Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Rogers, for his outstanding work on the fiscal year 1997 Appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State and the Judiciary. This bill places a priority on helping State and local governments address the most serious problems that affect my constituents each and every day: illegal immigration, drug trade, and drug abuse. Every American should be disturbed by the fact that, after a decade of declining drug use rates among school children, the last 3 years have seen a sharp increase in drug abuse. What has caused this alarming increase? I say it's a lack of leadership. In the 1980's, under the leadership of President and Mrs. Reagan, our communities started an effort to Just Say No to drug and drug dealers. Every American youngster learned that it was cool to stay off drugs and away from drug dealers. What do we hear from this White House? It sounds like Just Say I Don't Know. Days after taking office, President Clinton worked to slash the Office of National Drug Control Policy, essentially waiving the white flag in the war on drugs. This bill, which I am proud to support, jump starts the stalled war on drugs. We are providing more than $7.1 billion for the War on Drugs, including an increase of more than $173 million for the Drug Enforcement Agency ($20 million more than the President's request) and a new $75 million initiative to restart our international drug interdiction efforts in Latin America and other overseas areas. This bill also includes critical funding for a $56 million initiative to stop drug trafficking along the Southwest border. Much of that will help restart efforts in San Diego to stop the drug smuggling that has escaped the administration's Operation Gatekeeper program. In addition to working for real solutions to our Nation's drug problem, this bill puts real teeth in our effort to protect our borders and stop illegal immigration. All told, this bill provides more than $2.8 billion for enforcement of our immigration laws. We fund the Immigration and Nationalization Service (INS) at $2.2 billion, or $30 million more than the President's request. We put 1,100 new order patrol agents across our borders (400 more than the President's request) and pay for 2,700 more prison cells (2000 more than the President's request) to ensure that illegal aliens are deported from this country, rather than released onto our streets. I would like to thank Chairman Rogers again for his leadership in drafting an outstanding bill that lives up to federal responsibilities to enforce our borders and stop illegal immigration. I specifically appreciate his help in including $500 million to reimburse states like California for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens. While helping to address the alien detention problem in southern California, Mr. Rogers has been a great help in my including a provision in the report accompanying this bill that would stop a misguided Justice Department effort to take over part of a military base in my district. This provision would direct the Attorney General to find alternatives to an arrangement that had allowed the Justice Department to detain illegal aliens in the military brig at NAS Miramar. This arrangement, for the two weeks that it was in effect last March, resulted in a riot and a fire that shut that vital national security base down and severely disrupted the Pentagon's ability to defend our country. Mr. Chairman, this is a good bill that will help restart our effort to stop violent crime, stop illegal immigration, and stop the drug problems that plague our schools. I commend Chairman Rogers for his effort and call on Members to support passage of the bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to rehash all that. I am going to say, I rise in support of the gentlewoman from New York and the words of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen]. It does not matter if the maritime academy is in California, Massachusetts, or where, they provide a valuable resource. I would also ask the Chairman when they look at scrapping these U.S. ships that they give preference to U.S. shipyards. Quite often there is a problem with older ships having asbestos, and so on, and they decline to do that. I think that would be in our best interest.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] would remain, I just have a couple of questions for him. Not being on the committee, I can tell you where Worchester is and Pintail Duck Club, and so can my father-in-law because we use it all the time, and I am aware of some of the pollution problems. I am not aware of some of the areas which the gentleman is trying to help. I support what the gentleman is trying to do. If the gentleman could make me more knowledgeable on the issues as far as what those plans are, maybe I could even be more supportive for him.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help north San Diego County meet its water needs in the event of an emergency and also encourage the Federal Government to shift its role from that of planner and builder of expensive western water projects to the more cost-effective role of being a facilitator and partner in regional efforts to solve regional problems. My legislation will authorize the Secretary of Interior to provide a Federal loan guarantee to the developer of the Olivenhain Water Storage Project, a project currently being planned by the Olivenhain Municipal Water District in my district of north San Diego County. The Olivenhain Water Storage Project is a critical part of the effort to increase the independence and economic stability of north San Diego County. Currently, the north county is almost 100 percent dependent on imported water from northern California and the Colorado River to meet its residential, industrial, and agricultural/horticultural needs. Potential drought conditions, environmental needs at the source, and demand elsewhere in the State all contribute to a rapidly rising cost of imported water, the cost of water to north San Diego County has risen 55 percent in the last 5 years. Additionally, an earthquake along any one of the three major faults underlying the pipelines that bring imported water to San Diego County could cut off water supply to the region for up to 2 months. The residents of north county must be assured that water will be available should a natural disaster occur. The Olivenhain Water Storage Project will provide emergency water supplies for over 1 million people, including those living in the cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, Solana Beach, Encinitas, and San Marcos, as well as portions of the city of San Diego. The San Diego County Water Authority supports my legislation, as they recognize that the lack of emergency water storage in San Diego County must be addressed immediately. A copy of their letter of endorsement is attached at the end of this statement. The project is fully permitted after going through more than 10 years of environmental review. Working together with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a biological resource management plan has been developed that will enhance regional habitat preservation while also providing 17 miles of nature, hiking and bicycle trails to the community. The proposed loan guarantee program reflects the changing role played by the Federal Government in developing water projects in the West. Rather than having the Federal Government contribute funds, construct the project and control its management, the loan guarantee program allows the Government to leverage its limited funds to allow for cost- effective private financing alternatives and encourages public-private partnerships in the building and operation of the project. This limited Federal participation in the financing of water infrastructure projects allows the project developers to secure private loans at rates that are competitive with municipal tax-exempt financing, while preserving the limited bonding capacity of local governments for other crucial community needs like public safety and schools. The Olivenhain Municipal Water District is considering the possibility of utilizing a public-private partnership such as I have described for the development of the Olivenhain Water Storage Project. Under this scenario, the district would competitively select a private partner to build and finance the project, which would then be leased back to the district. No Federal taxpayer funds would be involved in the financing of the project, and the local ratepayers will benefit from the cost-efficient construction and management of the project. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the costs of complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act will be nearly $200 billion in the next 15 years. Neither local governments nor the Federal Government have the unlimited resources necessary to meet these costs. However, through a loan guarantee program such as the one that will be demonstrated under this legislation, limited Federal resources can be the catalyst for the development of private capital to meet these needs. There have already been congressional hearings on legislation to create a loan guarantee program--April 18, 1996. Opposition to that legislation (H.R. 2781) centered around the potential exposure of the Federal Government to a loan default and the elimination of the existing direct lending program at the Bureau of Reclamation. This new bill addresses those concerns by: First, limiting the loan guarantee authority to the development of one project; second, requiring that project developers secure any loans guaranteed by the Government; and third, allowing the existing loan program to remain unaffected by this new proposal. The Overseas Private Investment Corporation provides tens of millions of loan guarantees for the private development of water infrastructure in foreign countries. Shouldn't we afford our own communities in the United States with the same opportunities for competitive infrastructure development? My legislation will demonstrate that loan guarantees provide a cost- effective alternative for Federal assistance in financing water infrastructure development. I urge my colleagues to support this measure. I have attached a letter of support from the San Diego County Water Authority. San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego, CA, May 20, 1996. Re support of Government loan guarantee for water storage project in San Diego County. Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Congress of the United States, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Cunningham: The San Diego County Water Authority has been working diligently to complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA for emergency storage in San Diego County. Currently four alternatives are under consideration. The Water Authority staff expects the Board of Directors to select a preferred alternative and certify the EIR in July 1996. Certification of the EIS and granting of a 404 Permit by the Corps of Engineers would occur months later. The Olivenhain Water Storage Project is a component of the Water Authority's emergency storage alternative known as System 25. The Olivenhain water storage and treatment project is needed, whether or not the Water Authority and Corps choose System 25 for the Authority's project. The Water Authority is aware that Olivenhain is pursuing legislation to obtain a government loan guarantee under the Dept. of Interior's Small Projects Act. The Water Authority staff supports the Olivenhain Water District's endeavors to obtain such guarantee and to develop a storage project in northern San Diego County; whether this project is pursued independently or in partnership with the Water Authority or others. San Diego County, including the North County, has an acute lack of emergency storage. Olivenhain, other member agencies and the Water Authority are working together to improve this situation. If you have any questions on the San Diego County Water Authority's Emergency Storage Project, please contact me or Ken Steele, the Authority's project manager. If you have any additional questions on the Olivenhain Water Storage Project, you may contact David McCollom, General Manager of the Olivenhain Municipal Water District at (619) 753-6466. Thank you very much for your interest in your projects. Sincerely, Maureen Stapleton, General Manager, San Diego County Water Authority.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chairman, many have spoken about the destruction of the welfare system. I think Republicans and Democrats alike can view this as not destruction but the rebirth of a failed system. Ninety percent of the American people believe that the current system has failed, and we need to work on it. Republicans do not have a key on the welfare system plan. We produced in the House of Representatives a bipartisan plan. It passed this House. In the Senate, Senator Dole worked and passed a bipartisan welfare plan. They did that twice, bipartisan. And both times the President vetoed it. Then the Governors of this great country all got together. They said that if Congress cannot do it, let us have the Governors, that have got the direct responsibility in their States to take care of it, produce a plan. And they did so. In a bipartisan manner, Republican and Democrat Governors worked together, produced a plan and the President would still not sign that plan. Even today, the Governors are working, again, to come up with a plan. I would say that I used to teach in Hinsdale. We had three great schools: Hinsdale, Evanston, and Newtrier. Just a few miles away there are miles and miles of Federal housing. I would say to my colleagues, those children do not carry books. They carry guns. Their ideologues and their role models are pimps and drug dealers. What chance, what opportunity, what portion or even the pursuit of happiness do those children have? next to none. The pregnancy rate, I rode on an airplane with an African-American. And he told me, he said, ``Duke, our neighborhoods used to be proud neighborhoods. We had industry next to us. The people had jobs. They took pride in those neighborhoods, whether it was Harlem, whether it was Chicago, whether it was any of our major great cities.'' The welfare system, people started not working. Then what you had was a follow-on of generation and generation, where the person did not work and did not take the responsibility. Pretty soon the businesses started moving out of those communities. So I think the biggest welfare reform is reestablishing, like Jack Kemp, one idea of the enterprise zones to bring the businesses back into the inner cities so that we can have those jobs for people to work. We can work on that together. The substitute, there is no reason why we cannot come together. I think we have a good bill. But education is another one. Let me tell my colleagues in California how welfare and education and a lot of different things have been hindered. I have almost 800,000 illegals, K through 12; 800,000. Take just 400,000, half of that. At $5,000 a child, that is $2 billion a year. Take 7 years. What we could not do with our school systems. I truly believe that education has a vital role in keeping people off of welfare. If you do not believe that, I think you are on the wrong tree. Over half of the children born in Los Angeles are to illegals. Take the School Lunch Program that you fight for. My priority is the American citizen and the American children. The School Lunch Program at half the number we actually have, take two meals, not three at $1.90, that is $1.2 million a day for illegals keeping us from welfare reform in California. We want the State to have the flexibility and we think that this reform bill is gentle to children and a rebirth.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the increased funding levels contained in the fiscal year 1997 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act for the National Institutes of Health [NIH]. This funding is critical for biomedical research and benefits all Americans, as it improves quality of life. In addition to researching treatments and cures for such disease as breast cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's disease. NIH funding is also used to advance medical devices that will save and enhance lives. San Diego County is a leader in the field of biomedical research. This region of southern California is known for its advancements in medicine, and increased funding levels are vital to move forward with research that will find cures for diseases. Jonas Salk, the pioneering health researcher, did much of his greatest work at the University of California, San Diego. His development of the first polio vaccine saved countless lives, and spared countless families the crippling disabilities, and even death associated with this disease. I commend Chairman Porter in his commitment to NIH research. I am pleased that he joins me in recognizing the important NIH's support to thousands of scientists and research institutions throughout the country.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman that just spoke about English as a common language, but it is also very, very important to have multilingual, especially in the trade and economic issues that we have. I do disagree with my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner]. He quite often states his own opinion as fact, and he is factually challenged and I would like to tell my colleagues how. First of all, the Federal Government only provides about 5 percent of the total revenue for education; 95 percent of education funding comes from State and local funds. Now, it is legitimate for those that want the Federal Government to handle more of that burden to say we can spend more money out of the Federal Government. My point comes from the waste, the fraud and the abuse that happens at the Federal level. It is better to handle it at the State level. Let me give you a couple of examples. Of that 5 percent that the Federal programs give for education, the committee identified over 760 education programs; 760 programs. Everybody wants a good program and, in fact, back in my own district I went back and everybody was coming and saying, Duke, we have all these programs and these are great programs. And you can fall into that pit. But what it does is that it spreads that 5 percent out so much that we get very little back to the classroom. In some areas, we get as little as 23 cents on the dollar and in other areas about 32 cents on the dollar. That is not good business. We have taken, for example, Goals 2000 with 45 instances in the bill that says ``States will.'' we have taken that and saved the money from that. The President's direct lending program, I wish we could totally cut it out and do it privately. Why? Because to administer the direct lending Government program cost $1 billion more to administer just capped at 10 percent. GAO did a study and said it would take $3 billion to $5 billion just to collect those dollars. We took those savings and capped the administrative fees and we increased, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner], we increased Pell grants. We increased student loans by $3 billion. We increased access to student loans by 50 percent. We did not cut. We added it. We took Federal programs which my colleagues on the other side would rather spend money on the Federal level, and we are returning that money to the States and getting a bigger bang for the dollar. The vision. If my colleagues want to work on something in education, we have less than 12 percent of our classrooms that have a single phone jack. Before Republicans and Democrats, the testimony has been that over 50 percent of the jobs in the near future are going to require high-technology skills and we do not have the tools. Mr. Chairman, one thing I disagree with in the bill, we ought to have more money for Eisenhower grants, not less. Why? Because if we are going to expect our teachers to learn how to turn on a computer and teach the children in the future, these high-technology skills to meet their efforts in the 21st century, then we have got to train our teachers to do that. It is a disagreement I have with the bill, but overall we have added dollars for education. We have taken the Federal Government out of it and turned it back to the American people, and we have given it to the people that need it: students, not the bureaucracy.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentlewoman who just spoke: Education is the future of this country. I do not think there is demagoguery. I think there is an honest debate here on policy, whether we want the Federal Government to be able to have the control to spend the dollars in education, or we want people in States to control that. I think that is a legitimate debate. That is what is before us today. I do not think there is demagoguery. I think people truly believe. I believe that those that believe that a socialistic model for the poor is better are wrong. That is what I would like to speak about tonight. Mr. Chairman, my friend who spoke in the well a minute ago said he wishes there were more dollars in the Federal education system than just 5 percent. I believe that is not demagoguery, I believe he believes that. We, however, believe that people can control their dollars more and spend it on their children than the Federal Government can. They can get a bigger bang for the dollar than the Federal Government can with its big bureaucracy. Yes, only 5 percent of education funding comes from the Federal Government. In some cases, as little as 23 cents on a dollar, 23 cents on a dollar, gets back into the classroom in many areas. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman. That is a waste. That is cutting education. And I propose that the liberal Democrats that are trying to save education have done it a great harm and have actually cut education. When we only get 23 cents on the dollar back into the classroom, that is cutting education. We are proposing to turn that around. How? First of all, that 5 percent of education funding, we have found there are 760 education programs. Think about the bureaucracies, think about the overhead that takes. We eliminated over 187 programs. We believe, yes, that medical research, the Government has a direct function in. Those savings ought to go to that. We believe that Pell grants for the poor are important and a priority. We took the savings from that and put it into the Pell grants. We increased student loans by $3 billion. Yes, even though the dollars come to the Federal Government and are returned at a low rate, those are priorities, and I think most taxpayers do not discern those dollars because they go to help the poor and the children. But we do believe that the Federal waste in the programs is not the way to go. Let me give an example. Some of my colleagues truly believe, they are not demagoging, they believe in Goals 2000. But as the chairman of the committee, let me tell the Members about Goals 2000. There are 45 instances in Goals 2000 that says States that mandate, it says States will. They say it is only voluntary. It is only voluntary if you do not want the money. Let us take one of those 45 instances. My wife is a principal. You have to take all of the requirements from Goals 2000, internalize it, have a board that literally looks and sees how to run Goals 2000. They report to the principal. The principal reports to the superintendent. Then all of that paperwork goes to Sacramento, to our State Department of Education. Think of the bureaucracy in the State that has to take the flow of all the schools in the State of California. Think of that paperwork flow and all that wasted energy. Then guess what they do? They have to send it back here to River City, in Washington, DC, to another big bureaucracy. That is wasteful, Mr. Chairman. In many cases they have to hire grant writers to apply for Goals 2000 money. The small schools in many cases never get a dime, and some that do, the cost of the grant writer, either in the little funding they get or the cost to exercise Goals 2000, is more than the grant that they get. That is cutting education, Mr. Chairman. What we do is give the money to the State and say, listen, if you want to do a George Bush Goals 2000, let the State do it. We think Goals 2000, by setting local standards, local goals with teachers and parents and children and administrators is good. But what the real policy fight is about is if the Federal Government can manage all of that, if the Federal Government can control the dollars. Where do they get those dollars? They keep saying the President's request. Does he get that money from God? No. He gets it from the same working families that he returns it to, at 23 cents on a dollar. Yet he wants more money to spend. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support of this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to extending most- favored-nation [MFN] status for China. In the past, I have been supportive of extending MFN for China. Many companies in my district do business with China, and have urged me to support continuing normalized trade relations with them. This has been a very difficult decision for me to make. But, in making my decision, I simply asked myself this question: What will best serve the interests of the American people? The answer: Protecting this country's national security will best serve Americans. China's actions have threatened our national security, and this must stop. All Americans should be concerned over China's sales of nuclear ring magnets to Pakistan, sales of cruise missiles to Iran, nuclear processing technology transfers to Iran and Pakistan, chemical weapons technology transfers to Iran, and the testing of missiles in the seas off Taiwan just before Taipei's historic election. These are not minor matters. Most of them directly violate several international arms control agreements. Terrorist countries are acquiring weapons of mass destruction through their deals with China. Nor must we ignore China's record of violations of the human rights of China's people. The Clinton administration's policy against china is not advancing human rights in China. Chinese children die in orphanages because they are not fed or given proper medical care. China's one- child policy results in forced abortions and sterilizations. Forced labor thrives. Christians are persecuted. Nor has China honored its commitments under intellectual property rights agreements, a grave concern for many employers in California. It is crucial that copyright-based industries, such as software and entertainment, are treated fairly by all participants in the global marketplace. This cannot be accomplished when China continues piracy. The Clinton administration has failed to lead with a realistic China policy. Its weakness and vacillation turns a blind eye to communist Beijing's disregard for freedom, for peace, and for fair trade. The burgeoning American trade deficit with China can and should be laid at President Clinton's feet, which have never even once touched the soil of the world's most populous country. What we can do is revoke MFN for China. I encourage my colleagues to join me in sending a strong message, and change United States policy toward China for the better, for America, and for the Chinese people.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, unlike the last speaker that voted against NAFTA and GATT, I voted for them because I believed that they had a lot of interest and that if this country does not get involved in trade in the future, I think we are going to be in big trouble. But I think that under both Republican and Democrat administrations, that the week link in our trading policy has been our State Department. I do not believe that either Republican or Democrat State Departments have had the spine to enforce the policies with our trading nations. A very famous gentleman once said that we need to walk softly and carry a big stick, but our policy in the past is to walk softly and give our trading partner the stick. In every case, whether it is an Ak- 47 or a Stinger missile or 300,000 machine guns that are silenced being sold to our inner cities, and I ask my colleagues on the other side, the things that we have fought against, assault weapons, here is a country that is dumping assault weapons and Stinger missiles into our country, into our inner cities. Habeas corpus reform and the death penalty, some do not believe in capital punishment. I do. But China has no problem with that. They just shoot people. And habeas corpus reform, there is not any. Look at every issue. How many of this Nation's problems has China helped us with in Haiti, in Somalia, in Bosnia? None. Yet we are bending over backwards to help them, and they hit us with that stick every time. All the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox] is asking for is to set forth a policy that protects our workers, protects our system, and sets a policy where U.S. workers in this country would benefit for a change. Let us speak from a strong position, not a weak position, with China. I remember with my mom and dad, I used to be afraid when the light would go off and I would do anything, clean my room even, if they would leave that light on. I was much more willing after they turned that light off to do those things. I think sometimes we maybe need to turn that light off for a little bit with China.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the gentleman from Georgia's amendment. Let me tell Members why. I am not asking to let Storm Thurmond fly, but in my experience, I can name a dozen people that are flying in air shows right now at that age that are pulling minus 5 G's and positive 9 G's every day. And we go through a rigorous examination, an annual physical. They even check for drug and alcohol, for eye, for heart, for sonograms, and that picks out what it is. If my colleagues ask me, with my experience, what flying requires, if I am going to fly with a young pilot or an experienced pilot, I am going to take the experienced pilot because in the long run that is going to be safe. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe, and I know Members have good intentions on this amendment, that age 60 should limit someone. When we talk about it is a wasted study, when we are talking about taking someone's livelihood, that is not proportionate to the safety exercised. I believe that is wrong and I oppose the amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and in opposition to MFN.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if no Member has spoken against the motion to recommit, is there time available to speak against the motion?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend this Republican Congress for passing sound, safe, commonsense legislation to ensure that America's drinking water is clean and healthy for our loved ones and future generations to enjoy. Safe drinking water is of vital importance to San Diego, where nearly all of our waters is imported from the Colorado River and northern California, crossing many fault lines. Because there is such a limited supply of water, San Diegans do not take their water for granted. San Diegans, like all Americans, want water that is safe to consume. One of my priorities in the 104th Congress is to protect the health and safety of American families. The House's passage Tuesday of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments (H.R. 3604) sends a clear message to families that Republicans are committed to improving and protecting water quality and the environment. I am proud to support this legislation. By passing this legislation, we give State and local water authorities the resources they need to keep our water safe. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California supports the bill because it will ``enable public water systems to address the highest priority water quality issues first.'' The bill contains a strong community right-to-know provision, requiring public notification within 24 hours when water safety violations occur. It focuses resources, where they will do the most good, on eliminating contaminants that pose the greatest risk to people. Moreover, the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments establishes a State revolving fund to help pubic water systems comply with drinking water standards. This legislation received broad bipartisan support. The Nation's Governors, State and county legislators, local water authorities, and several environmental groups support our safe drinking water bill. A commonsense approach has proven successful in protecting water quality, and we can reach consensus on other environmental issues through this same approach. I am proud to joining my colleagues in the proenvironment Congress in passing H.R. 3604.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I will only take about 1\1/2\ to 2 minutes. I would ask my colleagues on the other side, how many of them when they were children themselves or when they raised their own children bought these little vinyl venetian blinds. Remember looking through the windows and popping them down and looking through, and even at times our own kids would sit there and chewed on these things as they were looking out the window? Well, we all know that lead is poisonous to children, and a new study by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Window Covering Safety Council determined that when these vinyl blinds deteriorate that there is lead poisoning that affects children, and we did not expect it. It is going to take some money to replace them, and apparently almost every set of these inexpensive vinyl miniblinds in America today deteriorates into dust which contains lead. Lead dust is poisonous to young children, and Americans have installed over a hundred million sets of these particular blinds. The CPSC recommends that these blinds be removed in homes with children of age under 6. Today, as we consider this appropriation through the leadership of the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], these appropriations help make housing and home ownership affordable and available for Americans. The VA subsidizes home mortgages, and I have been through that program myself, and HUD helps low- and middle-income Americans buy homes through FHA loans and rent housing through section 8. Mr. Chairman, this Congress should urge CPSC and work together with HUD-VA mortgage and combat the potential hazard that lead and vinyl miniblinds may have to many young children. We should direct particular attention to low-income housing.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Mr. Hunter, in introducing the Postal Core Business Act of 1996. This important legislation works to prevent the U.S. Postal Service [USPS] from unfairly competing with a small business industry, known as the Commercial Mail Receiving Agency [CMRA]. The livelihoods of those who own and operate small commercial packing stores throughout the country, like Mail Boxes Etc. and Postal Annex, are in danger. Approximately 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 does not fairly compete. They do not charge State or local tax on retail items, they are insured by the Government, and they often do not pay the Federal, State, and local taxes that private companies do. 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. The legislation we introduce today will allow the USPS to continue improving their goal of timely and effective delivery of mail, but will prevent them from unfairly competing with small business. Under our bill, the USPS will not be able to expand their services beyond what they were offering as of January 1, 1994. This is a reasonable approach to protecting jobs and satisfying American consumers seeking adequate postal services. The livelihood of Americans is being threatened by the Federal Government. We must prevent small businesses from going out of business at the hand of the Federal Government. This will certainly happen unless the USPS is prevented from unfairly competing with commercial mail companies. I encourage my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my friend and colleague from California, Mr. Calvert to shift $1 million from the Forest Service General Administration Account to the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation fund. This funding is very important to further California's Natural Habitat Conservation Plans [NCCP]. This multi-species approach to habitat and species conservation is a great improvement over the traditional command and control methods. It brings all parties together to protect the environment and private property rights. Mr. Calvert's amendment will enhance the program in California to develop conservation and development plans in nine separate areas in southern California that protect multiple species while allowing economic growth. In San Diego, our Multi-Species Conservation Plan encompasses over 55,000 acres in the San Diego region. I am encouraged by these efforts to protect the habitat of native plant and animal species, and I'm glad the Federal Government can lend support to our exceptional project. Chairman Regula has been extremely supportive of our conservation plan, and I am sure it will be a model throughout the country. I commend Mr. Calvert for his amendment and urge my colleagues to join me in support.

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

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I worked with the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] on national security and a lot of different areas. I know he is not mean-spirited and I know he does not mean this amendment in that direction, but let me describe how I feel the gentleman is wrong in it, at the same time he is right. I think there needs to be a balance. This particular amendment I do not feel is a balance. Let me explain why. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I have never met, and I do not know the gentleman with this particular company that the gentleman is talking about, and I do not really care about him. I know there are a lot of jobs at stake with it, and I know in the State of California and in the State of Oregon and in the State of Washington there have been thousands of jobs lost. We look at the individuals that you are talking about and focusing on one gentleman. The things that the Democrat Party strives for, education, law enforcement, and those things, 94 percent of that is paid out of State revenues. All of those jobs, with the defense cuts in California, does the gentleman know how many jobs we have lost to the spotted owl and the gnatcatcher with the farmers, and with the Central Valley water project with the salmon and the farmers? It cost us $4 million because a kit fox lived under a bridge and we could not continue in San Diego. Those are the things we are talking about. In this particular case, Mr. Chairman, it is more than just the bird. I look at the cases in California, where we had people wanting to just doze around their house because in fire season, you know how bad it is. They could not. They were told no because it was gnatcatcher country. Do Members know how many homes we lost? We lost 12 very valuable homes to people. Those are real people, I would say to the gentleman from Washington. In New Mexico, remember when the little boy was lost for 3 days and they would not let a helicopter land because it was a wilderness area? That is wrong when we take private property and put it on a list, which we cannot pay for, and I think a more balanced way, and we have offered and I offered to help, and I think part of the new ESA is to have revenues where we can pay for these lands. But when we take a person's land, cannot pay for it, it goes on a list, and because of that it is devalued to 10 cents on the dollar, and the Government comes in and says I want to give you fair market value, that is wrong. In this case, we are talking about real people. I do not care about the forestry people, but we have farmers, we have people who are going to lose their places, just like in all these other examples. I do believe that is wrong. Over 52 percent of California is owned by the Government. What is too much? In Idaho, I think it is somewhere close to 70 percent is owned by the Federal Government and set aside. There is a point to which, yes, we need to provide for the environment. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I promised that I would yield to my friend, the gentleman from California, and then I will yield to the gentleman.