Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay tribute to Mrs. Pia Harris, a teacher at Alvin Dunn Elementary School in my congressional district, who has been named San Marcos, CA, Teacher of the Year. Excellent education gives our young people a fighting chance at the American dream. Our communities and our country benefit from the work of outstanding teachers. As a former teacher and coach, as a dad, and as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, I am thankful for Mrs. Harris' work. I ask that the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States include the following article, from the May 1, 1996, North County Times, in appreciation for the honor bestowed upon Pia Harris by the San Marcos Unified School District. [From the Northern County Times, May, 1996] Dunn Elementary Instructor Named SM Teacher of Year (By Sandra San Agustin) San Marcos.--After raising 10 children, Pia Harris decided he had enough practical experience to become a teacher. She had been a PTA member, a Brownie leader and a school aide. When she hit her 40s, she went back to school and obtained a college education and her teaching credential. On Friday, the Alvin Dunn Elementary School teacher received the ``Teacher of the Year'' award at the San Marcos Unified School District's employee recognition dinner. ``I'm very, very honored to be chosen for such a wonderful award,'' said the Swedish native. ``There are so many excellent teachers out there that also deserve it.'' Harris' husband. Pat Ebert and a handful of parents surprised the fifth-grade teacher with a small party in her classroom on Tuesday morning. Former students joined Harris' class in congratulating her for winning the award. ``It was because of each of you that I was chosen (Teacher of the Year),'' a teary-eyed Harris told the group. Parents and students alike said Harris deserved the award because she makes learning fun and sincerely cares for the children. ``If you always complete your work and forget something one day, she lets you slide by,'' said Kyle Dodson, 11. ``She always gives you a chance.'' When Kathy Rocha's 10-year old daughter, Caity, entered the fifth grade, Rocha pushed to have her placed in Harris' class. Her other daughter, Lisa, had been Harris' student a few years back. ``(Harris) loves her students with all her heart and is always hugging them,'' Rocha said. ``At this age, the children are usually standoffish, but they love her.'' Harris moved to the United States when she was 21 and settled in Southern California. A champion of higher education, she decided to become a teacher because of the influence she would have on children. ``Education doesn't stop within the classroom,'' said the 26-year San Marcos resident, ``I often encourage students and their parents to get involved in the community.'' Besides teaching, Harris is also president of the San Marcos teacher's union, a member of the San Marcos Educational Foundation, direct of the North County Transit District board, and is serving her fourth term as a San Marcos City Council member.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I commend the loyalty of the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] to the chairman of the committee she serves on, but I believe she is wrong. Mr. Chairman, let me go to a little different direction. I truly believe that both under Republican and Democrat administrations, our State Department has been the weak link of this country. While we have strong militaries, the American worker can compete against any nation in the world, but yet our trade agreements which I supported, NAFTA and GATT, they have been treated very, very poorly as far as the administration of them. Who ends up paying for that? The American worker, Mr. Chairman. If we take a look in which title XI uses $50 million, why was it created in the last couple of years? Under OPA 90 we wanted to build dual hull tankers. There is no money to build ships in the United States, because foreign nations have subsidized by billions of dollars and cut on the west coast. NASCO is the only shipbuilder left on the west coast. We only built one ship in this decade, because foreign nations, with their cutthroat economic tactics, have cut and killed the American worker. So we established it not only to help the environment, so we could build tankers, but to neutralize that system. In the meantime, while we build one ship, they build 100. I cannot tell the Members just the economy of scale. If you build 100 ships, it is much cheaper to build those ships. They say let us do away with title XI, and that will neutralize this situation. No, it will not, Mr. Chairman, because they still have the advantage of all of these orders and all of these ships they are building, which makes our ships cost much more, which we cannot sell. All we are asking is to give us a level playing field. Mr. Chairman, I think for the first time this country has a chance to walk softly and carry a big stick. Let us approach this trade agreement for a change with a benefit to the American worker, not to the benefit of foreign trading interests. The President was right on his trading policies, but we have to get tough. Do Members think the Secretary of State, under either Republican or Democratic administrations, is going to push and support this? No, they are not. Let us support the American worker, let us support the Bateman amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend Chairman Skeen and members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture for supporting full funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service [FSIS]. American rely on FSIS to assure that meat and poultry products meet Federal quality, labeling, and packaging standards. I strongly support the $574 million provided in the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture appropriations bill for FSIS, which will work to improve our 90-year- old meat and poultry inspection system. In the near future, FSIS will initiate the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point [HACCP] system, a new method of meat and poultry inspection. This new inspection system is needed to prevent harmful bacteria from ever entering the food supply, thus protecting the health of America citizens. As many are aware, an outbreak of the E.coli bacteria hit the west coast over 3 years ago. This outbreak infected 700 people and killed 4 children. Some of the victims lived in my district. Following this tragedy, families and friends of victims joined together to establish ``Safe Tables Our Priority,'' whose goal is to educate the public and legislators about the deadly E.coli bacteria. They are committed to improving the safety of the Nation's meat and poultry system. I am proud to have worked very closely with this organization over the last 3 years, and I am pleased that they join me in supporting full funding of FSIS.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as we consider the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Act, I want to take this opportunity to inform my colleagues of another Clinton administration attack on California agricultural jobs. Six thousand American avocado growers and 21,000 avocado industry workers are in danger of losing their livelihood should the USDA implement its proposed plan to modify the quarantine on Mexican Hass avocados. The quarantine was placed in 1914 to protect our avocado crops from Mexican pests and fruit flies. During a trip to Mexico City, USDA Secretary Dan Glickman spoke about lifting the current ban. He continues to tell me that he is ``absolutely committed to a sound, well-founded, science-based decision on this proposal.'' This is what I expect from the USDA. However, Secretary Glickman continues to ignore the warnings of independent scientists at the University of California Riverside and elsewhere that infestation of pests from Mexico is very likely if the quarantine is lifted. The USDA believes that Mexico can handle their serious pest problem. But, science has proven that Mexico has failed for years to destroy pests. NAFTA specifically left the quarantine intact because our Government knows that Mexican pests would devastate American avocados. The University of California Center for Exotic Pest Research released an important report based on their studies, entitled ``Risks of Exotic Pest Introductions from Importation of Fresh Mexican Hass Avocados into the United States.'' Secretary Glickman must carefully consider the results of this report before a final rule is made. Mexican pest-infested avocados have already been smuggled across our border. On January 5, 1996, the U.S. Customs Service confiscated and destroyed 3,337 pounds of Mexican Hass avocados at the Otay Mesa commercial facility in San Diego County. The driver, who had previously been arrested for the same offense, admitted to similar smuggling activities in recent months. Although U.S. Customs officials thought they were seizing a truck loaded with drugs, they definitely touched on a problem of significant concern to California's avocado growing region. It is evident that the USDA proposal will only harm our country. I encourage my colleagues to give me a call, should any of you have questions about this plan to destroy the crops and lives of American avocado growers and workers. We must stop this attack against California jobs.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is the California Duke, not the Louisiana Duke, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, can our colleagues imagine having a child with disabilities and no place to go, that the school refuses to teach that child, and they have no hope that that child will have a bite at the American dream? Well over 21 years ago, Madam Speaker, there was a program established to address this problem, IDEA. And it is said, well, why fix a program that is working good? First of all, IDEA was up for reauthorization. And today we live in a computer age. We do not use typewriters. It is time for a new approach, and like each bill that comes before us, the direction that we set forth was to try and do this in a bipartisan manner. I want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. When he was the chairman of my subcommittee, he was very fair and worked very closely with me, as he does now as ranking member. Second, I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. As chairman, he led well. He did not micromanage. He gave me the reins that I needed to be able to go forth. I would like to thank especially the California legislature and all the principals and superintendents that I had meetings and hearings with on this bill. On IDEA, I had more meetings than I have had on national security. My colleagues cannot realize the different interest groups that come into play. And to get a consensus of teachers, of schools, and parents on a bill like this has been very, very difficult and very trying. But we have done it. And I think that the reauthorization and the improvement of this act is going to help children. First priority was to help schools achieve more of their budgetary accounts toward special-education children. Many of the procedures that schools were forced to go through, along with lawsuits and the dollars going to lawyers and paperwork, were taking away from the actual dollars that we wanted to focus to kids. So we set forth and tried to resolve that problem. We wanted to allow schools to function well, and serve not only special education children, but all children better, so that those dollars were not taken away. In many cases today, we would have lengthy litigation. In California there is one case where over $1 million dollars was taken away from the school system through unwise litigation. We resolved that problem, and we got the consensus of both the parent groups and the schools. That was difficult. Madam Speaker, I do not know if our colleagues have ever taken a dirt clod and thrown it at a wasps' nest. But all the little wasps, when you do that, start dancing around, and they are going to sting. When we take a look at the challenges present in IDEA and the problems that we have gone through in bringing this bill to the floor, I think we have done a pretty good job. We found that school boards did not know what their responsibilities were, teachers did not know what their responsibilities were, and parents did not always know what the law entailed and were trying to overprescribe special-education requirements to the schools. In the end, it resulted in a lot of lawsuits to the schools. So what did we do? We said in the first due process meeting between a parent and a school that a lawyer cannot be present. Because if there is a lawyer there, the school has got to have one, and that takes dollars away from the system. So at this first due process meeting, we try and encourage mediation where two people or two groups can sit down and save the focus and save the dollars to go back into the education of children. Madam Speaker, I know there are a couple of other speakers that wanted to speak. And I know the gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella] did. I will submit the rest of this for the Record. In this bill, we replace confusion with clarity and simplicity. I think it is a great improvement. I could not have done that without the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], through his guidance. And I could not have done it without the leadership of my chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling]. We have prepared here to thank the staffs and the different people; the other Members have already done that so I will not say that again. But I will submit it for the Record. I urge all Members to support the IDEA Improvement Act. Mr. Speaker and Chairman Goodling, thank you for recognizing me in support of my bill, the IDEA Improvement Act. This legislation is based upon one principle: That children with disabilities deserve a fighting chance to grow up and achieve the American dream. And to have that fighting chance, children need an excellent education. So a year and a half ago, we set out to make the Nation's special education law better. America has had a national special education law for 21 years. By many measures, it has succeeded. Children who were regarded as helpless now receive an education. Families who were powerless to get schooling for their children now get it. And schools who lacked direction in how to provide special education now have it. But we can do better. It's taken many meetings, and a lot of time. But with the agreement of Republicans and Democrats, families and educators, we have done better for our schools and for our Nation's children. Together, we have developed the first comprehensive reform of our Nation's special education law. We have made it better for our children with disabilities. And we have improved schools' ability to run the program. Chairman Goodling has outlined this legislation in detail. Let me highlight four areas which I find particularly important. First, we believe it is important for schools and families to focus on quality education, instead of bureaucratic paperwork. So we have made several improvements in the IEP, the Individualized Education Program that is required for every child with a disability. For the first time, the IEP must focus on the educational progress of the child, not merely list pre-programmed services. Second, we believe it is important to make every special education dollar count. Every dollar that pays for attorneys or unnecessary paperwork is a dollar that cannot buy a book, pay a teacher, or educate a child. So where there is disagreement between families and schools over how to best educate a child with a disability, we strongly encourage them to work it out through mediation. Third, we believe we must restore fairness to the distribution of Federal money under IDEA. While the current formula was written for a good reason, problems have arisen. The Department of Education inspector general found that some States over identify children into special education, and get more than their fair share of Federal money. That's not right. So we gradually transition away from that unfair formula, toward one based upon population, a small poverty factor, and a hold harmless for several affected States. I agree that Congress should provide more funding for local schools to meet this mandate. And I have joined several other Members in requesting it. And fourth, is the issue of discipline. Under the law today, there is disagreement and confusion among schools and families, over how and when to discipline children with disabilities. This is particularly tough in the most difficult and violent cases. But we replace confusion with clarity and simplicity. We ensure safe classrooms and safe schools. And we maintain agreed-upon procedural safeguards for children with disabilities. We have made many other improvements in the IDEA Improvement Act, such as consolidating and focusing programs, and reforming professional development for teachers. We have simplified our schools's administration of special education. But everything we have done returns to this one principle: That children with disabilities deserve an excellent education, so they have a fighting chance at the American dream. Because in America, children with learning disabilities should discover the world of reading. Children with emotional disturbances should acquire the confidence they need through learning and achievement. Children who were once thought to be helpless should grow to become active, working, and productive citizens of our communities. In America, the best Nation on Earth, we can and do work together to make things better. I would like to thank my chairman, Bill Goodling, for his leadership, and for working closely together with me on this bill. My Youth Subcommittee's ranking member, Dale Kildee, proved his friendship again, as a friend of mine and a friend of our Nation's children. I also would like to recognize: Todd Jones, Doris Husted, and Sally Lovejoy from the committee majority staff, Frank Purcell of my personal staff, Sara Platt Davis of the committee minority staff, Steve Aleman from CRS, legislative counsels Susan Fleishmann and Mark Synnes and all the representatives of schools, teachers, and families of children with disabilities, whose time and contributions to this effort made the IDEA Improvement Act possible. Thank you. I urge all Members to support the IDEA Improvement Act.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank my friend. First of all, I have been honored, two great honors in this House, and both of those are being selected as a guest speaker for the pages going away at their class party. I call them critters, because they are critter power, and we could not do this job around here without their assistance. My favorite speaker is a guy named Will Rogers. He tells stories. I would like to give you a story I think is important. I would say to my friend from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], with whom I serve on the Education Committee, I am the world's worst baseball player. I grew up in a little town of 2,133 folks in Shelbina, MO. To tell you how bad I was in baseball, we did not even have a baseball diamond at the school. We had to go to the fairground to play. At that fairground, to show you how bad in baseball I was, I was sitting on the bench during practice, and we did not have too many people to pick from in Shelbina, MO to play, but we had to field two teams for practice. I remember walking up to the coach, taking my baseball glove. I looked at the coach and I was mad because I was not out there playing, and I threw my glove and I hit the coach right in the chest and I said, ``I quit.'' I walked all the way through the length of Shelbina, which took about 30 seconds, and walked into my house. My dad said, ``Randy, what are you doing?'' I said, ``Coach won't let me play.'' I said, ``I quit.'' That was the wrong thing to tell my dad. My dad literally picked me up by the ears and walked me back out to that baseball diamond. I did not want to see that coach at that moment, or my peers. But I remember the words of my dad, whom I lost a year and a half ago, when he said, ``Coach, my son may never play another second on this baseball team, but quitting becomes a way of life, and I don't want my son to be a quitter.'' The coach let me back on that team. I did not play very much, but I at least learned a lesson from my dad, and I hope you take a lesson from this: Never, ever, ever quit. Take back a positive response, whether you are a Democratic side critter or you are a Republican side critter. God bless you, and if any of us can ever be the wind in your sails, please give us a call.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I have many Sikhs in my district and, like I said, nothing has been said new except that the Bulls are going to win tonight and you can pay me my $10, Sonny. Mr. Chairman, the atrocities have gone on long enough. India has been anti-American. I support the amendment strongly.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I join in support of this resolution. It is true that we have had a lot of droughts, a lot of floods, especially in my State of California, where agriculture is the No. 1 commodity. But I just this weekend spoke to a group of poultry producers, and they also say a large reason for the increase in cost and shortage of grain is that we have given so much grain overseas, in some cases sold it below the price, that our people are now having to pay expensive prices here in the United States. For example, the price of chickens is going to go up 50 percent because of the cost of the grain. I would urge the producers of this resolution and the committee to take a close look before we sell grain overseas or give it away that affects our producers here in this country that we need to take a second look at it. I rise in strong support, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, in the armed services, quite often, for example, if you have a budget and you have so much fuel allocated in that fiscal year, that fiscal year's allocation that you have to burn it during that period of time and quite often we would come to the end of the year because we did not know how much we would use in Vietnam, in Somalia, in Bosnia, and if you did not use the amount you thought, then you would end up with a bunch of it toward the end of the year. so you tried to manage it and prepare for a contingency. Quite often we would have to fly up that fuel because we would not get as much next year. We knew that we needed the fuel over a long period of time for management for those contingencies also. We were forced to burn it when it really was not used in the best way. Intelligence has managed its dollars over a period of time looking to when it sees. Mr. Chairman, the intelligence community works in the antidrug program. It works in anticrime, not only here but abroad, in DEA, in CIA, in FBI. If you want to come after ATF, come to me and I will help you. But if you take a look at the broad nature of where our intelligence services go and how they help the security of this country, not only aiding our military, I looked, during the bill, the antiterrorist bill, I made a statement that my concern was that people will not support our troops in the field through intelligence. Even though the cold war is over, I believe that our need for intelligence has actually increased. If you take a look, and the reason that we were so opposed to what the President did in the arms shipment by going through Iran and getting the Iranians involved in the Middle East, if you take a look at the French and the British and the different portions in Europe to where they increased on fundamental terrorists of the Islamic groups actively engaged, there is an increased need for intelligence there, just for the security of those countries and the United States. Mr. Chairman, I remind my colleagues, in the World Trade Center bombing, that was Islamic fundamentalists that were here also illegally in this country. The need for intelligence in that has increased in this country. We look at Ruby Ridge that was just on, and we look at other areas of the country where that increase in intelligence is so important to protect American citizens. In areas of defense and areas of national security, in which these forces, they are not used, I think, to waste and squander dollars, but it is to help the American people in those areas and to help our troops when they are engaged in combat. If we take a look, for example, right now today in the Ural Mountains, my friend from Washington is aware of this, within the Ural Mountains, Russia today is building an underground first strike nuclear capability as big as the entire area inside the Beltway. That is pretty important to know for this country. I remember in San Diego, when Iraq was trying to smuggle nuclear triggers out of San Diego. It is pretty important to the American citizens to have that kind of intelligence. If we try to micromanage and cut back, yes, there are areas, I am sure there are areas in the military, to the gentlewoman from Colorado, that, yes, things have been spent too much. Mr. Chairman, but that is the problem generally with any Federal organization. That is why we want to send a lot of it to the States. We think that is a better way to manage and balance the budget and to eliminate the programs.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about the satellites. When I was at Navy Fighter Weapons School, we were able to look down and read the serial numbers on the missiles on the side of aircraft to determine what our real threat was. The Russians have recently developed the AA-10, which is superior to our AMRAAM. We need to know those kinds of things, that is taken off the satellites.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman form Georgia, [Mr. Lewis] said that the tax did not have any effect on the price of gas. It does, $550 million in California, it affects our taxpayers. Yes, the 1993 Clinton tax package, we took away the increase on Social Security for seniors of the tax. So I assume that that does not affect anything either. We decreased the luxury tax that we had that cost many, many thousands of jobs. I suppose that does not have any effect. And the gas price, a 1-cent change in gas cost airlines millions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, I would have us take a look at what the President has said that his deficit reduction package is so good. If it is so good, why did the President have to offer us four different budgets that increased the deficit by $200 billion every year for the next 7 years? When he was forced to present a budget that was scored, 90 percent of those cuts took place in the years 6 and 7, because he does not want it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment the Black Caucus for at least producing a balanced budget unlike the President's budget. But I think that Colin Powell would enlighten the Congressional Black Caucus on what the needs for national security are within this country. Our committee, Republicans and Democrats, by a vote 49 to 2, 49 to 2 Republicans and Democrats, came together and said that after the cold war these are the needs of our Nation, and it was supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Shalikashvili in a memo to the Presidents. When the Democrats' task is studied, the Bottom-Up Review of what we would need after the military drawdown to fight two conflicts at the same time, a level was stationed. A $50 billion cut according to Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and then-candidate Clinton would put us into a hollow force. The President cut defense $177 billion, and then with what was left put in nondefense spending. We spend billions of dollars in Haiti, which is military operations. There is another $2 billion just in administrative costs, as the one in Haiti. Take a look at Somalia and all the other expansions. Operation Tempo has increased 150 percent over Vietnam. The Air Force has not bought a single airplane in 3 years, gentleman. The AV-8's; we are losing them, almost a third of them, the new ones with the upgrades. We safety our pilots by over 50 percent. We pay for those safety fixes; the F-14's, the fixes because we are crashing F-14's. The COLA. The President said that he was going to have a middle-class tax cut in 1993 and increase middle-class tax, and then he cut COLA of the military, some of these kids on food stamps. We recognized an increase for the families, the COLA. We provide for national security in this country, well trained, well equipped, and allow our families in the military to have a fairly good life above at least a food stamp level. So I would challenge my colleagues in the Black Caucus to listen to what the real national security needs are of this country.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work that this Congress has done in the interest of our children and the generations to come. In my 20 years with the U.S. Navy and my few short years in Congress, I believe that being part of the Republican effort to balance the Federal budget is the most important work I've done in my life. While the President is fully engaged in the campaign to save his job, the Republican-led Congress continues the hard work to produce a sound, realistic, and responsible budget that ends the nightmare of Federal deficit spending by the year 2002. The American people have demanded an honest balanced budget from their Government. Let's take a look at who is offering them one: Predictably, President Clinton has once again sent the American people a budget that uses political tricks and sleight-of-hand economics to get to balance. According to the independent Congressional Budget Office [CBO] the only way that the President's budget will reach balance by 2002 is if he applies a contingency proposal in the last 2 years. In 2001 and 2002, long after this President will be out of office, the Clinton budget relies on $67 billion in unspecified cuts and a $16 billion tax increase in order to reach balance. Thus, the Clinton Budget fails to be honest with the American people. Our Republican budget, on the other hand, slowly and steadily reduces the Federal deficit every year for the next 6 years. It is really a budget for our children and for the future of all Americans. Under our plan, the Federal Government will actually have a surplus of over $3 billion dollars in the year 2002 and we get to balance by actually spending more on the programs that are important to all Americans. No more putting off the tough decisions, and no more sending the bill to our kids to pay. The Republican budget saves Medicare from bankruptcy, increasing spending on seniors' health care from this year's $5200 per beneficiary to over $7000 per beneficiary by 2002. We increase access to important student loan programs that help young Americans provide for their education. To help students get these loans, the Republican plan increases student loan volume from $26 billion in 1996 to a total of $37 billion in 2002. Our budget also places a priority on keeping the promise that we have made with the veterans that have defended our country over the years by rejecting the $5.1 billion in additional cuts that were recommended in the President's budget. Our budget continues our effort to eliminate wasteful and redundant Federal programs and reform runaway Federal spending on a broken welfare system so that we can target precious resources toward working for and with American families. The budget calls for the elimination of the Department of Energy and Commerce, as well as over 130 other Federal agencies or programs. This Republican budget puts cash into the checkbooks of American households. It allows families to keep more of their hard earned money through tax relief. The budget includes a $500 per child tax credit for families earning less than $100,000 a year. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support House Concurrent Resolution 178, a sound, solid, and sincere budget that takes power, money, and control away from Washington bureaucrats and special interests and returns it to the American people, where it belongs.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I stand in strong opposition to this amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, as in the past, I rise in support of the Shays amendment. First of all, foreign nations should pay more. They should do more. And yes, national security for the United States and economic benefit helps from those allies. But it also helps our allies. You are telling me that we cannot ask them to do more and share more of the burden? I disagree. Yes, we can. One thing I do disagree with, though: I absolutely do not want a new world order. I do not want the United Nations to be at the head of our troops. I want a strong military, but not a one world order. But that does not mean that foreign nations cannot pay their fair share. I look at the case of Japan. We give billions of dollars to Japan, the trade deficit we have, and then they spend $3 billion a year subsidizing their shipbuilding and ship repair industry. And we have our ships in their ports doing the same thing. And they have nearly forced our workers and our ship builders out of work here in this country. They can pay more. Other nations can pay more. I fully support the Shays amendment and ask for its passage.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this bill came out of our committee 49 to 2. That is Republicans and Democrats voting for a bill 49 to 2. But yet the far left still wants more and more defense cuts. This President has devastated national security and defense cuts, but yet he tries to stand up and say he is a strong defense President, national security. A bill that comes out 49 to 2, and this President threatens to veto it? This is Republicans and Democrats, just like the bipartisan two-time welfare bill that the President vetoed. My colleagues have gone through and described what is in this bill and why it is good. We need to provide for our men and women in service. We have decimated the 1980 buildup that we had in national security, that is leaving our forces without equipment that are upgraded. For example, the AV-8 that the Marines are flying, a simple fix increases the safety record by over 50 percent. But yet it was not funded. The F-144's that we have lost, simple fixes like flight controls, we added the money to fix those. A system called Argonne, in Vietnam we used a Shriek missile, fought against Sampson surface-to-air missiles. When the enemy turns off his radar, the missile goes stupid so we had another system called Harm, could only be carried on a certain A-6 and F-111 and a very low kill probability. Now we have a system called Argonne. It uses the latest technology called GPS. When the enemy turns on its radar like in the case of Captain O'Grady, that radar site would be gone and those pilots would be safe. But yet this President continues to cut defense. It has devastated California by over a million jobs. Between BRAC and defense cuts, he is diminishing national security hurting California.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 2066, the Healthy Meals for Children Act. This legislation would offer school food service providers greater flexibility in meeting the national dietary guidelines in school lunch and breakfast programs. We are moving this bipartisan legislation because the USDA Food and Consumer Service under the direction of Ellen Haas is out of control. In the name of advancing good nutrition for children, the USDA is burying our schools in bureaucratic paperwork and regulatory micromanagement. The USDA mandates not just that schools meet the national dietary guidelines, but that they demonstrate their compliance in two or three different ways, as required by prescriptive and needless regulation. Here is what school food service directors are saying about the USDA's June, 1995, regulation on School Meal Initiatives for Healthy Americans, and about our bill: Richard DeBurgh, Glendale, CA: ``I believe that this bill is essential to stop the ever-increasing bureaucracy associated with school lunch.'' Helen Kerrian, National City, CA: ``The final regulations published by the Department of Agriculture are very prescriptive. They mandate additional costs * * * even in districts which are meeting the dietary guidelines today.'' Sharon Briel, Glendora, CA: ``I believe this bill is necessary because USDA has been unresponsive to the concerns of the school food service industry.'' This kind of big government run amok will 10 to 17 cents of the cost of every school lunch, according to the National School Food Service Association--and for nothing. It's time for government and bureaucrats to take less, and for America's needy children to get more. I am proud that this Congress has been uncompromising in its support for excellent school lunch and breakfast programs in our schools. As part of this historic Congress, Chairman Goodling and I have approached this issue from two solid principles that all of us can agree upon. First, hungry children cannot learn. And second, because needless bureaucratic paperwork literally steals from families, from taxpayers, and from the mouths of hungry children, we need to act to cut the red tape. H.R. 2066 does just that. Schools will still offer nutritious meals that meet the dietary guidelines. They just won't have to tell USDA about it in triplicate, when simpler compliance will do. I understand that H.R. 2066 has the support of the American School Food Service Association, and from Congressman George Miller. I have enclosed letters of support from a number of school food service directors in my State. It was adopted by voice vote in the Opportunities Committee May 1. And I am proud to be a cosponsor of the chairman's excellent bill, and I urge its adoption without amendments. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, all I know is that, as a nonlawyer, that too many times our own laws prevent us from doing the right thing. I think the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] is a good amendment, and I ask to support it.

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

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

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