signs? It is because individual liberal activist Democrats were taking illegals to that particular precinct to vote. It was not an allegation; they were charged, they were arrested, and they were sent to jail. My colleagues do not tell us about that on the other side of the aisle. Mr. Speaker, who were these mean-spirited Republicans that wrote the signs in Spanish? Two Hispanic Americans, Carlos Rodriguez and Thomas Fuentes. What did they say? They said, we are proud of our ethnic backgrounds, and we are proud to be Americans, and we reject the blatant intentional abuse by Democrats to take away our basic rights that we worked hard for as American citizens and immigrants: first, our American citizenship, and then the right to vote as an American citizen. I challenge my colleagues on the other side to spend one-tenth of the time looking at violations of voter fraud. It must be sad for them, after 3 years, because they have got nothing else to stymie and delay tactics on the House floor. They fought against, many of them, the liberal Democrats, against a balanced budget, and we are now talking about a surplus in the deficit. They fought against tax relief for working families. They fought to save Medicare, and the President signed the same Medicare that they demonized in this balanced budget. They fought against welfare reform, when the average was 16 years, and they fought against anticrime measures. It must really be sad that this is all they have left. It must be sad that the President said Americans are selfish for not wanting to pay taxes, and that a Member of the Senate said Americans are not paying enough taxes. Over 400 Democrats have switched over to become Republicans. Do Members want to look at the future? Look at the races in Virginia. In Democratic districts, a clean sweep in New Jersey for Governor in a Democrat district; a clean sweep in New York, a targeted Democrat district; and now we have Vito Fossella as a Member of Congress in the Molinari seat. It must be really bad for them that the signs did not say, for some liberal Democrats, noncitizens vote here, and vote for me, or else they would be out there working just as hard to fight against illegal voting.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to have to raise my voice tonight because I respect all the Members on this issue and, as a matter of fact, good friends with them. But I would disagree, and I would like to explain on some of the issues. During the Navy I served with Admiral Brown on 7th Fleet staff. I was responsible for the defense of all Southeast Asia countries. For example, in Korea it was Team Spirit. We dealt with the host countries, not only the potential and exercise threat, but I had linguists that actually monitored North Korea in the real threat. We had Yama Secura, Japan; Cobra Gold and Tangent Flash in Philippines, and part of that was the threat on Taiwan. China is not our ally, in my opinion. I think that Hong Kong will have much more effect on China than China has on Hong Kong. And I do not think there will be peace in the Middle East in my lifetime, but I believe we have to engage in the Middle East and constantly work in that direction. I think the same is true with China. I think we have to engage in China, realizing that it takes a long time to change a 10,000-year-old dog, and especially a dog that has got very sharp and brutal teeth and is willing to use them at any time. The real problem: During the recent missile firings from China in the direction of Taiwan, any time we take the U.S. fleet through the straits, they are in peril. It could be very difficult, and China has a formidable force that could make us pay bitterly. That is why the Upper-Tier system connected with the THAAD system is so very important, and the treaty not to slow down the missiles, because that would make us have to have more Aegis cruisers. But while we are trying to get through those straits, Taiwan is going to have a period of time where it is very difficult for them to survive. It is not very far across those straits, and they have the landing forces in which Taiwan is going to have to have some defense for itself. This will help us. If we get there after China was already embarked, we could pay even a bitter price. So I support the gentleman's amendment, and I think it is very important. I would say one other thing not connected to this bill, that Israel just sold missiles to Turkey. I plan on offering a bill that denies or will refuse to have Turkey employ those air-to-air missiles in Cyprus, because I think that would be potentially dangerous. I thank Members on both sides of the aisle for their thoughtfulness.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I just want to address the gentleman from New Jersey saying that we had radical ideas. My wife is a public schoolteacher and a principal today. She has got a doctorate in education, a master's in business, and a master's in education. I was a teacher in the public education system. My children have gone to public schools. The last thing we want to do is hurt public education. But when we look at the position we are in in many of our schools, we do not want to deny children to get the same education as anyone else does in an education system. It is not a radical idea, it is an idea for the time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act. This legislation will expand opportunities for sportsmen with disabilities to hunt and fish on Department of Defense facilities. In addition, this legislation allows the Department to work with private organizations to construct facilities and operate programs for sportsmen with disabilities. This legislation is based on a program run at nearby Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA. This program, run by Lt. Col. Lewis Deal, is one of the Nation's most successful disabled hunting programs. With the help of volunteers and donated materials, Col. Deal has built eight permanent disabled accessible blinds for deer hunting. All eight of these are in use during both gun and bow seasons. These structures are mini decks built on high ground looking down a slope where game walks below. For these decks to be successful, it is important that they are constructed large enough for a wheel chair to turn around on and camouflaged from game. Once cleared pathways from the main access roads make them accessible, these stands make hunting much easier for many sportsmen with disabilities. In addition, Quantico is in the process of constructing a fishing pier accessible for people with disabilities. This pier, designed by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, will be a model for everyone in America to use. They will construct their pier with lowered railings, providing access for individuals to reach over, and stops on the side of the pier to prevent individuals from falling off the sides. The Disabled Sportsmen's Access Act builds upon this program by encouraging the Department of Defense in managing its 30 million acres of wildlands to provide improved access for disabled individuals, when appropriate and within the military mission. This bill protects the primary purpose of our Nation's military, the defense of our Nation. Our military installations offer numerous outdoor recreational programs and opportunities for both civilian and military personnel. However, there has never been a concentrated effort at Department of Defense facilities to provide access and opportunity for persons with disabilities. While encouraging the Department of Defense to give access to individuals with disabilities, this legislation allows the Department of Defense to accept donations of money, material, and volunteers for the construction of facilities accessible to sportsmen with disabilities. Under this bill, the Department of Defense can use volunteers and organizations that serve people with disabilities to construct facilities and operate programs--at no cost to the Federal Government. The bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus has endorsed this legislation and many of my colleagues have joined me as cosponsors. It is also endorsed by the Paralyzed Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, Wheeling Sportsmen of America, Safari Club International, Wildlife Management Institute, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, and the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I feel like bottom gun tonight because I am upset with this bill. First of all, in the light of Communist China trying to influence the White House and the DNC, the President gives $50 million to a coal- burning plant in China. Then he shuts down Idaho coal burning in the district of the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen]. Then he gives sweetheart deals to Lippo Bank with Trie, Riady, Huang and billions of dollars for Lippo Bank. It is okay for China to take over a national security base now at Long Beach Naval Shipyard. One person shut down Kelly. One person shut down McClellan and Long Beach Naval Shipyard. That is the President of the United States in the BRACC process. Then he entered into a political deal during the political election to try and privatize those two bases. COSCO, right after Hutchinson took over both ends of the Panama Canal, the President said, it is okay for a Communist-Chinese-run organization to take over a national security base at Long Beach. I do not mind if they are a tenant like they have been. But intel says that COSCO has currently, and in the past, been involved in espionage, in intelligence work for both the military and industry. They will ship in and ship out those issues. COSCO, this is the same COSCO that rolled out the pier, knocked out the pier in New Orleans. This is the same COSCO shipping yard that took two boat loads of illegals off the shore of California. This is the same shipping company that shipped in chemical and biological weapons to Iran, Iraq, and Libya. This is the same COSCO that shipped in nuclear components to Libya, the same COSCO that shipped in AK-47s. This is the same group that the Chinese had said, when Taiwan was being shelled by China, do you prefer Los Angeles or do you want Taiwan? Now, the President is going to allow them to take over a national security base in California, just south of Los Angeles? No. We cannot allow this to happen. The House gave in to the Senate position, Mr. Speaker. That is wrong. We ought to fight this. We should not let Communist Chinese take over our bases in this country. We ought to fight tooth, hook and nail to stop it. I fought, and they are going to take it over my dead body.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, only some groups that would want the power to reside in Washington, D.C., of wasteful spending would oppose this. Why? They want the power here in River City; the same people who vote against balanced budgets, tax relief, because those are taxes given to spend more money for failed systems. Let me tell the Members, the studies did not even take into account the time that principals and administrators put into working on the paperwork. We have heard States saying up to 50 percent, 50 percent of their costs, are dealing with Federal paperwork. Let me give Members an idea. Goals 2000 that my colleagues mention, and say this was a George Bush-Ronald Reagan thing, Goals 2000, look at the number of ``shalls'' and ``wills.'' I am not a lawyer, but I know a ``will'' in a line is more important; the States will do certain things. If they do not comply, it has to override the board. The board then sends the recommendations for Goals 2000. Think about the group that has to look at that. Then it goes to Sacramento. Think about just all the schools in our districts sending all this in to the superintendent, then sending it to the State and the Governor, and then, guess what? There is a big bureaucracy back here in Washington, DC; we know there are problems with it, so they send paperwork back. That takes dollars away. My wife is an elementary school principal. She had to attend a class for 1\1/2\ weeks just to learn how to write a grant to the Federal Government. That is not even included, the dollars get down there, then they have to look at that. Seven hundred and sixty Federal education programs. Let us look at this. The President wanted $3 billion for a literacy program. There are 14. What is wrong with saying, let us fund 1 or 2, and get rid of the other 13 or 12 of them? But no, my liberal friends will want to put more money for failed systems and keep the same system going. Let us look at the results. We are 28th in math and science, last of the 15 industrialized nations in all core courses. Money is the issue, but the money to get down to the classroom, not to the Federal bureaucracy.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Riggs has been in San Diego.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, I am on the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on National Security, and my two passions are national security and education, and I am trying to get on that committee in Appropriations so I can support the authorizors.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we are trying to get 90 percent of this dollar down to the Zip Code to where parents, teachers, local administrators, and the community, and I would say family as well, because there are grandparents that want to invest in their children.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if I could just finish one thought on it on how we are wasting money for education. That was at 10 percent. When the government shut down the President said he wanted 100 percent of student loans to come out of the government. He wanted government control, bigger bureaucracy. I wanted zero. The leadership decided to let it go to 40 percent so the government could go back. I disagreed. What they did not see is that we put about six little words in there that saved the money going to the bureaucracy. Did we cut $10 billion? What did we do with the money? We increased Pell grant the highest level ever. Special education, it is called the IDEA program. We passed that bill. The President signed it and we got more money there. We increased student loans by 50 percent. But when the gentleman says what do they do, they demagogue and say we are cutting. What we are doing is cutting, whether it is the 13 programs in literacy to focus all the money on the one that works or whether it is on direct lending or whether it is on AmeriCorps or whatever it is. We are trying to get the money to the education process. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Which we will have to increase taxes to pay for.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Not specifically on this issue. You can see on education, when we had the hearings in the 104th, we had eight of them, and the main concern from industry, small business, unions and major business was that children coming out of our school systems could not qualify for an entry level job because they could not read, they could not write, they did not have the math skills. They did not have the high technology or they could not speak the English language. We are last, of the 15 industrialized nations, on all core courses. That is a legacy we have been left from a liberal education system. Not only cutting it, but the money that we get there, the teachers are not paid properly. My wife has a doctorate degree in education. She has a master's in education. She has a master's in business. She is bilingual in Spanish. Her sister is in public education, special education program. So I know there are good programs and good teachers out there. But what do we want to do? Because, A, there is less than 12 percent of the classrooms have even a single phone jack to upgrade them for the 21st century. They are operating in the 1950s. And even the good skilled schools do not have the computer facilities to help the kids to learn, to get ready for jobs. What I would say, and I would like to go through just a few of these, it will take me one minute, no more. Number one, we have mentioned, to review the 760 programs. Number two, drive 90 percent of the money down to the classroom. A State bureaucracy is just as bad as a Federal bureaucracy. We want to give flexibility. I do not think we ought to tax work. We ought to tax savings, but tax consumption, different issue. But at least we ought to be able to give someone that wants to save for education not to have to pay tax on that for their children. That is an investment. We do think that. Welfare reform, I think that is going to help. Every child should be able to read the English language by the third grade. There is no such thing as bilingual education. There are over 360 different languages out there. But every child by the third grade should be able to read in the English language and to be able to speak it. I would say that we ought to incentivize. Of all the good schools that we do have out there, I would ask the gentleman, would you send your children to the worst? No. You would not. And we would say that the people that are trapped in that system want the same right that you do, that I do, that the President has. If their children are in a crime-ridden, drug-infested school or the teachers cannot even read their own readers, in some cases that has happened, it exists today, then that parent should be able to choose, with parental choice, where that child goes to school. These are just a few of the initiatives that we think that we are being prohibited because of the unions. When the gentleman made a statement the other day about the unions, I happened to agree with you. If you look at Karl Marx' Communist manifesto and take a look at where the folks that want all the power to reside in the government, whether it is health care, whether it is education or whatever it is, in that manifesto it talks about the establishment of unions that will support the government because government will have the power. If you look at the union bosses, and I say that because 30 percent of the unions are Republicans, 10 percent are independents, but yet the union bosses, like the Communist manifesto, want all the power in Washington so that they will have power. That is what is inhibiting us from going. I happen to agree with the gentleman's statement.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me give another classic example of where the Federal Government can run amok in writing standards or tests. The ranking minority member, he was my chairman when the Democrats were in the majority and then he became my ranking member when I was chairman of the committee when we took over in 1994 the majority. But he was outraged as a history teacher for the Federal Government producing history standards that spoke more on Madonna than they did the Magna Carta. They demonized veterans and liberalized hippies and liberals in different fields. They demonized in another area the Enola Gay which is right up here in a museum, they demonized American veterans and our military and wanted to apologize to Japan which caused many, many deaths. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, got that particular individual fired. But when the government takes over, they want their liberal agenda to fit into these exams. That is the whole difference. We want to empower the parents, the teachers, the local communities and the families to empower them to establish what is important to them, not some liberal bureaucrat here in Washington, D.C.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Would the gentleman say that it is wrong for a low- income parent that does want to set aside, that we ought to tax that individual?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Charlie Rangel. He is speaking to the issues. He is not using the Carl Marx class warfare, but he is really speaking to the issues, and that is refreshing, and I want to thank the gentleman for that. Mr. Speaker, I speak as a teacher and a coach for many years. I have my entire family either as coaches, teachers, or principals in public school. Last weekend we attended the public school teacher awards for outstanding teachers, and I want to tell my colleagues, parents lauded those teachers, students lauded those teachers, and I agree that public education is the key to the future of America. I agree. I would say another step is parental involvement. And community involvement is another very important key. I do not want to take away from that. My passions are national security and education. But how do we get the maximum amount of dollars to do that? That is what the issue is. I thank the gentleman for speaking to that. One of the things we said was charter schools. The unions opposed that when it first came out, but it has proven well. We are trying to give the key to the local, to the parent, to the teachers and I would say even the families, because a grandparent, a person that earns $25,000 a year or less, if they want to save for their children's education and we do not tax that, that is good, I would say to my friend. We ought to take away that tax burden for those folks. I would say that the maximum amount of dollars my friend sponsored, how do we get, and State bureaucracy is just as bad as Federal bureaucracy. The Federal bureaucracy with the 760 programs, we only get about 48 cents out of every dollar to the classroom, out of Federal dollars. Why? Because of the bureaucracy and the paperwork. The State is just as bad. In some areas in our society, we get as little as 23 cents. Let us work for the State, the Federal, and the private and do it and let us support this bill and support the choice.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we hear in this body over and over that the liberals represent the working person. They represent the union, which only accounts for 6 percent of the work force in this country. Ninety-four percent of the jobs in this country are nonunion. So if you support the working men and women, get rid of Davis-Bacon, get rid of the inhibitors that kill jobs in this country. I do not think we ought to tax savings. I do not think we ought to tax works but consumption. That is a different bill. But we should not tax savings, savings of any American regardless of their income level when it goes for education of the children.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman stated that the only person in this House, what he did not state is in the White House, in the Times and in the Post today it goes through where the White House campaign manager pleaded guilty, two of them, to laundering money from the unions to the DNC and that is in both papers today. They have already pled guilty. There is no doubt about the unions' attempt through the Carey Organization to launder money through the DNC into the Democrats' campaign coffers. Fact.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to read Karl Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto because in there the No. 1 creed is class warfare and you see it over and over and over again. The gentleman from California says the Republican plan, the Republican plan. Fact: The average school in Washington, DC is 86 years old. The roofs are falling apart. They canceled their schools. They are even concerned about putting heat in it. But yet does the gentleman want to get the maximum amount of dollars into the schools? No. He will support the unions. We wanted to waive Davis-Bacon, which will save 25 percent and invest in the schools to give teachers more money to build the infrastructure up for our schools. But yet the precious union gives money to the DNC and the DNCC illegally, and it is before this Nation right now. He puts a liberal spin on Republican plans. We want to get the money down to the teachers. We want to get the money to the classrooms. We want to get it into the infrastructure. Yet the liberal Democrats have cut education over the last 30 years. Let me give a couple examples. We get less than 48 cents out of every dollar down to the classroom because of the big bureaucracy in Washington, DC. The President's direct lending program, according to GAO, costs $6 billion more to administer. That is when it was capped at 10 percent, 6 billion, because the liberals want the Department of Education to control education just like Karl Marx and they do not want the money going down there. They wanted it to rest in River City so that they have control with their unions. We want the money to get to the kids, less than 48 cents out of every dollar. The President wanted a new $3 billion literacy program. There are 14 literacy programs in the Federal education system. Is it not fair to say, which of the 14 do we want? Let us fully fund them and let us put the money in? No. The liberals would say, we are cutting education, even though we are giving the parents, the teachers and the zip code, the local district, the money. What this does, it allows parents to make that decision. In Washington, DC the average cost is $10,200 per child. Yet did they support a system to where individuals, poor children, if a mother or a father or both said that their children are in an area where they are not getting a good education or they are being threatened because of crime and drugs, can they move? There are 20 Members that live in Washington, DC. Not a single one send their children to DC schools. They send them to private. Do you know that the cost is less than $3,000 versus $10,200. But yet, the liberals want big bureaucracy. They do not want the money going down. I am sick of class warfare. If we really want to help education, drive it down to the parents, give it to the teachers and give it to the infrastructure, not their precious unions.