Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the San Diego Padres. Yesterday, the Padres completed a three-game sweep against the Dodgers in Los Angeles to win the National League West Title. Facing a must win three-game series in Los Angeles, the Padres rose to the challenge. With a different hero for each of the three games, the Padres proved that teamwork is the core of their game. On Friday, Ken Caminiti tied the score with a solo home run in the 8th and doubled for the go-ahead run in the 10th. On Saturday, Tony Gwynn hit a two- out, bases-loaded single in the eighth inning to break a tie, giving the Padres a 4-2 win. Finally on Sunday, with the Division Title hanging in the balance, former Dodger Chris Gwynn hit a two-run double in the top of the 11th that crowned the Padres Division Champions. This San Diego team is one of pure heart filled with heroes: seven- time batting champion Tony Gwynn; Ken Caminiti the leading favorite for the National League's Most Valuable Player award; all-time stolen base leader Ricky Henderson; Steve Finley and Wally Joyner who helped make 1996 one of the most exciting seasons in club history; proven starting pitcher Andy Ashby; Trevor Hoffman whose 41 saves helped lift San Diego to a 91-72 record; and every other member of this team has proven that teamwork wins titles. In addition, special recognition must be given to the owners John Moores and Larry Lucchino, who made a commitment to winning; and manager Bruce Bochy, who balanced all of the different personnel of this team to win the Western Division Championship. The Padres face the Cardinals in a best-of-five series. The winner of the series plays another series to determine the National League Champs. But no matter the outcome, America's Finest City has the Western Division's finest team, the Padres.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Sportsmen's Bill of Rights (H.R. 4144), which was introduced by my dear friend and colleague Bill Brewster of Oklahoma. From America's earliest days, hunting and fishing have been a part of the American experience. Today, over 36 million Americans enjoy fishing as a regular recreational activity, and over 16 million Americans enjoy hunting. Hunting and fishing are essential components of effective wildlife management. They provide important incentives for the conservation of wildlife, and the habitat and ecosystems upon which wildlife depends. Funds raised from the sale of licenses, permits, and stamp purchases, as well as excise taxes on goods used by anglers and hunters, are used for wildlife management and research. American's sportsmen are conservationists working to protect habitats and wildlife for the future. As a member of the bipartisan Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I am proud to work with my colleagues to promote opportunities for sportsmen across America. The Sportsmen's Bill of Rights: Requires Federal agencies managing Federal land and water resources to support promote, and enhance opportunities for fishing and hunting. Amends the current land management process to include the promotion of hunting and fishing as a priority for Federal land use. Raises the awareness of Federal land managers of the impact that their policy decisions have on hunting and fishing opportunities. Ensures that our Nation's Federal lands will continue to be places where opportunities for hunting and fishing are promoted. I would like to thank in Mr. Brewster for introducing the legislation. I also want to encourage all my colleagues to join us ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to take part in America's sporting tradition.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, an editorial from the March 1996 issue of the Sikh Review was recently brought to my attention. This editorial details reports showing India's ongoing efforts to crush the Sikh religion. In India the Sikhs and other religious minorities are subjected to the same brutal policies. The article, which I will introduce into the Record, discusses the Indian regime's effort to ``normalize'' the Sikh people. That is, as the article puts it, ``a term that has become a euphemism for destroying their culture and lifestyle, in cynical disregard of the democratic principles of plurality and coexistence.'' This kind of ethnic cleansing was our justification for our involvement in the Bosnian conflict. Why are we continuing to look the other way when India is involved? I am introducing the March 1996 editorial from the Sikh Review into the Record. A Dangerous Slant This is not a parable. Recently, a group of distinguished intellectuals, motivated by ordinary humanity, wrote to the President of India pleading for the release of several hundred Sikh youth detained without trial for as long as ten years. The silence in Rashtrapati Bhavan was deafening. In disgust, the memorandum was released to the Press coinciding with Human Rights Day, Dec. 11, 1995. The effect was even more silence. Silence has its uses in statecraft. As the Indian poet, Vikram Seth has said: ``Ten hostages is terrorism; A million, and it's strategy'' (The Golden Gate). Prolonged detention of the Sikhs is part of strategy. Nazi Germany had another name for it: The Final Solution. How many of us have noticed that the government tourism department has, for over a decade, withdrawn all pictures and posters of the Golden Temple? Airport lounges, railway station waiting rooms, secretariat corridors, coaches of Rajdhani Express, even ante-rooms of Indian embassies abroad are singularly bereft of pictures of Sikh historical places. The model of the Golden Temple at Amritsar's rail terminal was smashed by Hindu zealots many years ago. This is apparently a part of the deep seated strategy to downplay the Sikh religion and culture. Those who attended the Vishwa Sikh Sammelan in Amritsar were struck by the weird black-patka- wearing commandos of the Punjab police crawling all over the holy city, not because India's textile mills have stopped manufacturing cloth for turbans--the ceremonial headgear! In this grim strategy, the Press--vernacular as well as English--has become a willing tool of the government. Their method is simple: Do not project the Sikh in a positive light. Exaggerate every minor fracas. Underplay the Sikh identify. Depict the patit Sikh on the idiot box as the stereotype. Boost the un-Sikh practices. Highlight factional fights over gurdwaras. Deny kirpan-wearing passengers seats in airlines and railways. The list seems endless. Thanks to economic liberalization, NRI is an honoured guest in India, a sort of prodigal son. Not so the Sikh NRI. He is earmarked by the Indian Embassies in the West for special treatment. No wonder so many of them dropped out of the Amritsar conference. The other day an Indian businessman was denied visa by Saudi Arabia to visit Riyadh on the ground that he professes Sikh religion. Government cannot be bothered with such petty aberations. Constitutional guarantees are, after all, so much paper. The press in India, in most cases, owned by ultra- conservative Hindu businessmen often suffers from an overwearing sense of self-righteousness where the Sikh minority is concerned; How dare the Sikhs claim an independent religious identity? They must be taught a lesson. Simply brand them anti-national! No wonder these newspapers are natural allies of government and its gargantuan power machine. One good turn begets another. Unburdened by moral scruples, the newspapers lend all support to the government to undermine Sikh values. We give, in this issue, a few instances of this insensitive attitude of the national Dailies, The Tribune, Chandigarh. The Hindustan Times, New Delhi and The Statesman, Calcutta. The malady has, however, become chronic and endemic. Readers will surely recall the disdainful manner in which the newly elected Parliament under Rajiv Gandhi on Jan 2, 1985 ignored the massacre of Sikhs in Delhi even as it mourned the dead of the Bhopal gas tragedy. Election posters of the party in power had then depicted the Sikh taxi driver as a potential terrorist--ignoring his reputation for honesty and bravery. Even the cartoonist Abu Abraham had, more in malice than satirical humour, made a caricature of a saintly Sikh holding a transistor bomb. The Doordarshan, which had blacked out the savagery of Oct. 1984 as a non-event, let its cameras linger balefully over the victims of transistor bombs which shadowy anti-socials had planted in Delhi bazars. When The Telegraph published, on May 5, 1986, a photo of a Sikh youth in police custody the caption proclaimed: ``A terrorist being taken away'', ignoring the elementary rule that no one can be so labelled except when convicted by due process. We had written to the Editor, Mr. M.J. Akbar, who did us the courtesy of a reply: ``I accept your point. In fact, I had pointed out the error to our (The Telegraph) people. I hope you understand that there was not deliberate malice. . . .'' More recently, The Times of India was less penitent. It published on April 12, 1995, a report that the house of union home minister, Mr. S.B. Chavan, in Nanded had been ``attacked by five men, four of them Sikhs.'' The ever-vigilant Rear Admiral (Retd.) Satyindra Singh lodged a protest with Press Council of India which drew the Times Editor's attention to the council ``Guidelines'' that the Press must avoid identifying the community of a person involved in crime. The newspaper took more than six months to publish a luke warm apology on Dec. 6, 1995. This is typical of a newspaper that had been known for its anti-Sikh slant dating back to Girilal Jain's vituperative writings that included his editorial ``De-turbaning of Sikhs'' in 1982. As a minority religion, Sikhs have been under fierce pressure from the media and their mentor, the government. Far from showing an understanding and sympathy for their religious and cultural tradition, they have vowed to ``to mainstream'' the Sikhs--a term that has become a euphemism for destroying their culture and lifestyle, in cynical disregard of the democratic principles of plurality and co- existence. Sikhs have no doubt survived challenges down the centuries. However, the ongoing challenge is far more insidious. It calls for what Guru Gobind Singh termed Gyaneh-ki-badhni, the scythe (sword) of wisdom. Our choice is clear. Let us stand up--not succumb--to the hostile machinations. Let us not abandon God and the Guru for the glittery tinsel of a modern state. Let us hold our head high in honour. Five hundred years ago Guru Nanak admonished the tyrannical rulers ``Koorh phire pardhan, ve Lalo''. The German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant later predicted that eventually a just world order would come about either through intellectual and moral insights or through the experience of chaos. Unless Indian polity makes the right choice, its slide into chaos is but a matter of time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the U.S. Postal Service employees of San Diego. An independent survey, conducted by Price Waterhouse and published in yesterday's papers, confirmed that 95 percent of all letters mailed to and from San Diego arrived on time. This 95-percent score places San Diego mail carriers second best in country. The Postal Service employees of San Diego have a commitment to providing excellent service to the citizens of San Diego. This survey proves that they deliver. Every year, San Diego's Postal employees rank near the top of the national, scores. Like the weather in San Diego, they are nearly perfect. I would specifically like to commend San Diego District Manager Danny Jackson, the Margaret L. Sellers Processing and Distribution Center Manager Dianna Hempen, and the San Diego Postmaster Glenn Crouch. Along with every Postal employee in San Diego, they have the right to be proud of their accomplishments. They have brought national recognition to San Diego and enhanced our reputation as America's finest city.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the United States Travel and Tourism Partnership Act (H.R. 2579). This important legislation will use the entrepreneurial spirit of the private sector with the international reach of the Federal Government. This private/ public partnership will improve the promotion of international travel and tourism to the United States. H.R. 2579 establishes a National Tourism Board to oversee and regulate the National Tourism Organization. The NTB would be comprised of 36 members appointed by the President and their mission will be responsible to utilize the joint private/public partnership for travel and tourism policy making; develop a national travel and tourism strategy for increasing travel and tourism to and within the United States; advise the President, Congress, and the travel and tourism industry on strategies to improve tourism; and provide guidance to the National Tourism Organization. The National Tourism Organization will be the successor to the now disposed United States Travel and Tourism Administration. The NTO would be established by Federal charter as a not-for-profit organization. The board of directors for the NTO will be comprised of 45 travel and tourism industry leaders appointed by the President and accountable to the NTB. The NTO's mission will focus on increasing the U.S. share of the global tourism market; operating travel and tourism promotion programs outside the United States in partnership with the travel and tourism industry; establishing a travel-tourism data bank which would collect international market data for distribution to the U.S. travel and tourism industry; and promoting U.S. travel and tourism at international trade shows. Last year, travel and tourism contributed nearly $430 billion to the U.S. economy. In my District of San Diego, CA, the tourism industry is the second largest employer accounting for one out of every eight jobs and adds $3.8 billion to the local economy. I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth] for his work on this issue. It is through his leadership as chairman of the Travel and Tourism Caucus that we are here today moving America's travel and tourism industry forward into the 21st century.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, those that are going directly toward the issue, I laud that. That is fair and open debate. I think that is what this House is for. Those that use this as a political satire to demonize the Speaker of the House, and according to the gentleman from California, George Miller, the leadership meets once a week to take out and find ethics violations for the Speaker, and according to George Miller, and I quote, ``He is the general, it is in our best interests to take him out,'' that is wrong. But those that speak to the issue, I laud them, and I respect their opinion. But I disagree with it. I would say those from the liberal left that would not support the welfare, would not support the balanced budget, and then told stories to try and scare the American people, I think that is wrong. What I would say to my liberal left friends is that my mom once told me, ``If you lie enough, you are going to go to Hades, and I will be very happy and justified when you pass away to send you a fan.'' And this issue is costing not only taxpayers, it is costing children. I will speak to California, children in California. It is not $6,000 a year, it is $4,850 per student times 250,000 students in K through 12. That is $2 billion a year, I would say to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant]. Think in 5 years what we could do in the State of California with fiberoptics, computers, and paying teachers and the rest of it. We have 18,000 illegal felons. When one talks about we are building more prisons than we are schools, that is one of the reasons I think, yes, the border is a good place to start. But economically, criminally, and against our poor and Medicare, we are destroying American citizens, and that is why we are supporting this, not mean-spirited.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, every substantive issue in the bill before us today has been voted on by the House or the Senate. I would say to my colleagues on the other side that even in welfare, many of them, no matter what we did, they would vote against it, both for political reasons and issue reasons. In California over two-thirds of the children born in our hospitals are to illegal aliens. Members should take that into effect when they are talking about helping the poor and American citizens and taking away funds from Medicaid. We have over 400,000 children K through 12. At $5,000 each to educate a child, that is over $2 billion. They should try to take that out of their State for education. Some 70 percent of the environment is done at the State level. Members should think about $3 billion taken out of their States. They could not afford that. This bill does not help all of those things. Prop 187, that the Gallegly amendment was in, passed by two-thirds in California. It has been taken out of this. There are some things in here that I do not like as well, but I would ask my colleagues on the other side to think about how they could afford it in their States, and I think it would be very difficult.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 919, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments, better known as CAPTA. bicameral, bipartisan support for reforms This Congress has already adopted CAPTA reforms several times, as part of welfare reform legislation. However, for technical reasons, CAPTA reforms were deleted from the welfare reform package enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President. Thus, the Senate adopted S. 919. We take it up today, having negotiated additional improvements with both parties and both Houses of Congress. the need for better child protective services Since 1974, CAPTA has provided States a framework to follow with respect to child protective services. Unfortunately, child abuse continues to increase. The latest studies show reports of child abuse and neglect have doubled in the United States, from 1.4 million cases in 1986 to 2.8 million in 1993. This is nothing less than a national tragedy. We can and must take action. We do, through this bill. Let me identify just a few improvements we are making in CAPTA to fight the epidemic of child abuse and neglect. We are providing expanded adoption opportunities for babies who have been abandoned. This follows our previous work in this Congress to expand the adoption tax credit. We are providing greater protection so that children will not be put back into homes where parents have been convicted of terrible acts against their own children. We are providing new and expanded roles for private citizens in the area of child abuse and neglect. In an area we heard a great deal about in my subcommittee hearings, this bill ensures that persons who maliciously file reports of abuse will no longer be protected by CAPTA's immunity for reporting. Under our bill, only goodfaith reports will be protected. And we are simplifying the administration of the CAPTA program at the State and local levels. There is much, much more in this bill that is in the best interests of America's children. Every American must take a stand that child abuse is wrong. We must stop this plague of child abuse on our land. Our bipartisan CAPTA reforms cannot stop child abuse; they give help to those people who can. I thank Chairman Goodling for his outstanding leadership on this issue. I urge my colleagues to support S. 919 as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we are prevented from speaking about other Members on the other side, about previous ethics violations. It is not against the rules of the House to do so?

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As I understand it, the other side was talking about follow the rule of law. After the Jim Wright case, and correct me, the gentleman was on the Ethics Committee, there were problems and they did not want the same problems to resurface. While the Democrats were in power, they rewrote the rules on ethics. What I was trying to get to during the parliamentary inquiry before, is it not correct that the rule we are following today was written when the Democrats were in the majority?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1720. I would like to bring attention to four important parts of this legislation: the creation of the Institute for Museum and Library Services, the renewal of certain adult education and literacy programs, the privatization of Sallie Mae, and the resolution of the so-called 85-15 issue. the institute of museum and library services With the close help of America's museum and library communities, this legislation creates an Institute of Museum and Library Services. It merges the Institute of Museum Services and our Federal Library Services and Construction Act programs into one organization. We do this for three reasons. First, museums and libraries are first and foremost delivers of information. Through books and exhibits, microfiche, video, and the Internet, they can and do work together for the benefit of citizens and communities. Second, the advance of the Information Age is transforming how people obtain information. So we have placed a new focus on the Federal role in these programs--toward electronically linking libraries and museums to one another, to other agencies and services, and to communities, schools, and citizens. We all know that the printing press revolutionized Europe in the Middle Ages by making books available to everyone. Today's Internet has that same potential--to bring people and information together from a whole world apart, with the simple point and click of a mouse. And third, the IMLS simplifies the administration of Federal museum and library programs, while maintaining their unique and useful character. Its leadership will alternate from leaders in libraries or museums. The IMLS library division will make simplified grants to State library agencies. And the IMLS museums portion will continue awarding grants to local museum organizations. I have already included for the Record letters of support from the California State Libraries, and others. Mr. Speaker, our libraries and museums are a national treasure. They are a free and open institution of learning for every American, regardless of wealth or background. They provide information, help people find jobs, offer entertainment, and unite our communities. They represent the best in America. In short, they work. And while most of their funding is from local, State and private resources, the Federal Government has a role. By adopting this legislation, we provide the catalyst to help bring our museums and libraries into the 21st Century. renewal of adult education and literacy programs H.R. 1720 also continues the authorization for our Federal adult education and literacy programs. Adult education provides individuals who lack the most basic skills--such as literacy, English proficiency, or a high school equivalency diploma--the tools they need to have a fighting chance at the American dream. An individual who cannot read or perform basic math cannot hope to find a good job, or to benefit from job training. Simply put, our investment in effective adult eduation transforms those who are dependent upon society into contributors to society. Like the library and museum portion of H.R. 1720, these provisions were included in the CAREERS legislation which is stalled in the Senate. It deserves our support. privatizing sallie mae Sallie Mae, the Student Loan Marketing Association, is a Government- sponsored enterprise, owned by private stockholders, that provides a secondary market for student loan financing. When President Clinton advanced his Direct Lending initiative, it limited Sallie Mae's traditional market, and impacted Sallie Mae stockholders. I oppose President Clinton's direct lending plan because, over 7 years, it costs taxpayers $1 billion more to provide the same number of student loans as private markets. And while the President has sought to have direct lending replace private markets, Congress has limited the growth of direct lending. Nevertheless, direct lending is a fact of life today. Its existence unfairly impacts the thousands of senior citizens, private pensions, and other Americans who own stock in Sallie Mae. Allowing Sallie Mae stockholders the opportunity to vote to privatize is simply a matter of fairness. The legislation structures any privatization carefully, so taxpayers and citizens alike get their money's worth. partial resolution of 85-15 This legislation also contains a partial resolution of the so-called 85-15 issue. The 85-15 policy enacted by Congress has been implemented retroactively on for-profit institutions of higher learning. Such schools are made responsible for their compliance with regulations before they were published on May 1, 1994. This kind of retroactive enforcement is simply un-American. Our bill ends retroactive, preregulatory enforcement of the 85-15 rule. Unfortunately, H.R. 1720 does not make a further necessary reform which I support. The measure does not exclude Federal training money from the 15 percent of a forprofit school's income coming from sources other than the Higher Education Act. As we all know, Federal training programs are not authorized by the Higher Education Act. They are authorized under other legislation. But the Department of Education has been enforcing 85-15 contrary to the will and intent of Congress. I am confident we will revisit this issue. support of 1720 I urge all my colleagues to support H.R. 1720. It is good for libraries and museums, for our children and our seniors, for students, and for many of our excellent forprofit educational institutions. Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1720. Let me tell the Members why. I think especially there are three main parts: The creation of the Institute for Museum and Library Services; adult education and literacy programs; privatization of Sallie Mae. We had a monumental debate here on the House floor with the issue of 85-15, which I believe will be resolved in this particular case. Rather than speak from my notes, Madam Speaker, let me tell the Members why I think it is even more important. In education we have less than 12 percent of our schools that have even a single phone jack. If we are going to prepare our children for the 21st century, there must be the fiber optics and the modernization. Even there the schools do not have library services enough to meet those needs. If we can link up those libraries in our colleges, our public libraries, and yes, even here in Washington, DC, think about how that will help this country. When we talk about the delta, the difference between the successful and the poor, the answer is education. We will find chronologically gifted folks at libraries; we will find the very young at libraries, as well. Whether it is through job training or whether it is through education services, this bill goes a long way to help that. I think the telecommunications bill that we passed encourages that, and I think there are ways we can work with Members on the other side of the aisle as far as reform in our tax system, to where we can encourage those private enterprises that will invest in our children, which is a way of investing in the future. Part of that is our library services and our job training. Perhaps we have not gone far enough in this particular Congress in job training. I will give that to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But I think there is an area which we can work on in the next Congress that will be beneficial as far as the libraries. The library portion was being threatened because it was in a portion of the bill that we placed it in that may not make it through by the end of this Congress. This legislation, I think, helps remedy that. It has bipartisan support. I would like to thank the gentlemen on both sides of the aisle. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1720. I would like to bring attention to four important parts of this legislation: The creation of the Institute for Museum and Library Services, the renewal of certain adult education and literacy programs, the privatization of Sallie Mae, and the resolution of the so-called 85-15 issue. The Institute of Museum and Library Services: With the close help of America's museum and library communities, this legislation creates an Institute of Museum and Library Services. It merges the Institute of Museum Services and our Federal Library Services and Construction Act programs into one organization. We do this for three reasons. First, museums and libraries are first and foremost deliverers of information. Through books and exhibits, microfiche, video, and the Internet, they can and do work together for the benefit of citizens and communities. Second, the advance of the information age is transforming how people obtain information. So we have placed a new focus on the Federal role in these programs toward electronically linking libraries and museums to one another, to other agencies and services, and to communities, schools, and citizens. We all know that the printing press revolutionized Europe in the Middle Ages by making books available to everyone. Today's Internet has that same potential: to bring people and information together from a whole world apart, with the simple point and click of a mouse. And third, the IMLS simplifies the administration of Federal museum and library programs, while maintaining their unique and useful character. Its leadership will alternate from leaders in libraries or museums. The IMLS library division will make simplified grants to State library agencies. And the IMLS museum portion will continue awarding grants to local museum organizations. At this point, I would like to include for the Record letters of support from California. Madam Speaker, our libraries and museums are a national treasure. They are a free and open institution of learning for every American, regardless of wealth or background. They provide information, help people find jobs, offer entertainment, and unite our communities. They represent the best in America. In short, they work. And while most of their funding is from local, State, and private resources, the Federal Government has a role. By adopting this legislation, we provide the catalyst to help bring our museums and libraries into the 21st century. Renewal of adult education and literacy programs: H.R. 1720 also continues the authorization for our Federal adult education and literacy programs. Adult education provides individuals who lack the most basic skills--such as literacy, English proficiency, or a high school equivalency diploma--the tools they need to have a fighting chance at the American dream. An individual who cannot read or perform basic math cannot hope to find a good job, or to benefit from job training. Simply put, our investment in effective adult education transforms those who are dependent upon society into contributors to society. Like the library and museum portion of H.R. 1720, these provisions were included in the CAREERS legislation which is stalled in the Senate. It deserves our support. Privatizing Sallie Mae: Sallie Mae, the Student Loan Marketing Association, is a Government- sponsored enterprise, owned by private stockholders, that provides a secondary market for student loan financing. When President Clinton advanced his direct lending initiative, it limited Sallie Mae's traditional market, and impacted Sallie Mae stockholders. I oppose President Clinton's direct lending plan because, over 7 years, it costs taxpayers $1 billion more to provide the same number of student loans as private markets. And while the President has sought to have direct lending replace private markets, Congress has limited the growth of direct lending. Nevertheless, direct lending is a fact of life today. Its existence unfairly impacts the thousands of senior citizens, private pensions, and other Americans who own stock in Sallie Mae. Allowing Sallie Mae stockholders the opportunity to vote to privatize is simply a matter of fairness. The legislation structures any privatization carefully, so taxpayers and citizens alike get their money's worth. Partial resolution of 85-15: This legislation also contains a partial resolution of the so-called 85-15 issue. The 85-15 policy enacted by Congress has been implemented retroactively on for-profit institutions of higher learning. Such schools are made responsible for their compliance with regulations before they were published on May 1, 1994. This kind of retroactive enforcement is simply un-American. Our bill ends retroactive, preregulatory enforcement of the 85-15 rule. Unfortunately, H.R. 1720 does not make a further necessary reform which I support. The measure does not exclude Federal training money from the 15 percent of a for-profit school's income coming from sources other than the Higher Education Act. As we all know, Federal training programs are not authorized by the Higher Education Act. They are authorized under other legislation. But the Department of Education has been enforcing 85-15 contrary to the will and intent of Congress. I am confident we will revisit this issue. Support H.R. 1720: I urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 1720. It's good for libraries and museums, for our children and our seniors, for students, and for many of our excellent for-profit educational institutions. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the following letters: California State Library, Sacramento, CA, September 23, 1996. Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Cunningham: The California State Library applauds your initiatives to pass the successor to the Library Services and Construction Act (LSCA) with the forward thinking Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), and we support the passage of H.R. 1720 to achieve this goal. Thank you for your continued efforts on behalf of California library users. Yours sincerely, Dr. Kevin Starr, State Librarian of California. P.S.--You have become the champion of public libraries! All of us are grateful to you for you vision and leadership!

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for bringing House Resolution 515 forward. He is a leader on the issue of protecting human rights of people around the world. And I am thankful that he has brought notice to this House the tragic increase of anti-Christian bigotry and persecution around the world. America is the land of religious freedom, and should be a defender of religious liberty. We stand for a person's right to practice a faith. We have long since been familiar with anti-Semitism around the world, which continues to rear its ugly head. Many lawmakers have stood tall to fight that scourge. But we are here today because a new kind of persecution, anti-Christian persecution, is on the rise. In Sudan, China, Iran, Vietnam, and India, and, I regret, in other countries as well, Christians are being punished for believing in Jesus Christ or for possessing a Bible. For merely acknowledging the Scripture, Christians in these countries risk being kidnapped, killed, raped, and subjected to many other forms of torture. This is an affront to the international community and to all people of conscience. As a nation, the United States was founded on the basis that the Freedom of Religion was a basic human right. As elected representatives serving in a hall that declares ``In God We Trust,'' we in Congress have an obligation to speak out when religious freedom is denied. This resolution today affirms the commitment of Congress to condemn the threats to religious liberty around the world, on behalf of Christians and other persecuted people of faith. I call on all my colleagues to join us today in support of House Resolution 515. Again, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] for his leadership on this issue and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, many of us do support the investigation, because a lot of the drugs, about 90 percent of them, were purported to go out of Mena, ARK, when President Clinton was Governor. If you look at the Mena chronicles, in which a lot of those drugs went out, Malek, who was then Governor Clinton's chief investigator and coroner, ruled that two children that were killed on tracks had smoked a lot of marijuana and fell asleep. The parents got upset. They had outside forensics come in, and the children were stabbed to death. Since then, 18 people that were going to testify against Governor Clinton, Malek, the judge appointed by then-Governor Clinton, and the district attorney, who also canceled the grand jury investigation, 18 people have been murdered. Yes, we look forward to that investigation. Mr. Speaker, I came here today to talk about something that a lot of people do not talk about. I think it is a legitimate issue for both sides, both for conservatives and liberals, on what does it really mean to cut; what is cutting and what is being cut, or the differences, at least, in definition. I would like to clarify some of those. First of all, Mr. Speaker, in education, 95 percent of education is paid for by State and local revenues. Only about 5 percent of education in our country is paid for by Federal dollars. That 5 percent of the dollars, do not misunderstand me, is no small amount. The Department of Education, for example, has an annual budget of about $35 billion, and that is a B, with a billion. So 5 percent is not a small amount of change. The problem is, we are getting as little, especially in the district of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] who just spoke, we are getting as little as 23 cents out of every Federal dollar back to the classroooms. Why? Twenty-three cents on a dollar for every tax dollar. Did God create those dollars? No. He has to take it from hardworking American taxpayers. It comes to Washington, DC, and then goes back to the people that they took it from, at only 23 cents on a dollar. Why is that? This Republican Conference identified 760 education programs in the Federal system. Yesterday in a hearing the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Payne, a Democrat, and the gentleman from Oklahoma, J.C. Watts, a Republican, introduced a bill. In the hearing there were about 15 different witnesses, Republicans and Democrats, appointed and asked to come by Republicans and Democrats. They identified over nine programs within their communities that were working on antidrug and against juvenile justice. When the question was asked, how many of them had those programs in all of their districts, none of them had any one of the other eight in their particular district, but the one that worked, they were focusing on and they were using. Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans have tried to do is direct the money to the local level, down to the people that have the Zip Code, that know the real problems of their particular community; not something one-size-fits-all, like the Federal Government does, and mandates that you will do this. If Head Start works, do it. If drug- free schools work, do it. But the emphasis is driving the money down to the local districts, to the school teachers, to the parents, to the school boards, to the juvenile justice groups, and letting them handle the problem. The Federal Government has 760 Federal education programs. Just imagine trying to fund that. Every one of them has administrations. Every one of them has bureaucracies. Every one of them has paperwork that comes down to the States that affects the 95 percent that are raised at State and local levels, just because they have to use the funds on bureaucratic redtape, on paperwork that not only goes to their State department of educations, the Governor, and then has to travel back to Washington, DC, 23 cents on the dollar, Mr. Speaker. You could not compete in business like that, and you cannot work education systems with 23 cents on the dollar. Let me give some classic examples of how government wastes money and that the other side of the aisle says that Republicans are cutting education. Let me define the term ``cut.'' The President's direct- lending government student loan program was capped at 10 percent in a pilot project. That 10 percent cost $1 billion a year more, just to administer, than private lending institutions to do it. GAO conducted a study, said it is going to cost $5 billion more just to collect those student loans. When the Government shut down, the President says, ``Hey, this is one of my cornerstones. I want government to spend the money down and have the power to give it out, and I want to do that.'' So at conference, we let it go to 40 percent. But what the liberals did not see is, we put in the language that capped the administrative fees at 10 percent, instead of going up to 40 percent, to restrict Government spending. We took the savings from that and we increased Pell grants to the highest level ever, grants for poor children that achieve and do well in school, but for some circumstance, they do not have the wherewithal to go to college. I do not mind my tax dollars going to pay for that, Mr. Speaker, because there are some disadvantaged children in this world that work hard, that want a piece of the American dream, and I think that it is part of government's role to make sure that those children are taken care of. With those savings from the direct lending program, we took and increased student loans through the private sector by 50 percent. Did we cut education? No, sir. We drove the money down to the children that need it, the poor children, in Pell grants, to the children that need the student loans to go to school. What we cut is the liberals' precious bureaucracy here in River City, in Washington, DC, and we took those savings and we drove it to where it is supposed to go in the first place, at a much higher rate than 23 cents on a dollar. Let me give another good example, Mr. Speaker: AmeriCorps, another great program, according to the President. Everything that this Congress has argued over in the 2 years, Mr. Speaker, is power. That is what the American people are upset about. Power to spend money from Washington, DC, so you can send it down to your local interest groups so that they think you are a great guy or a great lady, so you can get reelected, so then you have got the majority, so you have got the power. And over here is a bureaucracy, whether it is a direct lending program, whether it is a First Lady's government bureaucracy health care system, or all the other programs that they purport, they want the power to spend the money in Washington, DC. AmeriCorps is a classic example. They want the dollars to come up here so that they can rain them down to different people saying, ``Look what good guys we are.'' Where does the money come from? Is there a cut? In the first place, the money is taken from the American taxpayer. Second, the average volunteer in AmeriCorps gets $29,000. In Baltimore, just a hoot and a holler from here, the average was $50,000 per volunteer. Can we do it better than that, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely. It is wasted dollars. Why? You pay somebody $50,000 for painting a fence, or pulling weeds, that is more than many of the steelworkers, that is more than many of your teachers make. I think we can better invest that, instead of letting the Federal Government, just because they want the ability to spend the money, force it down. And, yes, we wanted to eliminate it and use the dollars more wisely. Let me give another example. They say, ``Duke, why do you hate Goals 2000?'' I don't hate Goals 2000. As a matter of fact, I think the standards that are lauded in Goals 2000 are pretty noteworthy. I mean, to say that you want to have the best math standards and the best math scores in the world is a pretty noteworthy and laudable standard. But if you read the bill, Mr. Speaker, in Goals 2000, there are 43 instances in the bill that say States ``will,'' and if you are a lawyer, or even the American people, you understand the difference between ``will'' and ``shall'' in any legal document. ``Will'' is a mandate; the State will have to do this. What is one of the 43 ``wills'' of the 760 programs, Federal programs? Just one little tiny one. You have to establish a board at a local level. You have to establish an education program. They say, ``Duke, you are able to establish that local program. I mean, isn't that what you purport? You want education, you want teachers, you want parents, you want students and the administration to establish exactly what they are doing.'' You have to establish a separate board. They have to report this program to the principal. My wife happens to be one of those principals, has a doctorate in education in Encinitas. She then has to give it to the superintendent. All of this paperwork from the superintendent then has to go to Governor Wilson in the State Department of Education in the State of California. Think about all this paper flow from just the schools in my district. Now think about all the paper flow from all the schools in the State of California going to Sacramento. Now visualize all of that paperwork, all of that time and energy that is going to all of the State capitals to be reviewed. What has to happen on a State capital level? There has to be a bureaucracy at a State level, Mr. Speaker, to receive and to review, to see if it is in compliance with the Federal regulations and the other ``wills'' that come forward in Goals 2000. And then what does the State do with it? The State takes that same body of paperwork and sends it back here to River City, to Washington DC, to a giant $35 billion bureaucracy in the Department of Education. They review it to see if it falls within those 43 ``wills'' and some of those ``shalls.'' After they have done it, there is more paperwork that goes down that the administrators have to handle, that paperwork goes back and forth. And think of the time, waste and energy; is it any wonder that the United States is number 13 of all 13 industrialized nations in education, but yet we are purported to spend more on education. We do not spend more, Mr. Speaker, on education. We spend about one-fourth of what is purported because the rest goes to bureaucracy. What we did is, the Governors came to us and said to the committee, ``Send us the money, do away with the paperwork, do away with the rules and regulations, let us establish our local programs and we can do it better.'' Mr. Speaker, I have yet to go to a graduation where you have students that do well, either on a high school or a college level, that you do not have parent involvement, you do not have the teachers that are lauded by the parents and by the students, and that teamwork and that fellowship. Yes, it does take a village to raise a child, and I am a Republican. But the problem is, under the Clinton plan, it takes another village to pay for it. We can do it better and we can afford to send other villages' dollars down into education where we can give the teachers the money they need to teach our children and ask for quality teachers. Those are just a few of the reasons. I could literally go on all day on different examples of what we have done. But you say, ``Duke, you've shown some of the problems. What is your vision for education?'' Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families of the Committee on Education, I want to do for education what John F. Kennedy did for the space program. We can do that. We can do that as a nation. We can make an investment in education. Not cut it. Liberals have been cutting education for the last 40 years because they have been spending it on bureaucracy. They have been taking your tax dollars, sending it to Washington, and returning it at a very low rate. That is wrong. That is cutting education. We are increasing education and the resources. How do you do that? What is your vision, then? First of all, in the telecommunications bills, Mr. Speaker, we put in the language that encourages the AT&T's, the Baby Bell's, Apple, IBM with the computer programs, to be able to invest in our schools. Mr. Speaker, less than 12 percent of our schools in this Nation, the richest nation in the world, less than 12 percent of its classrooms have a single phone jack. We have had hearings where major representatives from industry have told us that over 80 percent of the jobs, both vocational and those that are professional-bound to colleges, are going to require high-technology equipment and a high- technology education to meet the needs of the 21st century. I only have 12 percent of the schools that are even wired for a phone jack to put in those systems. So what we did is encourage the Baby Bell's, the AT&T's, the Alcoa that lays the fiber optics, to be able to invest in our schools. The President jumps up and says, Look at V-chip. V-chip, yeah, it's good. But the idea in the bill we passed is going to enable us, let industry build up those schools, let them put in the fiber optics, let them put in the computers, let them work with the local districts so that that computer is not obsolete in 6 months. When you have teachers that don't know how to turn on a computer or even teach our children high skills, then think about that delta that the liberals talk about so much, about the successful and the poor, that delta, the difference between. That is going to grow even higher if we don't have a system to train our children in the future. We can do that through private enterprise, which we are doing now. Let me give you a good example. In my district, I have a school called Scripps Ranch. Scripps Ranch, we built and we got private enterprise to invest in it. We put fiber optics in it when the school was built. We have computers in every single classroom that the children use and other high-technology equipment, both in science, in math, and yes, in the arts as well. The students, those that are vocationally bound, are using those computers. They are actually designing modular housing units that they sell to other schools so that they can buy more equipment for themselves. Those that are college- bound, the students in architecture or design, are using those computers. They have redesigned the entire school. And both unions-- union is not a dirty word--unions and private enterprise are hiring those children in the summer and giving them OJT in job areas so that they will have a better preparation when they leave high school. Take a look at a school like Mira Mesa that I have in my district that does not have any of that. Think of the difference in the opportunity for the children at Scripps versus the children at another school that do not have those opportunities. It is exponential. What can we do? A charter school is a school started up by teachers, parents, or local groups that is free from the Federal regulations, and they teach the basics, reading, writing, arithmetic or math, and vocational skills. What about choice? The voucher system is often talked about. I think the Federal Government, Mr. Speaker, mandates too much. I do not believe that there is choice in schools right now. When my wife taught in a different district, my children traveled every day with her to that school. That is choice. They did not have to go to the school in the District. They participated at Fletcher Elementary with the program for special education children, because they asked them to help these special education children. And that was choice. I think we should at least offer the option to States and localities and local communities. If they want to use it, then do it, but not to mandate it from the Federal Government. Christine Whitman, in New Jersey, has done a good job with it; Governor Engler; Governor Weld. Wisconsin has a voucher program. It works. It may not work in an inner city where you have great transportation costs that are going to take away from that education system. Again, the money should go to the local district and let the parents, the teachers, the administrators and the local groups that are in that zip code, because they know the particular problems that go on. What is another function? Education, Mr. Speaker, is, I think, pretty close to a wherewithal that is going to save this country. It does not mean that the Federal Government has to do it. It does not mean that the taxpayers ought to send their taxes to Washington and have it turned around at such a low rate. It is ludicrous. What about illegal immigration? In the State of California I have over, and listen to this, Mr. Speaker, I have over 400,000 illegals, kindergarten through 12th grade. Four hundred thousand, at a cost of $5,000 each per year. That is over $2.2 billion a year that comes out of California's education fund; $2.2 billion. We could put a computer and fiber optics into every schoolroom in the State of California. We could upgrade to where education for American citizens and their children and student loans are cheaper in the State of California. But, no, we have been mandated from the Federal Government that we have to supply this education. The school lunch program, just for illegals, costs $1.2 million a day, and we need to address that, Mr. Speaker. It is another problem within our schools that we have to face on a daily basis. So I look at the cost of education, what the Federal Government is killing and cutting in education every single day for the last 40 years, and we need to change that, Mr. Speaker. We can do better as a nation. We can invest in education, and we need to do it at the local level. Let me talk about some of the things that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that we cut. Let me give you a good example of the lies, the deceit, the misconceptions and the rhetoric that comes out about cutting. The other side of the aisle will say that Republicans cut safe and drug-free schools. We put the money in a block grant, again to the States, and if safe and drug-free schools works in that particular district, they can fund it; if Head Start works. Now, get this. The Department of Education, the Department of Education, not exactly a right-wing conservative group, did a study and said across this Nation you can take two children, one in Head Start, the other not, and at the end of the training there is no difference in the results. But yet in San Diego we have a pretty good Head Start Program. It works good in San Diego. But across the Nation it only depends on the ability of the administrators, the teachers and the parents within that zip code if that is going to succeed or not. So what we do is send the money down to the local district and say use the money where it is effective to help children, and I think that is a big difference. But drug-safe schools. In 1994 and 1995 Democrats controlled. They controlled the House, they controlled the Senate, Mr. Speaker, and they controlled the White House. The request for safe and drug-free schools was $598.2 million. Let me repeat it for you, $598.2 million. The Democrats in the Congress, they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, cut to $487.2 million. In 1995 the request was for $660 million for safe and drug-free schools. Democrats cut it $194 million. We did not cut safe and drug-free schools. We funded it at the same level, and we sent the money to the local districts and said if it works for you, do it, and fund it. Do not fund it at only 23 cents on the dollar, but fund it if it works, because that is a program you need to save for children. Let me give you some fraud, waste and abuse in that particular program that we rooted out. In Michigan, Drug Czar Bob Peterson found $81,000 spent on a giant plastic teeth and toothbrushes for safe and drug-free schools. They said if children brush their teeth, they are not going to do drugs. It went to fund bicycle pumps. It funded sex education consultants at Clemsford High School in Massachusetts; they spent $1,000 to present a compulsory attendance on hot, sexy, and safer programs for students. Fairfax County, just right next to us here in Washington, DC, spent $176,000 for staff to spend a weekend on Maryland's Eastern Shore. They spent funds for lumber to build steps for an aerobics class and funded a field trip to Deep Run Lodge for the board of education. That is not what the money is meant for, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we are changing, is getting the money down to the local groups. Commerce, Justice, and State appropriations, drug enforcement. My colleagues were talking about a study into contra and drug dealings. What Senator Dole has been campaigning around the country with is that drug use since the Clinton administration started, the use in our high schools, is up 143 percent, an increase. When Ronald Reagan and George Bush were in the White House, drug use went down 50 percent. Yes, say no to drugs. With parents, it worked. It helped. Was it the wherewithal? Absolutely not, but I think there was an awareness that the Nation had a problem. Remember Noriega and the interdiction that we used in Colombia and other countries in stopping and going after the drug cartels? That was effective. But is that by itself going to stop the war that we have on drugs? Absolutely not. Are treatment centers? In our schools, are the safe and drug-free schools and the DARE by themselves? No. It takes a compromise of a lot of different groups to make it work. When we have a President his first week in the White House who cuts the drug czar from 154 staff to 25, and then in his next statement on MTV makes a statement, ``I would have inhaled if I could,'' is that the message we want to come across to our children in this Nation? Agents that are going out every day in our schools say there is not a case where the kids do not laugh and say, well, the President does it. Is that the message that we want to send to our children? Is that the message that we want to send with this nation's highest medical officer, Joycelyn Elders, who came across and said she wanted to legalize drugs in this country? I do not think that is the message we want to send to our youth. This President cut the Coast Guard. One of our most effective stops of drugs entering this country, especially in Florida and in California, is through our Coast Guard. He cut that $328 million. We put the money back in, Mr. Speaker. Foreign operations, State Department International Narcotics Control Program. We increased it $35 million that the President cut. DOD operations was cut by the President. Where? For drug interdiction. When we take a look across the board at where this administration has cut drug interdiction, he even cut the White House drug testing program. And, just, what, 3 weeks ago, in the Washington Times and the Washington Post and papers across this country, it was found out that in the White House staff was using cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogens. And, guess what, the President did away with the White House drug testing program before that, even when he was warned by the FBI that these people were going to go on his staff. No wonder he took away the drug testing program. And it is a fact, it is not just a statement. We have lost great support in our war against drugs, Mr. Speaker, and Republicans are putting that back. We elevate the war threat in the National Security Council, restore funding for interdiction efforts, restore funding on the ONDCP staff for policy support lost in 1993, restore for intelligence gathering that we lost between 1993 and 1995. So, yes, we have a critical problem. When we talk to lawyers, Mr. Speaker, and go to your lawyers in your local district, and ask them what the No. 1 issue for juvenile justice, if they could stop it, what would they do, and I bet 99 percent of them will say stop the flow of drugs into our schools and into our Nation. And those that are on it, let us help them get off it with our treatment centers. I know that personally because of my own son who was in a drug treatment center, Mr. Speaker, and it worked. But when he checked in, the staff there, Dr. Sambs, said, ``Duke, there is only about 10 percent of these kids that are not going to come back to this facility.'' But we can save some of those kids. My son was one of those: Drug free since 1986. And he even dates the daughter of a judge, so I guess he has to stay straight now. But it has been a success program, and there are other children like him across the Nation. Mr. Speaker, we talk about education and the importance. I taught and coached at Hinsdale High School outside of Chicago. Evanston, Nutria are two other very fine schools in this Nation with good teachers. But you go just a short distance away, Mr. Speaker, and you will go through 4\1/2\ miles of Federal housing projects. In that 4\1/2\ miles, those kids do not carry books, they carry guns. Their icons are pimps and prostitutes and drug dealers. The illegitimacy rate is above 50 percent for those children. The only male figure they ever see is an older male that impregnates the unmarried daughter. That daughter has a child, then they get welfare. And the only male figure they see is that figure. And usually it is the grandmother that raises the child. And then if it is a male child, where does that child end up? Where does he go? Usually, the only family that many of these kids have are gangs. And we are seeing the problem in our country of juvenile justice and juvenile delinquency grow exponentially across the Nation. So education, a hope for a job, putting resources into education, not wasting them on Federal bureaucracy, and purporting to do that, I think, is a noteworthy task, Mr. Speaker. What have we done in this Congress? The Speaker of the House holds up a bucket of ice. The last icebox where you had to put ice in it was in 1937, but yet the Democrats have been, under Democrat leadership for 40 years, have been delivering ice to this body for 40 years, two times a day. Two times a day. Do you know what that bucket of ice cost? $500,000 a year. Did we conduct a 5-year study? No. Did we retrain the ice deliverers? No. We just went cold turkey. We cut it. And can we save dollars in this body, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely. Right on down the line. For parking places for lobbyists that we cut. We cut the size of the bureaucracy and sold a building and saved taxpayer dollars. That bucket means about 400 families that can receive the Bob Dole tax relief. And the Bob Dole tax relief, let us take a look at it. A family of four, two children, earning $30,000, will receive a tax relief package of 86 percent of their taxes are going to be eliminated, 86 percent. And under this administration, if the tax system continues without the Bob Dole tax relief, you can send that 86 percent tax increase right to IRS. We are going to rip it out by the roots, Mr. Speaker. We are going to have a safer, fairer tax for the American people because they do not want to send the valuable dollars to Washington, DC and only get 23 cents back on the dollar for education. They do not want to send it to Washington, DC, Mr. Speaker, and only get 30 cents of a dollar back down to welfare recipients. They want it effective. They want a lean, mean government that walks beside its people, that helps them and gets off of their back. And there is a legitimate reason to have Federal help. Poor children. There is a legitimate need in medical research for AIDS and for cancer and Alzheimer's and other diseases. States cannot do that, and that is why the speaker was insistent that our priority was to increase the dollars for medical research in the HHS bill, demanded it. And in many cases we took the dollars out of programs that some of us did not want, but overall it was a good program. Mr. Speaker, in 2 years people say, well, Duke, is it really worth it to stay in Congress? Is it really worth all of the battles that you go through? And I want to tell you it is one of the most difficult things I have ever done including fighting in combat for my country because you make an honest effort. You know a system, Medicare, is going broke. My mother, who lives in Escondido, is not going to have the system if we do not preserve it and save it. My little mom, my little Irish mom who fits under my arm, you think we are going to do anything to taint that? Or my children in the future? But yet if we do not save it, and add the dollars that we need to over a period of time, we go from $4,800 to $7,300. That is not a cut, Mr. Speaker. And the most difficult thing in this body is to sit up and listen to all the demagoguery, to the smoke and mirrors, to the scare tactics when someone is saying you are cutting Medicare, when someone is saying that you are cutting education and what you are doing is cutting their precious bureaucracy. Why do the unions dump large amounts, $35 million, into their campaigns? Because they know and they want a centralized government and the power. What we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is turn that power away from the Federal Government and turn it back to the American people. That is a vision. In that we can increase education dollars, and we can do the rest of the things that we purport to do. I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that the American people, when the elections are coming up on November 5, whether you are Republican or Democrat, take a look at the issues and take a look at the values, the character; take a look at the believability of the system and what we are trying to do. It is trying to make a better America, to preserve Medicare, to preserve the environment; not cut it but to cut the Federal bureaucracy that is taking away the dollars, that is taking away the American dream. Let us give the dollars back to the pockets of the people so that we can improve education and the other systems.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of overriding President Clinton's unwise veto of H.R. 1833, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Last March, I joined 285 of my House colleagues in support of banning the procedure known as partial-birth abortion. The measure was supported by members like me who are pro-life, and even by many who consider themselves pro-choice. We shared our justification: As New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynahan said, the partial birth abortion procedure is just ``too close to infantacide.'' And I agree. Yet, after H.R. 1833 was adopted by bipartisan majorities in the House and Senate, President Clinton vetoed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act on April 10. The President's veto represents a truly mean and extreme position. His position is that the absolute, most extreme abortion procedure, no matter how barbaric, should continue to be permitted in America. This procedure is such that even a brief description of it causes strong men and women to wince. Since the President's veto, more than 7,500 of my constituents have written or called me, urging me to support an override of the President's veto. But he did veto it. And on July 15, I wrote House Majority Leader Dick Armey, urging the House to fulfill its responsibility to a vote to override President Clinton's veto. Today we will have that vote. And today I will vote to override the President's decision, which drawn the deep disappointment of pro-life and pro-choice Americans alike. This is a sad day, because one would hope that the President had not vetoed such common-sense, humane legislation in the first place.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the 1- year anniversary of the kidnaping of Jaswant Singh Khalra. As we observe the anniversary of that event, which occurred at 9:15 a.m. on September 6, 1995, we must draw attention that Mr. Khalra remains in custody and his whereabouts unknown. As Secretary of Human Rights Wing (Shiromani Akali Dal), Mr. Khalra had published a report showing that the Punjab police have arrested more than 25,000 young Sikh men, tortured and murdered them, and declared their cremated bodies unidentified. After this report was made published, Mr. Khalra was told by the Armitsar district police chief, ``We have made 25,000 disappear. It would be easy to make one more disappear.'' More recently, an article in the August 14-20 issue of World Sikh News quotes Ajit Sandhu, the district police chief implicated in the kidnaping of Mr. Khalra, as saying that ``I am proud of what I did. I did it for the nation. I did no wrong.'' Mr. Sandhu has labeled the charges of mass cremations a bundle of lies despite the Central Bureau of Investigations admission to the Indian Supreme Court that its preliminary investigation had turned up evidence that nearly 1,000 young Sikhs had been cremated as Mr. Khalra's report described. This preliminary investigation is ongoing, and human rights activists in Punjab, Khalistan, say that the number may be as high as 30,000 or more. Mr. Khalra was exercising his fundamental right to speak out and expose atrocities committed by this government. As long as Mr. Khalra remains in detention, how can anyone in India feel secure exercising his or her democratic liberties? I ask my colleagues to recognize the continued human rights abuses by India and work to reduce aid to India until it protects the democratic rights of its people.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of different speakers talk. Let me say from personal experience, I served on 7th Fleet staff and was in charge of all defense of Southeast Asia countries. That included both the host countries as well as our allied countries. That was Team Spirit, Tangent Flash, Cobra Gold, and others in Southeast Asia. Let me tell the Members why I support this bill. We need our troops under U.S. command. Let me give a classic example. In Somalia, the administration changed the mission from humanitarian to going after General Aideed. The administration then reduced the amount of forces, making us vulnerable, and at the request of armor from our own military commanders, the administration denied that request. It took 7 hours to get to our Rangers in Mogadishu. We lost 18 Rangers under U.N. control. They had tanks and armor available to get in to those troops. We had a person die because they bled to death, because we could not get to them. All we are asking for is that our troops are guided and administered and operationally controlled by U.S. commanders and that they have the power to request assets at the same time. Another case, in Bosnia. Remember when this country bombed Bosnia- Herzegovina? Not even the President of the United States or the Vice President of the United States or the Secretary of Defense of the United States knew that U.S. troops were committed to war in Bosnia- Herzegovina, because the United Nations, under Boutros Boutros-Ghali, ordered it. We are saying we want our troops to fall under U.S. control. We think that is very, very important, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if I could have the attention of my friend, the gentleman from California, Mr. Ron Dellums, and he knows where I come from, I would like to explain to you why that for many of us this is very, very important. First of all, I agree with the gentleman; I would not disobey a lawful order that was given to me, even though I disagreed with it. There is a chain of command in the military and a proper procedure that you should follow through. I would also say that in my young years, I also made a lot of mistakes, and Michael New and others, I think, I do not think it was necessarily a mistake. I think that is what we are trying to alleviate here in this particular case, where we do not put our young men and young women in this situation. I talked about Somalia a minute ago, but I would be remiss unless I talked about Lebanon under a Republican administration. I am not talking either one here. Then also in Bosnia, where I think it is important that the President knows. There is another case in which helicopters were shot down in a free fly zone. The U.N. controlled it. The AWACS was not notified. The F-15's were not notified. We lost two helicopters. Under those circumstances, I think if this body let us, our people know that they are under U.N. control, then that is fine. All we are trying to do is alleviate that particular situation. I do not need a U.N. patch to let me know, no more than my friend that served in the Marine Corps knows or I have no doubt that there is anyone that when we serve with a foreign country that the U.S. Marine Corps uniform, the U.S. Navy, Air Force, whatever it happens to be, who we represent. All we are saying is that to wear that patch, it should require this body, who also agrees to allow them to serve under the United Nations. What causes one to pick up a flag on the battlefield or charge a hill, it is pride. We have a lot of pride in our U.S. military.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the Senate amendment to H.R. 3269.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 3269, the Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act. Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government has a responsibility to children attending schools that lose tax revenues associated with a Government facility, such as a military base. That is why we have impact aid. What happens is many times someone in the military will sign up in one State and maintain their residency there. They pay their State taxes to that State. They then receive orders to another State and their children may attend school in that new State. But the tax revenue does not follow them. This is what impact aid does. It equals out the amount of the impact on those schools. Unfortunately, parts of the impact aid law last authorized in the 103rd Congress are having unintended effects or are failing to keep up with changing circumstances. Some school districts may not receive the impact aid that their circumstances demand, so H.R. 3269 makes minor technical corrections in the impact aid law so that federally impacted school districts are treated fairly. H.R. 3269 was adopted by voice vote in the House on May 7, 1996. It made four changes in the impact aid law. Two were related to Federal property payments, one addressed the effects of military housing renovation, and the last clarified the intent of Congress with regard to impact aid payments to Hawaii. The Senate made additional technical changes, which I support. They include a long overdue adjustment for schools near West Point in New York; a technical change involving the effects of a heavily impacted New Jersey school pension escrow account upon its impact aid payment in a previous fiscal year; a matter affecting a small number of schools in South Dakota; a provision previously adopted by the Senate regarding impact aid within the State of Nebraska; and a delay in the equalization mandate for schools in the States of Kansas and Alaska. Mr. Speaker, in developing this legislation, we sought to include minor technical corrections in three categories: unintended consequences of the previous authorization, areas where the Department interpreted Congressional intent in an unintended way, and issues unforeseen by the 103rd Congress. It is not a comprehensive correction, particularly when one considers the many new ways the military is arranging family housing. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 3269, the Impact Aid Technical Amendments, so we can send it to the President to become law. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 3269) to amend the Impact Aid Program to provide for a hold-harmless with respect to amounts for payments relating to the Federal acquisition of real property, and for other purposes.