Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I came down because I was upset at the gentlewoman's statement, not against it but what she was saying, because I am 100 percent pro-life; but I also want to support the life endangerment of the mother, and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] is telling me--because I was ready to vote against the bill. He is telling me it is covered in this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1122, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, as an original cosponsor of similar legislation, H.R. 929. This important legislation will bring to an end the common practice of a most mean and extreme procedure. As we know, Congress adopted the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 1995-96, only to see President Clinton veto the measure. The House overrode the President's veto, but it was sustained in the Senate. Thus, this grotesque procedure remains in place today. Partial birth abortion is obviously strongly opposed by Americans who are pro-life. But it is so outrageous and so extreme that a respected Member of the other body--a member of the President's political party-- said that partial birth abortion is just too close to infanticide. Thus, many Americans who are pro-choice also oppose partial birth abortion. I expect that many pro-choice Representatives will vote to ban partial birth abortion today. Unfortunately, supporters of this procedure have gone to every length to continue to protect partial birth abortion for every purpose. The President justified his veto based on facts which have since been debunked. The Washington Post editorialized in a piece titled ``Lies and Late- Term Abortions,'' on March 4, 1997, that ``Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, has admitted . . . that he, and by implication other pro-choice groups, lied about the real reasons women seek this particular kind [partial-birth] of abortion . . . Mr. Clinton will be hard-pressed to justify a veto on the basis of the misinformation on which he rested his case last time.'' Mr. Fitzsimmons said he ``lied through his teeth'' about the nature and frequency of partial birth abortion in the United States. Furthermore, according to Dr. Pamela Smith, the Director of Medical Education in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Chicago, ``there are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially-delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother.'' I believe all sides of this issue should base their case on the truth. And the truth is that partial birth abortion is barbaric. This measure represents simple mainstream common sense. I urge support of the bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R. 1). I am a proud original cosponsor of this measure, which I believe is one of the most profamily, proemployee bills ever to come before Congress. In San Diego County, families work hard to make ends meet. They have some of the country's longest commutes. They struggle to make time with their children. According to a Yankelovich poll cited in the June 16, 1996, Wall Street Journal, 62 percent of parents believed their families had been hurt by changes they had experienced at work, such as more stress or longer hours. And the Department of Labor finds that 70 percent of working women with children cite balancing work and family responsibilities as their No. 1 concern. Families want more flexibility in their work schedules, to help accommodate soccer games, school awards, or just time with the children. That's why the Working Families Flexibility Act is so important. Given the fact that many employees are working overtime, the Working Families Flexibility Act brings the Fair Labor Standards Act into the 1990's. It gives employees a choice: get paid time and a half, or take time and a half off with the family. All that's needed is a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. As amended, workers can accumulate up to 160 hours of comptime. Any comptime that is not taken must be paid at time and a half. And all comptime must be cashed- out once a year into time-and-a-half pay, or when the employer requests it. This is the right thing to do. Three out of five workers working overtime would like to take comptime instead of time-and-a-half pay. Interestingly enough, Congress granted similar flexibility to public sector employers in 1985. But the private sector and small businesses are prohibited by the FLSA from offering this kind of family friendly flexibility to their own employees. If this kind of flexibility is good enough for government employees, it's good enough for the rest of America. During the previous Congress, President Clinton joined the bandwagon in support of more flexibility in family work schedules. His proposal is represented by the substitute being offered by my colleague from California, Mr. Miller. But the Clinton-Miller proposal does not do the job for America's working families. It creates unnecessary bureaucratic paperwork for employers. And it does not allow employees to bank any sizeable amount of their comptime, as the Working Families Flexibility Act does. Nevertheless, we appreciate the President's interest, and look forward to eventually having his support for this popular and bipartisan legislation. The Working Families Flexibility Act gives working families a better chance to get what they want and what they need: Time with their children, with their family, friends, and loved ones. It includes important protections for employees and employers. It is a balanced, reasonable approach to the work and family environment of the 1990's. I urge all Members to support it, because families support it, too.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Joint Resolution 58, and the Hastert amendment. The President failed to exercise good judgement when, on February 28, he certified Mexico as a fully cooperating ally in the war against drugs. Some 30 percent of the heroin, 70 percent of the marijuana, and 60 percent of the cocaine imported into the United States originates in or is shipped through Mexico. That fact alone demonstrates that the brave men and women of Mexico and Latin America who are our allies in the war against drugs face tremendous odds. They face corruption in their governments. The evil influence of drug kingpins threatens their lives, livelihoods, and families day after day. We should recognize the very real and personal sacrifices they make to fight an enemy who, by every measure, is stronger, richer, and more brutal than they are. All of us salute those allies south of the border who fight individual wars against illegal drugs not because the financial and professional rewards are great, but because they believe it is right. Though they are not Americans, they are fighting on behalf of our children, our families, and our country. We owe them a debt of gratitude. These allies in the war against drugs simply do not get the support they need from north of the border. The enormous global enterprise that is the illegal drug trade simply would not exist if there was not an available and willing American market to purchase its deadly product. If there was no domestic demand for illegal drugs, if illegal drug abuse was seen by all of us socially unacceptable, these international drug kingpins and their ill-gotten wealth would vanish. Unfortunately, there is a domestic market for illegal drugs. It is our young people. Among 12- to 17-year-olds, since 1992: Marijuana use has doubled. More importantly for our children, today's marijuana is far more potent than the drug abused in the 1960's. LSD use has climbed to record highs. And the number of young people who have used any illegal drug has risen an appalling 78 percent. Furthermore, while teen drug abuse has climbed the past 4 years, leadership in Washington has been pulling in different directions. A parent whose child has lost a life to drugs does not care which politicians bicker for partisan advantage. They want to know what has been done, and what needs to be done. What kind of leadership has President Clinton exercised in the war against drugs? In 1992, an MTV interviewer asked Bill Clinton whether he would ``inhale'' given the chance to ``do it over again.'' Of course, we're talking about inhaling a marijuana joint. Bill Clinton's reply: ``Sure, if I could. I tried before.'' President Clinton slashed the drug czar's office 83 percent. When President Clinton had a Democratic Congress, they cut Safe and Drug Free Schools, by $111 million in fiscal year 1994, and by an additional $21 million in 1995. Meanwhile, lack of oversight at the Department of Education gave over the program to waste and fraud. Safe and Drug Free Schools money was spent in Michigan on giant plastic teeth and toothbrushes, on the idea that kids who brush don't abuse drugs. In Fairfax County, it was spent on a $176,000 staff retreat, on Funds for Lumber for a step aerobics class, and on a field trip to Deep Run Lodge. The President's negotiating team, seeking to expand antidrug activities in Mexico just days before the President's 1997 certification was due, came away from those negotiations emptyhanded-- and then recommended recertification of Mexico as an ally in the war on drugs. The President's National Security Council placed the war on drugs as its 29th priority out of 29--dead last on its list of national security priorities. Faced with these facts, Lee Brown, the President's drug policy director, wrote in 1995 about a ``troubling'' decline in drug prosecutions. And a senior Democratic Congressman, Charlie Rangel, who is very active on the drug issue, said ``I have never, never, never seen a President who cares less about this issue.'' Despite the ambiguous message from the White House, Congress has taken decisive action in the war against drugs. We have provided level funding for the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, while fighting fraud and abuse. No cuts. We increased the drug czar's office, the DEA budget, Coast Guard antidrug operations, the State Department's international narcotics control program, the Southwest Border States Anti-drug Information System, and several other programs like military drug interdiction over the President's request. We are taking action against crystal meth, which is a major problem in California and the Southwest, and against trafficking of so-called roofies, otherwise known as the date-rape drug. Without a doubt, more must be done. The Border Patrol and the Customs Service should be provided additional resources, beyond the essentially status-quo levels in the President's budget, to fight illegal drugs at the border and at our ports of entry to combat the supply of illegal drugs. And domestic demand for illegal drugs can be reduced through more stringent law enforcement, random drug testing campaigns, and a relentless campaign of public education. No one will help our children better than those closest to them--their parents, pastors, neighbors, teachers, local police, and community leaders. When we all publicly agree that drugs kill, and that their use will not be tolerated, and repeat that message with clarity over and over and over again, only then will we make headway in the war on drugs. We cannot win the war on drugs with the Keystone Kops. The unsung heroes who are fighting drugs every day, in Mexico and across Latin America, and in homes and schools across the United States, demand a vote of confidence in their work. Let us take up their battle and fight to win. I am attaching two articles that Members may find of interest. The first outlines the Clinton administration's complete failure to properly advance the war on drugs in Latin America. The second is an op-ed I wrote last fall, making a call to arms against illegal drug abuse.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there may be a perception that this is not important to the other side, but the reality is important. For 28 years we have not been able to balance the budget because it has proven too difficult. In Gramm-Rudman, the deal was that for every tax dollar we take in, we will cut it by 3, and we will push out the cuts into the last year. We could not do that because the cuts were too hard. Remember when George Bush moved his lips? The deal was that for every tax dollar we take in, we are going to cut spending by 3, and we are going to give you an absolute way to do that. We are going to put firewalls between each of the appropriation committees and we are going to put a cap. The leadership on my colleagues' side, how did they get around it? With emergency spending. We found outlandish emergency spending things on there, and the continuing resolutions that just carried over the spending. And it was not viable. Remember in the 104th when the President gave us three balanced budgets? All increased the deficit by $175 billion. And then in the fourth one he gave us, he balanced it using CBO numbers in 7 years, and 72 percent of the cuts came in the last year. It is not realistic, even if the President gave us a second budget balanced but most of the cuts take place in the last year. We know that that is not feasible. It is smoke and mirrors. It also happens to be before the Committee on National Security, when the President has said that he is going to increase modernization for DOD. Do Members think that the more liberal Members on this side are going to decrease social spending and increase national security in those same 2 years? It is not feasible, Mr. Speaker. We need to take a look at what reality is. We want a balanced budget. They say we do not have one. Well, have the President give us a balanced budget as he campaigned in the middle of the road and many of the Democratic leadership said, we are not going to support that. We do not want a balanced budget. That is what they are opposing this resolution for, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me give my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, some food for thought on how we can balance the budget and not cut some of the valuable programs that we are looking for. Let us take, for example, education. I was the subcommittee chairman, basically K through 12 during the 104th Congress. In some areas, in some school districts, we get as little as 23 cents on a dollar out of Federal education programs. The gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] the other night in a special order was pointing out that there are 760 Federal education programs, all with bureaucracies, all taking money away from getting the dollars down to the classroom. The average is around 50 cents on a dollar for most areas, but in some areas it is as little as 23 cents on a dollar. That is cutting education because the dollars are not going the way the American taxpayers sent it to Washington to improve education, but it is going to support a bureaucracy and large numbers of programs. The President in his budget wants a new $3 billion literacy program. There are 30 current literacy programs in those 760 programs, and only 14 are funded. Title I, for example, is our war against illiteracy. But yet the President wants to come up with a new $3 billion program with new bureaucracies in the Department of Education, and why do we not eliminate the programs that are not working of the 30, focus on the ones that are, and drive the money down to the local areas? That is one way.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, at the same time, taxpayers do not have to pay for the extra bureaucracy that is not actually going down to education, so it lessens the burden of taxes and at the same time reduces the size of government that we do away with wasted bureaucracies. It is common sense. Let me give you another example. How can we balance the budget and actually enhance money to education? The President's direct lending program for student loans was capped at 10 percent during the 104th Congress. When the Government shut down, the President, one of his goals was to take that to 100 percent. We balked and went to 40 percent. At 10 percent it cost $1 billion, not $1 million, but $1 billion more in administrative fees. This is a GAO figure. Fact, not Republicanism. It takes $4 billion more to collect those dollars, and that was only capped at 10 percent. So when it went to 40 percent, when the Government shut down at the request of the President, we limited the administrative fees which basically go to pay for a higher bureaucracy. And what we did in the subcommittee is we drove an increased Pell grants for poor children to the highest level ever. We thought that was more important to get the money down to the kids instead of paying for a bureaucracy. We increased the level for special education children to the highest level ever, more important than paying a bureaucracy. We increased student loans, Mr. Speaker, by 50 percent, not 15 but 50 percent, and they said we killed education or cut it by $10 billion. We drove the money down to the zip code, eliminated a bureaucracy, and what Mr. Hoekstra and Mr. McKeon from California are trying to do is look at the programs and let us focus on the ones that work. The last point, if the gentleman would be kind enough to yield, AmeriCorps, $27,000 per volunteer. The President talks about a volunteer force. In Baltimore it costs $50,000 for a volunteer. And our tax dollars are going to pay for that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman and my colleague from Arizona as well. I saw the special orders, and I think it is important to bring up just a couple of other points. I listened to a Republican Governor the other day, and what does this mean to the future, not only to our senior citizens, but to our children as well, as far as a balanced budget? He said that his father took home 82 percent of his paycheck, his brother and his sister only take home 45 percent of their paycheck, and that under the current spending of Congress, an increase in taxes, he can expect his children to take between 16 and 18 percent of their paycheck home. That is a pretty sad commentary, that if we do not turn this around, what is the impact it is going to have on every American in this country to the negative? When we talk about a billion dollars a day going just to pay for the interest on the national debt, and not one cent of that goes to pay for Medicare, not one cent goes to education, not one cent of it goes for law enforcement or the rest; what could we not do with $365 billion in a year for the American people in the same areas that many of us--that I believe the liberals want better education, I believe they want better national security. But they want to do it from a government level which has spent money. I would also like to cover the history, when you talk about 28 years, some of the initiatives, Mr. Speaker, that they have gone through to try and balance the budget. Remember there was a commission put together to balance the budget prior to the Grace Commission that said we are going to balance the budget; they were not able to do it. Then Congress came forth, and this is when the Democrats were in the majority. They said, ``We are going to give you Gramm-Rudman,'' and the deal was that for every tax dollar you take in, we are going to cut spending by three, and we are going to balance the budget. Of course it did not work. Then when George Bush famously moved his lips and increased taxes, the Democrats were still in power, and the deal that they proposed to the President, President Bush, was again, ``For every tax dollar that we increase, we are going to cut spending by three to balance the budget.'' Mr. Speaker, there were only 13 Republicans that voted for that bill to increase taxes that year before I got here, and if you look when George Bush, what they also told him, they were going to put, of the 13 appropriations committees, they were going to put fire walls between each one of those committees so you could not take from one committee and take to another, and to even secure it more, they were going to put a cap on that so there is no way that you could increase spending. Well, what we found, and I was here in this body at the time, is that the way that the majority of the Democratic majority got around it is they put everything on emergency spending, which was exempt. They also had continuing resolutions which meant they carried over the spending to the next year and then the next year and the next year so that they could get around the caps and that spending keeps increasing. It is very, very important to note that the President says he wanted a balanced budget when he ran for Congress within 5 years, but at the same time the President in the 104th Congress, to tell you the smoke and mirrors, the President gave us three balanced budgets that increased the deficit by over $150 billion, and when it finally-- the pressure came on the President to give us a balanced budget scored by CBO, that 70 percent of the cuts came in the last year. This budget that the President is recommending that we look at makes 98 percent of all the cuts in the sixth and seventh year when he would not even be here. So when we look at about an honest balanced budget with numbers, there is no realistic chance of that particular budget ever balancing, and I would like to make one last point on it. The President said that he is going to increase modernization of our national security assets that we keep pushing out into the outyears, and guess what? That takes place in the years 6 and 7 of his balanced budget. Now do you think that Members on the other side of the aisle are going to decrease with 98 percent of the cuts in social spending and increase defense spending at that time? It is not a legitimate budget, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Long in the tooth.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. AmeriCorps is one of the President's pet programs that allows people to go out and help in other areas; for example, painting a fence or cleaning a yard for a senior citizen or doing different kinds of work, and that is supposed to be voluntary, but they also receive an average of $27,000 for that activity, which we think is wrong. Part of that is used as direct pay, part of it is used for child care, part of it is used for administration costs. But we can spend our dollars better at that. The other area in which we waste money, if we are getting so little return out of Federal Government dollars that taxpayers pay, and a State bureaucracy is just as bad as a Federal bureaucracy if it takes the money from getting down to the teachers and the students and the parents where they can direct it, but if we cannot pass school bond issues at the local level because people are only getting 45 percent of their paycheck because of high taxes and big government, how are we going to build up the infrastructure? Well, one of the ways in which we are proposing is to take private enterprise, let the IBM's, let the Baby Bells, let the AT&T's, Alcoa put in the fiberoptics, let Apple put in the computer system so that they are not archaic within a year, and give them a tax break for investing in our taxes. We have less, Mr. Speaker, than 12 percent of our classrooms in this Nation that have even a single phone jack. Business tells us that a large portion of the children coming out of high school do not even qualify for an entry level position because they cannot read. The President was right. We need 4-year-olds to read and 8-year-olds to do math, but if they cannot read and write, they cannot speak the English language or they do not have the technical skills, that delta that my colleagues talk about between the rich and the poor all the time is going to grow exponentially. So it is one of the ways that we can actually enhance and save our tax dollars.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if you look at the American people, there are bright sun spots in education. You go to a lot of the schools, we have fantastic teachers and we have some fantastic programs. But if you go, for example, outside Chicago, where I used to coach and teach, about 5 miles down the road there is about 7 miles of Federal housing projects. Those kids do not learn in school. They carry guns, not books. Most of the girls become pregnant one or two times. The grandmothers raise them, and if you are a male child the only hope you have is to be in a gang, or a female child, even today are becoming more and more involved. The chance for them of achieving the American dream is less; the welfare reform helped that. But those are some of the other ways in education that I think that we can enhance it, and there are so many ways, Mr. Speaker. We are only covering just a little bit here. Remember a gentleman, Mr. Speaker, named Jaime Escalante? He had a vision that he could teach minority children in the inner cities physics. How much support did he have with the kids? They thought he was nuts. The administrators and the teachers thought you cannot do that in an inner-city school. We have tried it. You are going to fail. What about the parents? He had zero support. Well, Jaime Escalante set out to teach these children physics. It was up to I think 90 percent of them got A's and went on to college in physics when he proved it. Then you got the support of the children, you got the support of the parents, you got the support of the administrators and the community to invest in education. People today look at all of these programs at the low return that they are getting on the education dollar for their children, and they are not as apt to cough up money. The second aspect of that is that people are tax tired. They are taking home less. My children are only going to take home 16 to 18 percent of their paycheck. How much are they going to be willing to invest into education? All the rest of the money is going to be paying for interest on the debt. So the ballpark line is let us have a system that people can believe in and want to get out and support. Let us give them the resources at home, not the Government, that can support that vision. We can enhance education instead of letting the Federal Government, like the liberals and many of the socialists want to do, to have the Government control everything at great waste. The direct lending program I mentioned a minute ago, of the President, $50 million in 1 year wasted in a study, in a program on how they could get out the money better--$50 million in 1 year. Yet they want all of that to go out of the Department of Education. What a waste that would be.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, what would we ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to agree with us on when we look at the President's budget and the Republican budget to come together? I think there are some key issues. First of all, we would want the numbers to balance at the agreed amount of time, which is 7 years. Second, we do not want to increase taxes to do that. The American public and the economy is stagnant at about 3 and 4 percent. Remember that the President in his 1993 budget increased taxes $270 billion. He promised a middle-class tax cut and increased middle-class taxes. He increased the gas tax. He increased the tax on Social Security earners, and increased or at least had even a retroactive tax. The President in this budget increases taxes, Mr. Speaker. We disagree with that. We would also like Members on the other side of the aisle to agree with us that it is a realistic budget. When the President in the 104th Congress gave us three separate balanced budgets that did not increase the balanced budget in time, but yet when his fourth one scored by CBO came up, 70 percent of the cuts took place in year 7. It is not realistic. This budget that the President has given us, 98 percent of the cuts take place in years 6 and 7, when he would not even be here. That is not realistic. We are asking for a realistic budget without tax increases on the American public, legitimate savings to save the programs. I think if we take a look also, that there should not be any gimmicks, that the numbers are real. For example, on Medicare part A to part B, people usually do not understand when we go through it, but let me give an example. If you take Medicare Part A, mostly the in-home care, and transfer those dollars to the general fund, that is like taking your MasterCard or Visa card and paying--saying, hey, I want to borrow the money to pay for it later. That is just increasing the deficit for our children later down the road. What we want to do is fund it so when you write a check, the money is already there. There is no gimmick to that. But by using part A to the general fund, it is smoke and mirrors to say we are going to use those savings to balance the budget when you are actually increasing spending. So I think there are several of those kinds of areas that when we balance the budget we will be asking the President and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to at least have the common sense to agree on a real balanced budget, using real numbers with real savings and no gimmicks and no tax increases.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank my friend for yielding. I know the Texas delegation got together, which is very responsible, to offer this for Frank Tejeda. I want you to know it is not just the State of Texas that grieves, that this Nation has lost a favorite son, that when this country asked Frank to serve, he went and he served in Vietnam and did very well there. I want to also tell you that even when he was diagnosed with cancer, Frank never gave up hope. I know one time I had learned and I tried to break the ice a little bit with him, and I said, Frank, you know that being a Navy guy, that we own the Marine Corps and that if he did not believe it, to check the front side of his paycheck. It is signed Department of the Navy. Frank reminded me with the humor of the time and says, ``Duke, that's because the Marine Corps has protected the Navy throughout history, and you owe us that.'' But he was a man of integrity and even though that with the issues sometimes we disagreed, Frank was well respected on this side of the aisle as well as that side of the aisle, and I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that when our children look for heroes or role models that someone that was as dedicated to family as Frank Tejeda, someone who was as dedicated to this Nation in serving as Frank Tejeda, has strong faith in God and his country, I cannot think of a stronger role model for my children or anyone else's.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Sister Clare Frawley and her St. Clare's Home, located in Escondido, CA, in my congressional district. During the recent district work period, I had the privilege of visiting St. Clare's Home for myself. What I found was a true refuge where women and children in tremendous need could find real hope. In those tragic instances where people are victims of domestic violence, child abuse, or worse, in North San Diego County they have the loving arms of St. Clare's Home to find hope and rest. Furthermore, the St. Clare's Home staff work to prevent child abuse, domestic violence, substance abuse and sexual abuse in the community through educational and other programs. All together, St. Clare's Home provides emergency shelter, a maternity home complete with prenatal care and child-rearing education, a transitional program, a child care and learning center, substance abuse treatment programs, a counseling center, and much more. I came away impressed and humbled by the love and care that Sister Clare Frawley and her staff put into the work of St. Clare's Home. They are truly doing the Lord's work in our community. I ask that the following statement, a history of St. Clare's Home, be entered into the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States, as a thankful tribute to their staff's work in the community I represent. The History of St. Clare's Home In 1983, Sister Claire Frawley founded St. Clare's Home. Before that time there was no shelter facility for homeless women and children in North County. Sister Claire recognized the urgent need when a young pregnant woman with two small children arrived at the door of her Youth Ministry. They had not eaten in two days and were in despair. There was no shelter facility to help them. Armed with a firm resolution and a prayer, Sister Claire took them home with her for the weekend. Shortly thereafter, she rented a house for this little family and another young mother in need. As they came to her door, the poor, the tired, the hungry and the hurt, Sister Claire found more beds and more food . . . and so Saint Clare's Home began. From the very beginning, St. Clare's Home has been a community leader in the prevention of child abuse and domestic violence. 90% of St. Clare's residents come from domestic violence and sexual abuse with substance abuse addictions as a result of the street life they've endured. It became the mission of Sister Claire Frawley to provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, transportation, psychological counseling, continuing education, job skills training, encouragement and unconditional love. Most of St. Clare's young residents have never known unconditional caring or lived in an environment of emotional support. Their emotional response to these acts of kindness is simply overwhelming. Their letters and poems of gratitude, pictures and art decorate Sister Claire's office and the hallways of St. Clare's administrative office. Even St. Clare's Home logo is a loving reminder of a small child who simply drew a picture with the caption, ``I love my home.'' This small picture appears on each piece of letterhead and business card at St. Clare's Home. Over the years, St. Clare's Home has evolved into a public nonprofit nondenominational agency serving over 3,250 homeless women and children throughout the County. Today, St. Clare's operates eight residential shelter homes supervised by trained Case Managers and the Little Angels Learning Center for children's day care, play therapy and counseling services. The recent addition of a Counseling and Resource Center provided the opportunity to expand educational and program services. This new facility has served to enhance the women's perspective with broader exposure, motivated their desire for personal growth, assisted them in goal setting and achievement, and boosted their self confidence . . . all steps toward their ultimate goals: self worth and independence. Homeless women and children may stay at St. Clare's Home for 2 years. Although predicting the time it takes to repair a broken spirit is nearly impossible, St. Clare's Home sets precedent for program longevity in San Diego County, providing aftercare services to assure a successful transition to independence. St. Clare's Home is funded by generous corporations like UPS, foundations, individuals and government grants. St. Clare's Thrift Shoppe receives inkind gifts and has the loyal support of longtime volunteers and service clubs.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Richard `Dick' Disney. Coach Disney was a long time teacher, coach, and friend to thousands of Escondido's children. His life exemplifies the hard work, dedication, and concern for our children that we expect from our Nation's teachers. I submit for the Record the following article which chronicles Mr. Disney's life and achievements. [From the North County Times, Jan. 15, 1997] ``Coach'' Disney, 62, Dies After Collapsing (By L. Erik Bratt) Escondido.--Richard ``Dick'' Disney's goals in life, his friends say, were to inspire students through athletics, build their self-esteem and make them realize that teamwork is the key to success. He was about to bestow an award reflecting those ideals to a student-athlete at Orange Glen High School Monday night, but he never got the chance to do so. Mr. Disney, 62, collapsed and died just before presenting the award--named after himself--to senior Matt Embrey, the grandson of legendary Escondido High coach Chick Embrey, now retired. Mr. Disney, a trustee of the Escondido Union High School District and a former longtime coach and teacher at Orange Glen, was taken to Palomar Medical Center after collapsing at 8 p.m. from what his wife, Sharon, said was a major heart attack. ``He was the most wonderful husband in the world,'' Mrs. Disney said. ``He died doing what he loved most, working with kids and trying to help them be the best they can be.'' Mr. Disney, known to most Escondido residents simply as ``coach,'' was a Point Loma High graduate. He taught at both San Marcos High and Escondido High before becoming a founding faculty member at Orange Glen when it opened in 1962. He was a physical education teacher, as well as the head football coach and athletic director for several years. In 1967, he guided the Patriots to an undefeated record and the county championship, said Paul Moyneur, quarterback of that team and now a San Pasqual High teacher. ``I think the thing that stands out about him is that he genuinely enjoyed being around kids,'' Moyneur said. ``He was very fair. He was very good at getting the most out of people.'' Mr. Disney retired as head coach in 1972 but continued to serve as an assistant, as well as coach of the freshman team. At one point, he served as an assistant Moyneur, who was head coach from 1976 to 1984. Mr. Disney's first wife, Sandra, died of cancer in 1980, and he later remarried. He retired as a teacher in 1992. Two years later, he won a seat on the high school board in a landslide. He was an active member, helping solicit campaign donations to get the district's $43 million general obligation bond passed last June. ``I even called him `coach' because the way he treated any kind of problem or concern was in a coaching way, never in a confrontational how to play ball with their youngsters so the children would not be ridiculed later in school,'' Gawronski said. ``He was, and always will be, a coach,'' said Charlie Snowder, school board president. ``That is how he lived his life. He always promoted teamwork and individual excellence in everything he ever did in life.'' Besides his wife, Mr. Disney is survived by his father, Richard V. Disney; his stepmother, Gladys Disney; two sons, Doug Disney and Richard Disney; two daughters, Darlene Coughlin and Dee Ann Disney-Jones; a stepdaughter, Wendy Leggett; and a stepson, Matt Wilson.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague from San Diego, Mr. Hunter, in introducing the Postal Core Business Act of 1996. This legislation, which is similar to H.R. 3690 from the 104th Congress, will prevent the U.S. Postal Service [USPS] from unfairly competing with a small business industry, known as Commercial Mail Receiving Agencies [CMRA]. The livelihoods of those who own and operate small commercial packing stores throughout the country, like Mail Boxes Etc. and Postal Annex, are threatened. More than 10,000 CMRA businesses may be forced to close their doors due to the USPS' tax-free expansion into services already provided by private packaging stores. These expanded services include wrapping, packaging, and shipping of items, and the USPS may expand beyond that. The USPS is opening stores throughout the country, many in locations very near private companies who already provide these services. The fact is that the USPS is not a fair competitor with private enterprise. The USPS is not forced to charge State or local tax on retail items, it is insured by the Federal Government, and it often does not pay the same Federal, State, and local taxes that private companies must pay. These are only some of the advantages enjoyed by the USPS, creating a playing field tilted against private industry. Moreover, when a customer brings an item to be packaged by the USPS, the USPS requires that the customer send the package through U.S. mail. Commercial mail companies do not require this of their customers. In addition, on December 16, 1996, the Postal Rate Commission [PRC] declared that the USPS' packaging service, Pack and Send, is subject to the PRC's ratemaking. In its decision, the PRC found that ``the Pack & Send service is `postal' in character, and that establishment of the service and recommendations concerning its fees are functions that the Postal Reorganization Act contemplates to be within the jurisdiction of the Postal Rate Commission.'' The USPS must now either discontinue the service or submit the service for a rate with the PRC. Under our bill, the USPS will return to focusing on the core services that it was offering as of January 1, 1994. This is a reasonable approach to protecting jobs and satisfying American consumers seeking postal services. I encourage my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring Mr. Hunter's legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce legislation making English the official language of the U.S. Government. Similar legislation in the 104th Congress (H.R. 123) drew 197 bipartisan House cosponsors, and won a bipartisan 259-169 House vote on August 1, 1996. The Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act represents a common-sense, common language policy. The legislation: Names English as the official language of the Government of the United States; Recognizes our historical linguistic and cultural diversity, while finding that English represents a common bond of Americans, and is the language of opportunity in the United States; Requires the U.S. Government to conduct its official business in English, and to conduct naturalization ceremonies in English; Entitles every person in the U.S. to receive official communications in English; Includes commonsense exceptions to the policy, such as for international relations, national security, teaching of languages, preservations of Native Alaskan or Native American languages, and for any use of English in a nonofficial or private capacity; Is supported by 86 percent of all Americans, 81 percent of immigrants (Luntz, 1996), and a broad range of mainstream citizen organizations, such as U.S. English, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the American Legion and others. The only substantial difference between this bill and the H.R. 123 adopted by the House in 1996 is that the House-passed bill incorporated a repeal of the Federal bilingual ballot mandate, H.R. 351, and this bill does not. I continue to support repeal of the Federal bilingual ballot mandate. This arrangement helps simplify the bill's referral to only one House committee. Our late colleague, Representative Bill Emerson worked for many years to make English the official language of the U.S. Government. Through his goodwill, we had an historic and successful first-ever House vote on the issue in the 104th Congress. His widow and successor, Representative JoAnn Emerson is the first cosponsor of this legislation in the 105th Congress. I invite Members to cosponsor the Bill Emerson English Language Empowerment Act in the 105th Congress, so we may enact this positive and constructive legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Americans want us to work together to sensibly combat crime. Putting more, better-equipped and fully trained cops on the beat can be a strong part of any anticrime effort. It is for that very reason that today I am introducing the Community Protection Act of 1997. The bill will allow qualified, properly trained active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed handguns. Too often State laws prevent highly qualified officers from assisting in crime prevention and protecting themselves while not on duty. For example, a man who has spent his life fighting crime is often barred from helping a colleague in distress because he cannot use his service revolver--a handgun that he is required to train with on a regular basis. That same officer, active or retired, isn't allowed to defend himself from the criminals that he put in jail. My bill seeks to change that by empowering qualified law enforcement officers to be equipped to handle any situation that may arise, wherever they are. The community protection initiative covers only active duty and retired law enforcement personnel who meet the following criteria: First, employed by a public agency--security guards are not covered. Second, authorized by that agency to carry a firearm in the course of duty--all beneficiaries will have received firearms training and appropriate screening. Third, not subject to any disciplinary action. Retired police officers must meet all of these criteria and have retired in good standing. In the tradition of less government, this bill offers protection to police officers and to all of our communities without creating new programs or bureaucracies, and without spending more taxpayer dollars. Because this is a sensible, nonpartisan bill, it gained tremendous support in the 104th Congress. By the close of legislative business, the Community Protection Act was cosponsored by more than 130 Members of the House from both parties and from all regions of the country. It also gained the interest of the Crime Subcommittee, which held a hearing on the bill in July 1996. I am proud to once again introduce this important piece of legislation and look forward to working with my colleagues to pass it as soon as possible.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sunset Act. This legislation, which is similar to H.R. 216 from the 104th Congress, would require Congress to reauthorize Federal programs every 5 years. Programs that are not reauthorized or extended by Congress would be terminated. Too many Federal programs are automatically reauthorized, often years after they are no longer needed. This legislation will require any new Federal program to terminate no later than 5 years after its date of enactment, unless reauthorized by Congress. Entitlement programs will be exempted from this legislation. By requiring Congress to reevaluate and reauthorize Federal programs every 5 years, we ensure greater accountability in the programs we create and help curb Government waste. I invite my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that requires the Environmental Protection Agency to consider the downwind transportation of air pollution when determining a region's air quality compliance. This legislation is similar to H.R. 1582, which I introduced in the 104th Congress with the support of the county of San Diego. In 1990, Congress amended the Clean Air Act to base the smog control requirements for each area on the severity of the area's pollution problem as indicated by the nonattainment area classification. The EPA has established five such classifications: marginal, moderate, serious, severe, or extreme. Under current law nonattainment status is determined without addressing air pollution transported from upwind areas. Due to pollution blown downwind from the Los Angeles basin, San Diego was initially given a nonattainment classification of severe. San Diego was later reclassified to serious because the ozone design value, 0.185 parts per million, was at the lowest limit of severe. Had the design value been outside that narrow window, San Diego would have been forced to carry out excessively stringent and costly control programs to combat air pollution created and transported from elsewhere. This situation affects many other communities, too. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to create the Second National Blue Ribbon Commission to Eliminate Waste in Government Act. This legislation is similar to H.R. 217 from the 104th Congress. Building upon the example set by the Grace Commission in 1982-84, my legislation creates an independent private sector commission to help Congress eliminate Government waste. The Grace Commission, officially established as the President's Private Sector on Cost Control in the Federal Government, marshaled the considerable private sector resources of more than 2,000 business professionals at no cost to the taxpayers. After 2 years of investigating the Federal Government for more cost-effective ways of doing the Nation's business, the Grace Commission delivered its final report to President Reagan in 1984. This effort yielded more than 2,000 commonsense, cost-cutting recommendations, two-thirds of which have become law and saved taxpayers nearly $450 billion. In addition, this commission helped establish the private, nonpartisan organization known as Citizens Against Government Waste. Building upon that example, my legislation establishes a commission to take several additional steps toward curbing waste in Government. First, the commission would survey the private sector for management and cost control methods to be used in the Federal Government. Second, the panel would conduct in-depth reviews of executive branch operations. Third, the panel would review and reevaluate past reports by agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office and the General Accounting Office. This 12-member commission would be appointed by the President and the bipartisan leadership of Congress, with no more than six members of the same political party. After the thorough review, the commission would report its findings and recommendations to Congress. The commission's finding would serve as a basis for Congress to reduce waste and streamline Government operations. I hope that all my colleagues will join me to promote greater fiscal responsibility and more effective Government by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend the moratorium on oil and gas development in the Outer Continental Shelf [OCS] off the coast of California. This legislation is similar to H.R. 219 from the 104th Congress. Californians strongly favor continuing this moratorium. The State of California has enacted a permanent ban on all new offshore oil development in State coastal waters. In addition, California Gov. Pete Wilson and State and local community leaders up and down California's coast have endorsed the continuation of this moratorium. I believe that the environmental sensitivities along the entire California coastline make the region an inappropriate place to drill for oil using current technology. A 1989 National Academy of Sciences [NAS] study confirmed that new exploration and drilling on existing leases and on undeveloped leases in the same area would be detrimental to the environment. Cultivation of oil and gas off the coast of California could have a negative impact on California's $27 billion-a- year tourism and fishing industries. This legislation focuses on the entire State of California, and would prohibit the sale of new offshore leases in the southern California, central California, and northern California planning areas through the year 2007. New exploration and drilling on existing active leases and on undeveloped leases in the same areas would be prohibited until the environmental concerns raised by the 1989 National Academy of Sciences study are addressed, resolved, and approved by an independent peer review. This measure ensures that there will be no drilling or exploration along the California coast unless the most knowledgeable scientists inform us that it is absolutely safe to do so. I am proud to be working to protect the beaches, tourism, and the will of the people of California. I ask my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss our education system and to propose legislation that I am developing to help accelerate our society's private investment in our young people. The key to the continued success and survival of America and of individual Americans is the quality of our children's education. As we approach the 21st Century, our education system and our young people alike face tremendous challenges. We agree that today's classrooms are supported by dedicated teachers, involved families, and bright young children. But many of our Nation's classrooms lack the important technological resources that they need to train both teachers and students in the ways of the future. Most jobs today, and a vast majority of jobs in the future, demand familiarity and skill with high technology. Technological literacy has long been a must for our scientists and engineers. But technological literacy is increasingly a prerequisite for factory production workers, law enforcement personnel, office staffs and thousands of other careers less frequently associated with technology and the present revolution in telecommunications. How is our system of education meeting this tremendous change? Despite good intentions, it is not doing well enough. Less than one in eight of our classrooms has a phone jack. Fewer than 1 in 50 classrooms are connected to the Internet, one of the fastest-growing and most dynamic information tools of our time. Fortunately, Congress last year enacted comprehensive telecommunications reform legislation which will heavily discount the rates schools will pay for interactive connectivity. But the challenge extends beyond needs for technological linkups and hardware. Too many of our teachers lack the hardware, software, or training to teach young people about technology, or to harness technological advancements to improve education as it has transformed commerce and communications. Without early training in computer programming or digital technology, many of our future leaders will start off in life at a severe disadvantage. Many private interests already make significant investments in education technology. In my San Diego County congressional district, major employers like Sony, Pacific Bell and Qualcomm invest significant time and resources into adopting local public schools. My annual High Tech Fair introduces thousands of high school students to our community's leading high-tech employers and the work they are doing for the future. An organization called the San Diego Science Alliance gathers together dozens of companies and university research organizations to expand student and teacher interest in technology, science, and research. The Detwiler Foundation, located in La Jolla, CA, has expanded nationally its innovative plan to accept donations of computers, refurbish them to the state-of-the-art, and install them in classrooms. And several major education software firms, including Jostens and the Lightspan Partnership, are working on bringing technology into classrooms from headquarters in San Diego County. As a father, as a former teacher, coach and top gun instructor, and as the past chairman of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, I am more convinced now than ever before that the need is so great that more must be done to bring the education of our young people into the 21st Century. Congress is now investing about $1 billion annually into education technology, but this is a drop in the bucket. Years of Government overspending, deficits and debt make a more massive direct Federal investment program unfeasible and unlikely. We should instead work to direct the innovation and energy of private enterprise to the education of our young people. This is why I am developing legislation to expand tax incentives for American businesses to invest privately and directly in their local classrooms. Today, companies can deduct from taxable income the depreciated value of products which are donated to charitable tax- exempt organizations. Under my plan, companies such as telephone companies, computer networking firms, software companies, and perhaps even professionals in high-tech training would be offered an expanded tax incentive to donate equipment or services to local schools. This type of tax incentive would expand private investment in the technological literacy of America's young people. It would accelerate the equipping of our young people for the high-tech environment that exists today, and tomorrow as well. Such legislation raises important questions. Should the expanded tax credit be available for donations to private schools and homeschooling organizations, in addition to public schools? How can the credit be limited only to those donations that are part of a school's own education technology plan. It should not be an incentive for companies to dump obsolete equipment or software on schools that do not want it. What constitutes appropriate products and services that would be eligible for the expanded credit, and how should they be valued? These issues should not stop us from taking action. The job of bringing the education of our children into the 21st Century is a tremendous task. But while the task is great, I remind my colleagues that the opportunity for this proposal to benefit our country and our children is greater still. Mr. Speaker, as I continue to develop this important legislation, I encourage my colleagues to discuss this important matter with families, teachers, school staffs, employers and universities in their own congressional districts. Recommendations and suggestions are most welcome, and should be directed to my Washington office.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise George Boggs, president of Palomar Community College. It has been my privilege to work with Mr. Boggs in addressing the educational needs of the people of San Diego County. On October 12, George Boggs will be recognized as the best community college executive in the United States by the Association of Community College Trustees. His record of achievement is outstanding and clearly deserving of this recognition. I submit for the Record an editorial from the October 4, 1996, North County Times--Escondido, CA--newspaper which further describes President Boggs' outstanding achievements. Congratulations George, you have earned it. [From the North County (CA) Times, Oct. 4, 1996] Unjustified Modesty When George R. Boggs came to Palomar Community College in 1985 to serve as its president, there were 15,500 students, the equivalent of 325 full-time faculty members, and a standard array of course offerings. Today, the college has about 26,000 students enrolled, a full-time equivalent faculty of 516, and the honor of being named as one of three``flagship'' community colleges in the nation, for the college's focus on learning outcomes. Humility being one of his obvious traits, Boggs would never take credit for the school's successful growth. But his board of trustees and his national peers would: Boggs has been named the best community college executive in the United States by the Association of Community College Trustees. On Oct. 12, Boggs will receive the 1996 Marie Y. Martin Chief Executive Officer Award at the association's annual conference. It is an exceptional honor, one earned by Boggs' exemplary performance in a politically and economically challenging era for community colleges. And his success is not based on his numerous publications, the size of the school's endowment, or the value of its research facilities. No, instead Boggs has focused the district's resources on that which is most important to the community: student learning. Boggs has built partnerships within the community to improve both student access to higher education and the experience they have in the classroom. And the college is continuing to grow. North County is lucky to have Boggs and the outstanding curriculum, staff, and student body he has helped to nurture. Congratulations.