Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we are saying that the school system, especially in Washington, DC, is in an emergency situation, that we would like to take a look at that, that it has succeeded in other places in the country. Yes, there are good teachers here. I have met some of them. General Becton is trying to change things. But we are saying that yes, there are only 2,000 students, but we would like to help the system as we can, and in the future bring up the public schools to the same level.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have not yielded.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, golf was not invented in the United States. But the United States leads the world in the manufacturing of quality golf clubs. Golfers know that most of these manufacturers are headquartered in California, predominantly in Carlsbad in my congressional district. They dominate this $2-billion industry because they lead in research and development of new materials that improve the performance, durability, and appearance of golf clubs. Major American investments have been made in the research, development, design, and manufacture of golf clubs, components, and their materials. To remain competitive, these companies at times source components, such as golf club heads, offshore. Their high-paying research and design and final manufacturing operations remain here in the United States. Modern quality domestic golf clubs undergo precision operations involving many skilled U.S. technicians, using leading edge assembly and test equipment here in the United States. Unfortunately, the prosperity of American employers is threatened and disrupted by arbitrary or capricious country of origin marking rules and regulations. These have been adopted and proposed by the U.S. Customs Service. They include the NAFTA marking regulations, the proposed marking regulations, and ultimately the Uruguay round country of origin changes scheduled for implementation in several years. The U.S. golf club industry has been able to cope with U.S. Customs regulations prior to implementation of the NAFTA marking rules. But the new country of origin marking requirements have become real trade and economic barriers. Contrary to their stated purpose, the new requirements are less understandable, more subjective, and more burdensome than previous marking requirements. The marking problems can be resolved by recognizing that the process of final manufacturing of golf clubs in the United States is clearly a substantial transformation. Unlike golf clubs of the past, the final manufacturing of modern golf clubs is a high-precision, multi-step process by skilled U.S. technicians requiring significant attention to detail. They use laser-guided equipment and highly sensitive scales to determine the weights of individual components and final clubs. Any slight variance causes the rejection of a club that does not meet company or industry swingweight standards. The U.S. golf club manufacturing industry is a significant domestic employer that deserves to be treated fairly by trade laws. New and Proposed country of origin marking requirements simply fail to recognize the technological progress this industry has made, at the demand of golfers everywhere. By enacting legislation that reflects current industry practices, we restore trade fairness to the U.S. golf club industry, preserve good American jobs, and enhance our trade competitiveness.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one of the most damning things about this body is the partisan deceit that takes place, partisan deceit for political gain. This bill allows a 35 percent error rate within a district. Yeah, can you make it up nationally. But look in the past in the gerrymandering and reapportionment. Do you have any doubt where that 35 percent is going to take place? In individual Republican districts. No, I do not trust. Why? If this body had operated in a bipartisan way, look at the White House union issue with the White House directing money. Look at the FBI files. Look at the INS keeping registration. And in San Diego, they kept Republicans from registering new Members of this body, of this country. Look at China and the Trie and the Huang and the Riady. Look across-the-board at the political manipulation. My mom told me, ``If you tell enough lies, you are going to go to hell.'' Well, I want to tell my colleagues something: On Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment, the Democrat leadership is going to need a big fan when they die. Do we trust the President? Absolutely not. Vote no on this amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, we need to differentiate between legal and illegal. The United States of America has more legal entrants than all the other countries put together. That is good. However, where we must draw the line is illegal immigration. It is beyond me. The thing that both sides of the aisle fight over all the time is legislation that slips in in the dark of night, when no one is around, by unanimous consent. That is how this was put into this bill. That is wrong, Mr. Speaker. This provision to allow illegals to remain in this country, the only thing they should have is a ticket out of here, illegals out of the United States of America, period. If we take a look at how over the period of time that immigration has rewarded the United States, that is good. I just returned from the Philippines. The State Department is overwhelmed by visas from people trying to come into this country legally. We need to support that, Mr. Speaker, and take out this provision. We do not have the votes to beat this, but we should have an up-or-down vote on this provision.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot about campaign finance reform. There are a lot of us that would like to do it and have it brought before the floor. But do we think the Democrats would include the Beck decision, where the union bosses cooperatively hold hostage their workers to contribute to their campaigns and their finances? The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. John Ensign, in Las Vegas, NV, had $1 million put against him just by the unions, coordinated by the DNC. The gentlewoman from Idaho, Mrs. Helen Chenoweth had $1 million by the unions, coordinated by the DNC against one candidate. What about the gentlewoman from Idaho, Mrs. Chenoweth, what about the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. J.D. Hayworth, $1 million by the DNC? Thirty percent of the workers in the unions are Republican. About another 10 percent are independent. So that is 40 percent of the population that is being forced with union wages to contribute, and then that money is being used against Republicans, against their will. But do the Democrats want the Beck decision in any campaign finance reform? Absolutely not, because it takes the power of the union bosses away. Unions only represent about 6 percent of the work force in this entire Nation, 6 percent. Yet, they say they stand for the working person. Small business and business makes up about 94 percent of all the jobs in this country. They say they are for the working person, but union legislation, from strikebreaker on down, is there to combat and fight against and destroy small business. My colleague, the gentleman from California, talks about campaign finance reform and its influence. Let me read this: The proletariat will use all political supremacy wrested by the position of the ruling class to establish democracy. Have we heard anything about class warfare on this floor by the gentleman from California? The proletariat will use political supremacy to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state. One, abolish all private property. Over 50 percent of California is owned by the government. Yet, the gentleman from California in the California Desert plan would have more and more and more lands put in there. Heavy progressive income taxes. The unions supported the Democrats because they want big government. They want the power centralized in Washington. They use big government, which causes higher taxes, which causes people and small business to die every single day, and jobs. And the union bosses force this, but yet it is supported by the gentleman from California. Second, abolishing the right of inheritance: the death tax. Where do these three things come from? Where does property, private property abolition, heavy progressive taxes, inheritance tax, come from? It comes from the Communist Manifesto, written by Carl Marx and Engels. What else do they have in this, in their plan? Centralization of credit in the hands of the state. No. 8: equal obligation of all do work, but control by unions, organized unions, right here in the Communist Manifesto. Free education for all. That is not bad, but it is controlled in the hands of the state. Let me read here. The gentleman from California, union, $2,000. The gentleman from California, union, $5,000. The gentleman from California, union, $1,200. The gentleman from California, union; American, Federal, State and County, union, $4,500; American Maritime, union, $1,000; union, $1,000; union, $500; union, $1,000; union, $1,000; union, $500; union, for the gentleman from California, $5,000; union, $2,000; union $500; union, $1,500; on and on and on, and pages from unions. Yet, do they want the union and the Beck decision put into campaign finance reform? Absolutely not. They want to do away with a normal progression. What is a PAC, Mr. Speaker? A PAC is a group of businesses or organizations for a single purpose. They band together to fight against the power of the unions to direct money against them. Yes, we want campaign finance reform, but we want fair reform. Include the Beck decision in campaign finance reform and we will support it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, it is amazing for those that talk about the defense budget is too much, that have never served in the armed services and seen hostility or even seen the odd end of a weapon, but yet we ask our men and women to do that every single day. Too much, but our budget is less than it was in 1930. I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts. Bosnia, by the time we pull out in June, is going to cost the United States $12 billion. Does it come out of the social programs? No. It comes out of the already limited budget that we have before you today. I was asked why do we have aircraft that are crashing all over the United States? Listen to this. Air Force; high operational tempo; keeping aging planes going with a lack of maintenance, shrinking budgets; recent series of aircraft accidents according to Air Force officials. We are asking our men and women to fly these machines with one-half the flying time that they should. The maintenance on the aircraft is not being done. Yet we do not have the dollars in here to put into it because the dollars that we do have comes out to pay for Bosnia and other contingencies. In Haiti, Aristide is still there. Aideed's son is in Somalia. That costs billions of dollars; not out of social programs, but defense. Our committee has done a good job, but when people sit back and say that we are spending too much on defense, I would ask you to take a look at what our kids are doing. We have not bought a new Air Force fighter in 25 years. The SU-27, the SU-35 and the SU-37, the Russian airplane, outclasses, outperforms our F-14 and our F-15. The AA-12 and the AA-10 missile that the Russians have outclasses our best AMRAAM missile, but yet the cold war is over. And they are shipping them to China and every country that is a potential threat to our men and women. Are we spending enough, Madam Speaker? Absolutely not.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I voted against the bill that would have a pay increase. In our own conference when the veterans' COLA came up, I fought against my own Republican Party because they wanted to cut a veterans' COLA. Why? Veterans sign on a dotted line that if they serve the amount of time in the service of this country, and at the end of that time that is the contract they operated under, they would have a retirement; and that that retirement, should it lose money each year because of inflation, that was not the intent. I chastised my own party for that. We turned that around. If you had a pay increase that gave you more money than just maintaining parity, it is a parity issue, does the dollar maintain the same value that you came with, then I think Members have got the right to chastise what we are doing here. But in an amendment that maintains parity, that is a half a percent below actual parity, then I do not think the Members have a complaint as far as a COLA, because most of us support a COLA for Social Security. We support it for our veterans. We support it for Federal employees, because it maintains the dollar value that those individuals have in their paycheck. It is not meant to get less and less and less with inflation, depending on what it is. That is the same reason most of us support indexing of capital gains, because it indexes the value of that dollar right along with inflation. I think it is disingenuous, maybe with good intention, but disingenuous, to suggest that this was a pay increase. It is not. Because I will vote against a pay increase, a COLA that is more than just meeting parity. I think that is wrong. I think it is wrong, and most of us this day will not vote for a pay increase. I ask my colleagues to vote against the motion.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 1683. And I am delighted to support this bipartisan, bicameral legislation today. This bill is based on us listening to citizens and law enforcement, to see what can work best to protect children and communities from violent predators. What we heard, is that it is time for the law to take the side of innocent citizens and victims of crime, and to crack down on criminals, especially sex offenders and people who commit crimes against children. Congress developed the Wetterling Act to create a sex offender registry. I was proud to help develop Megan's law, to create community notification of certain sex offenders and enable citizens to protect themselves against criminals. Now, we are making the Wetterling Act and Megan's law better for communities, better for law enforcement, better for citizens and children and victims of crime, and a lot worse for criminals. H.R. 1683 closes loopholes relating to sex offenders who are Federal criminals, military personnel, and people who live in one state and work or study in another. It helps us obtain more information from the States on their laws that combat the stalking of juveniles. It gives states more flexibility to implement the law, to make registration of these criminals work better for everyone. And it provides protection from liability of those who work in good faith with law enforcement on criminal registration and community notification. In the flight against crime, it's time for us to fight for the victims and the law-abiding citizens, and against the criminals. That's what we will do today, by enacting H.R. 1683. I thank Chairman McCollum and Chairman Hyde for their leadership in moving this bill. And I also want to recognize Congresswoman Dunn and Congressman Deal, for their longstanding hard work on this issue. I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1683, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in my role as an administrative cochairman of the bipartisan national security caucus, I served as the cohost of a recent maritime policy briefing. The group my colleagues and I assembled discussed a wide range of critical issues which have a significant impact on our national security and the future of our maritime industry. This dinner briefing was an outstanding success because of the insights and observations we received from several of my fellow cochairmen in the national security caucus. The group included Chairman Floyd Spence of the National Security Committee, Ike Skelton, the ranking Democrat on the Military Procurement Subcommittee and Steny Hoyer, the chairman of the Democratic Steering Committee. We were also joined by Tillie Fowler, the vice chairman of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee. Our guests of honor were Secretary of the Navy John Dalton and Gen. Charles Krulak, the commander of the Marine Corps. We were also joined by several key executives form the maritime industry and senior officials of leading trade associations and maritime organizations. The topics we reviewed included the Maritime Security Program [MSP], the Jones Act, the charter and build program, cargo preference, and acquisition reform. All of our participants were in agreement that the disappearance of U.S. shipping companies would have a serious impact on America's national security. During Operation Desert Storm, American shipping companies transported 95 percent of the sustainment cargo. It is definitely not clear how the Defense Department would replace crucial sealift capacity if, suddenly, no American container ship companies were available. Certainly, the cost of replacing this commercial capacity with new government-owned sealift vessels would be astronomical. The number of private U.S. shipyards has dropped by more than 50 percent over the past 15 years. The U.S.-flag fleet is very productive today, but unfortunately, its capability to compete on the international stage has declined. The American fleet of self-propelled vessels has decreased steadily in size since 1950 to a current low of approximately 300 vessels. The available work force has also declined significantly and the modernization of the U.S. seaports is well behind their foreign competitors. These factors are raising concerns among my colleagues in the national security caucus about handicaps on our Nation's economy and our capability to promote trade and our national security interests. The participants were in agreement that the U.S. policies and programs are in sharp contrast with those of many leading maritime nations. These other nations have acted to preserve a commercial presence in shipping. They offer supportive tax and financing packages. And they invest heavily in the modernization of their shipyards and seaports. All of these inequities discourage private investment in key components of U.S. maritime industries. I believe it is in the best interests of all Americans to harness the leadership of government with the strength of the marketplace to level the international playing field so that U.S. industries can compete globally. The challenges we face were eloquently stated last year during the MSP debate by chairman Herb Bateman of the Merchant Marine Panel when he said, ``We are beyond the point of talking about viability, resurgence of even revitalization. We are now talking about the very survival of the American maritime industry. As horrible and as catastrophic as it may sound, if we do not develop and adopt a new strategy, the U.S. fleet may not be in existence a year from now.'' I am very pleased to report that the efforts to develop, adopt, and implement a comprehensive and bipartisan national maritime strategy is receiving critical leadership from the nonprofit National Security Caucus Foundation. I know all of the caucus cochairmen are very grateful for the tremendous yeoman labor of the NSCF maritime team. This group includes Adm. Thomas Moorer USN (Ret.), the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Rear Adm. Robert Spiro, the former Under Secretary of the Army, and Gregg Hilton, the NSCF's Executive Director. They have been working in cooperation with the Navy and the Maritime Administration on several strategy conferences, and they have assembled an impressive list of retired flag officers who are emphasizing the arguments I have outlined above. The NSC Foundation's effort to develop a new strategy is essential to our national security and I will be providing further information to my colleagues about this program in the weeks ahead. Finally, I want to express my appreciation to several individuals who had a key role in organizing last night's policy discussion. They also provided us excellent advice and a wide variety of background information. The group which is responsible for the success of last night's event includes Jim Henry, the president of the Transportation Institute, Jim Patti, the president of MIRAID, Gloria Tosi, the executive director of the American Maritime Congress and Gordon Spencer, the legislative director for the American Maritime Officers.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think if we had more debate like this, I find this very refreshing, I think we are talking to issues, we are talking about education, we are not talking politics. I would like to thank Members on both sides. In the 104th Congress, as chairman of a subcommittee basically responsible for K through 12 education, we had several hearings. One of those hearings, or all five of the hearings in one area, showed that our children were not competing for entry level jobs. The fact is that they could not read, they could not write, they could not speak the English language, or did not have the high-technical skills available. In my own district, there are two gentlemen, both immigrants. One is named Paul Ecke who donates large amounts of money and his passion is education, as is a Hispanic friend of mine, Ralph Peskera, recently tasked to look at education on school entrance into college. The sad thing is many of those students were not prepared to meet the college level education. Many of us feel that more of the resources should be focused on the lower levels instead of so much on the higher levels. Again, I think that is why this debate is very refreshing. Mr. Chairman, when we talk about things that we would like to look at in school reform, the President asked for $3 billion in a literacy program. Currently, we have 14 Federal literacy programs. Mr. Hoekstra and the gentleman from California, [Mr. Riggs], are looking into saying, well, I think it is reasonable for both sides of the aisle to say, let's find one or two that really work and let's fully fund them in the public schools and make sure we get the resources and the funds available for those and eliminate the bureaucracy, without saying, hey, we are cutting education but actually enhancing education because we are getting more money down to the level. I think that reform is very important. Damaging public education, I think, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], if we get into a fight, public versus private, I think we both lose. I think the whole value is taking our public schools with the problems that many of them have, and looking to bring them up to private level standards across the board. Not all private schools are that good, either. But many of them you go to, you see the parents, the teachers, the children all lauding each other. Go to public schools across the Nation and in many of those public schools we do not see that. My wife has a doctorate degree in education. She is an elementary school principal with two schools. You think somebody works hard? A good night for her is when she gets out at 9 or 10 o'clock. She is a very good principal. She has dedicated teachers. Yet, in our State of California we have just slipped from 45 to 50 in literacy. Now, this is a nation where we have large amounts of resources that we do not apply. We have less than 12 percent of our schools that have even a single phone jack. We have so many Federal programs and get so little of the money. The average is 48 cents; in some States 23 cents. We need also in this reform to look to be able to focus the majority of money down to the ZIP Code, and where the parents and the teachers and the families can have a better say of what that education is. Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs]. This is one of the better debates that I think has occurred and a debate we can be proud of on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I did not even know about this particular problem, or even the program until my staff brought it up, a program in which multiple drugs are applied to help people with AIDS, and that it is one of the most exciting measures that individuals have to keep life sustained. I would like to sincerely thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] for what they have done in this bill. It is a pretty well balanced bill. I sincerely would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], who in his opposition to this bill spoke clearly on the issue, went through any politics, and it was very well done. But, Mr. Chairman, the one thing that is probably the most disheartening portion of this entire body is where instead of going to the issues, we start throwing politics into it. Tax breaks for the rich, the gentlewoman from California brings up. When we take a look and we throw politics into it or if a Republican does something that is not caring, and if it is a Democrat that wants to go after AIDS money, then it is caring for the children. Well, this is. I think the gentleman has got an issue in which he believes in on an issue-oriented basis and he is fighting for it. When we take a look at education and the politics, being subcommittee chairman when they say the Republicans are cutting education. For example, the President wanted the direct lending program. It costs $5 billion more a year, and we wanted to eliminate it but yet they said we are cutting education instead of talking to the issues. On this particular issue, there are certain areas in which I believe the Federal Government has got a direct responsibility. No, I do not think the Federal Government ought to give money for the National Endowment for the Arts. That is a difference in issue. But I do believe that where we have a function that is not a States rights issue, it is in medical research. States cannot do that. They do not have the wherewithal to do it. We give it to the universities to take care of problems like the gentleman is trying to take care of. When we talk about 6,000 people that are going to be helped by this amendment and their life is going to be sustained, to bring politics into it to me is one of the worst things. Either you believe in it or you do not. I happen to believe that the gentleman is well-intentioned. I am going to support the amendment. I really did not know how I was going to support on the issue, and I listened back and forth to the debate and I thought the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] gave a very convincing argument based on the issues and not on politics.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Sarah Geving, a constituent of California's 51st Congressional District, has written a personal account about growing up on welfare. Her real-life story shows how the old welfare system encouraged complacency, bred hopelessness, and trapped many families in a cycle of welfare dependency. Sarah's experience taught her that the best way to break free of the welfare trap was not to give people a handout, but to give them a hand up. Our new welfare reform law does that. It encourages work, family, and personal responsibility, giving people hope and a better chance at the American dream. I am proud to have played a part in reforming the failed welfare system and to share Sarah's story with my colleagues by entering it into the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States: An American Success Story (By Sarah Geving) My parents got divorced when I was four years old and we went on welfare shortly after that. We were on welfare for the next eight years. Why did we continue to receive hand- outs from the government for nearly a decade? Because the government kept sending them. Was my mom physically disabled during this time? No, or she would have been on physician ordered ``disability.'' And long-term disability at that! The U.S. government enabled my mother to stay home for eight years. My mom dropped out of high school in the eleventh grade. Do you think that during the years the government ``helped'' to take care of us, they encouraged my mom to go back and get her G.E.D.? No. Did they encourage her to attend technical schools so that she would be prepared to enter the job market? No. They should have at least required her to go back and finish high school or get her G.E.D. When my mom decided to get a job, of course she was totally unprepared in terms of skills, so she had to take a minimum wage job. With welfare reform, we must teach people to progress. Education should be encouraged so that families are not struggling for food as we were. This does not mean that I think we should be working to raise minimum wage. I do not. We should be encouraging work, education, and the spirit of volunteerism. Since my family was so poor even when my mom went back to work, we relied on church donations, donations from anonymous people, and when all else failed, we stood in line for food. As demeaning as this was, we did eat. Americans are generous and the private sector will help with welfare reform. If we encourage hard work and education, children will not have to grow up feeling ashamed like I did. Families who are experiencing hard times and are struggling for food need to be counseled to make better choices. Volunteers should not only help provide food, but they should also help people make better choices. Better choices means that poverty will be temporary, not generational. When I stood in line for food it was hurtful emotionally. I was embarrassed. I didn't want my friends at school to know about my true private life. I spent years feeling ashamed. One thing that did help was having a ``Big Brother''. A friend of a friend wanted to volunteer as a big brother. Instead of going through an agency and being hooked up with a young boy, this mutual friend hooked him up with me. He was a good example for me because he worked for a living and he gave me advice about college. He treated me like I was a person. My home life was not good and it was helpful to spend time with someone stable once in awhile. We must encourage ``big brothers'' and ``big sisters''. My mom had a lot of problems and often could not take care of us. She could have given us over to the State for awhile. She needed foster homes for us. Instead, her church found temporary homes for us until my mom could take us back. My sister and I think we lived in at least nine different homes. If we had been in State foster care, we probably would not have been able to stay in the same part of town and the same school district. Since stability was always lacking, at least we could stay in the same school. Once again, this illustrates the importance of individuals and the idea of volunteerism. If I had gotten pregnant at 17 or 18, the government would have been willing to support me and how ever many children I may have had. I was definitely an ``at risk'' child. I believe that one of the things that saved me was help from people--not the government, but individual people. Private enterprise, individual people, and volunteerism will be crucial in implementing welfare reform. Ending welfare as an entitlement program will give everyone hope, especially children like I once was. I knew that I needed to go to college. When I was growing up, I worked hard at school. I studied for and took the S.A.T. tests. One thing that I did not plan for was the college application fee. I remember going to see my high school counselor during my senior year of high school. He had often helped me with questions I had about college. I told him, ``Well, it looks like I can't go to USD or any other 4 year college like I had planned. We'll have to talk about community colleges or something else.'' He said, ``What changed your mind?'' I told him that I had filled out my application and that at the bottom of the application, there was a statement advising applicants that the application fee was $25.00. There was no way I could come up with that. He didn't say much, but asked me to come back the next day to discuss it further. I did. When I showed up for the appointment, he handed me an envelope and told me to go home and send in my application. After leaving his office, I opened the envelope to see what was inside, and there was $25.00 cash. I didn't think too much about it at the time, although I was thankful. Now that I am older, that incident keeps coming back to me. At the time, I guess I assumed that money came out of some school fund. Looking back on it, I think it probably came from his own pocket. On my current list of ``things to do'' is to hunt him down and pay him back. He would probably be happy to know that I did go to and graduate from college. This is a great example of people helping people. This is what welfare reform is all about. As a society, it is our duty to teach people to take care of themselves. The government should not do for individuals what they are capable of doing for themselves. When the founders of our country first came to America, they came knowing they would work hard. We need to return to those values. I have learned this. If you remain fixed in purpose, and strive to achieve your goals, you will succeed in this country. We live in a great country. If I had been born in India and into the caste system, I would still be poor today. If I had been born in a Third-world country, such as Panama or Mexico, I would still be poor today. This country was founded on the principles of hard work. Hard work made this country great. This is the land of opportunity. Thank you to the elected officials who voted for welfare reform. Thank you to the elected officials who want to return this country back to the idea of smaller government and more personal responsibility.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree. We can put leverage on those that do abuse it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There were excessive administrative costs in all areas under the administration here in Washington by the Older Americans group, of the 10 different groups. When we ask for funds, I would just like to make sure that the ranking minority member and the chairman would look into making sure that the fraud, waste, and abuse that is present in the Older Americans Act is eliminated, and they will do everything they can to reduce that so we can actually get more money to them.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] and the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] for a good bill. I think 99 percent of the bill is on a bipartisan issue, and I think they have done a great job in bringing the consensus, whether it is breast cancer, prostate cancer, medical research, and the rest of it. But sometimes the priorities of the committee are a little bit different, and this is where I disagree with the chairman and the ranking minority member and support the amendment. Let me tell my colleagues why. Mr. Chairman, I was the subcommittee chairman on the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families on which many of my colleagues on the other side at whom I am looking served when we went through the IDEA bill. We have never funded IDEA, special education, higher than 7 percent. Take a parent, a hopeful parent that is just first married and their whole future is ahead of them. Every single day a child is born with special education needs, disabilities, whether it is physical or mental. Now, that parent that had a bright future, whether they were a homecoming queen or scholar or whatever, is thrust into a nightmare with a special education child. They do not know where to go. They have no idea where to get the help. That is balanced between the schools' excessive costs and a parent's need to help their child. We brought the Congress together in the subcommittee and then in the committee. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] on the authorization committee poured his heart into this bill. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] and others, and Members on both sides of the aisle, tried to come to an agreement. It was like trying to put a Persian cat and a Siamese cat together when we sat in the committee and brought the school groups and the parent groups together, because of the different concerns. Finally, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] put both groups in a room, no food, no water, and asked them to come out with a solution, and they did. It was one that was acceptable and it was balanced, and yet it was underfunded and tensions on both sides were very great. But it is a critical issue. But the bottom line is whether we want money to go to labor or we want money to go to special education children. Our priority, most of us, is to support the children. Some of my colleagues say, what about taking care of the parents that are going to raise these children? If my colleagues are really concerned about that, then the balanced budget was very important because it gives them 2 to 6 percent more money in their pocket, instead of having to send it to the Federal Government. Welfare reform is more important, and many people opposed it. That is more important in taking care of those children. But the bottom line is that there is a difference between sending money to labor or sending money to children. Let me give an idea. Secretary Reich was Labor Secretary, and in his last book, and I ask my colleagues to be the judge whether they want the money to go there or not, and I challenge them to read his book. I quote, Secretary Reich said, there should be no employee or employer that should earn more than $200,000. A salary cap. That is socialism. Second, he said there should be no business other than for the welfare of the employee, no business for profit. Now, that is Mao. And I take a look at what labor has done versus small business. When we say, you are for the working person, unions only employ about 6 percent, but yet most of the legislation kills small business from the labor unions. Look at the AFL-CIO; they are Federal employees. They want bigger government which causes higher taxes which takes more money away from these people. And even if they get a minimum wage, they cannot make a living with the higher costs. So, Mr. Chairman, when we look at it, we are talking about money for labor or we are talking about money for children and special education, which has never been funded at higher than 7 percent. Now, the committee sat down and worked in both authorization and appropriations on a very balanced bill. But this is a case, I think, where we can set a priority and put our priorities with the children. As many of the others say: This is for the children. This is where they can put their money and where their ideas are and put it for the children.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the chairman and the ranking member would allow, if I can enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], most of us support the initiative and what the gentlemen are doing, the ranking member and the chairman. I would ask the chairman, the last term, in the 104th Congress, the GAO report came out.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a fellow California and good friend, David F. ``Bud'' Wilson of Chula Vista, CA, who will be installed as president of the Nation's largest insurance association, the Independent Insurance Agents of America [IIAA], next month in Hawaii. Bud is chairman of the board of Wilson Insurance Agency, Inc., an independent insurance agency located in Chula Vista. Bud's career as an independent insurance agent has been marked with outstanding dedication to his clients, his community, IIAA, the State association, the Insurance Brokers and Agents of the West [IBA West], his colleagues, and his profession. On the State level, Bud served IBA West on various committees and as president in 1981. From 1983 to 1986 he served as the IIABC representative on IIAA's Board of State National Directors. In 1987, Bud received the P.S.W. Ramsden Memorial Award, the highest honor bestowed by the California State association. Bud's love of politics and legislative affairs served him well during four highly successful years as chairman of IIAA's Government Affairs Committee. In recognition of his outstanding work on behalf of all independent agents as Government Affairs Committee chairman, Bud was bestowed IIAA's Sydney O. Smith Legislative Award in 1994. Bud was elected to IIAA's Executive Committee in 1994. In the time since, he has exhibited a spirit of dedication and concern for his 300,000 independent agent colleagues around the country. Bud's selfless attitude also extends to his involvement in Chula Vista-area community activities. He is past-president of the Chula Vista Rotary, the Chula Vista Rotary, the Chula Vista Jaycees, the Chula Vista Community Hospital Board of Trustees, and the Chula Vista Salvation Army. He also has been involved in numerous other Chula Vista community projects. I have complete confidence that Bud will serve with distinction and provide strong leadership as president of the Independent Insurance Agents of America over the next year. I wish him and his lovely wife, Sandra, all the best as IIAA president and first lady.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Further reserving the right to object, I would say to my friend, and I would reiterate that I fully support the words that he just spoke and would associate, but unfortunately, we have the same kind of concerns on another UC request that affects the lives of many of the people on the West Coast, thousands of people, as a matter of fact. And it is not the loss of someone, but this is the loss of jobs, the loss of livelihood. There was an agreement made under these UC's, and evidently the agreement has been broken. I would still be willing to work this out in a matter of a few minutes. If this is not the case and this is worked out, if the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] would bring up the same UC a few moments later and we can work this out among us, I think I would support the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, I would like to say to my friend from New York, sometimes at 700 knots you have to make a split second decision, and in this case, I think it has worked out for the best. As I was standing before, I learned of a problem that existed and made a decision. As a matter of fact, I had rose at the other time with the reservation to allow the gentleman and the gentlewoman from New York to make their talk in support of the issue. The issue at hand had nothing to do with Betty Shabazz, and I rise in full and strong support of the gentleman from New York and the gentlewoman from New York and for what they are trying to do in this. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].