Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], and I am going to support it in either fashion of the bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, as long as we are not in attack mode, if we are going to stick to the issue, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I will be happy in a minute to yield to the gentleman. Let me just say a couple of words, and I will be happy to yield. As my colleagues know, both my daughters, when we talked about Megan's law a minute ago, and with the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], I agree, as my colleagues know, that they should be locked up for a long time and there is a high recidivism, and the reason I agree with the gentlewoman from New York [Ms. Slaughter] is that just because they are at a young age right now when they are attacked, they are going to be young ladies before long, and I would think that the same kind of penalty would follow on even though they grow older in age. I do not know the Constitution. I am not a lawyer. But I just think that by logic that it would be a good idea.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I would like to add to my friend that gave the history that, yes, there was the Megan problem in New Jersey, and, yes, several States have passed it, but only after the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] got together, put a bill together. It was voted on in the House, and when the Democrats were in the majority, it was kicked out of the conference. Republicans and Democrats combined in the coalition, went back to Speaker Foley. He put the bill back into the conference, and it was passed here on this House floor. But I ask that Megan's law, that the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] is putting forth, will make the Dunn-Deal a done deal, that it does strengthen the legislation passed on this House floor. Can my colleagues imagine Larry Quay, the individual that, in public outrage, most all Americans fought because he was going to be released after he said he was going to do it again? Would my colleagues want that individual to move in next door to their family without knowing about it, that perhaps a sexual predator's life should be just a little more toxic than someone else in the American citizenry, that an individual that preys on children, that maybe their rights should be secondary to children's and families'? So I would like to thank the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Zimmer] for making this a done deal. Both Senator Dole and the President support this legislation.

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 H.R. 3269, the Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act of 1996.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from California, who just spoke, was not on the big spenders list every year, then those folks would have more money in their pocket instead of increasing the deficit so much. Mr. Speaker, they said, Do we want to repeal the gas tax? Yes. Do we want to repeal the Social Security tax that the 1993 Clinton tax package put on our senior citizens? The President promised a middle- class tax cut. Instead, he increased the marginal rate on the taxes for the middle class. The Democrats want to protect the power, the power to tax you, to bring money to Washington, DC, to support a big bureaucracy, and then turn that money back around and give it to you for education, as low as 23 cents on a dollar, so they can fund their big Federal bureaucracy. if they want to help education, look at Haiti, look at Somalia, look at Bosnia: Billions of dollars for the President to send our troops. And guess what? Aristide is still there, Aideed is still there, and in Bosnia it is going to cost $10 billion. If they want to help education, cut out the foreign expansion. Support elimination of the gas tax.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Speaker, for years we have been touting American workers, and I would say to my friend from Ohio [Mr. Traficant], who fights for American products and ``Made in America,'' these are American cars. For 100 years Americans have been making these products. My colleagues on the other side say they are big strong supporters of the unions. It is mostly union members that make these cars and they have for 100 years. I think we need to show that we are proud of our products. Only a few short years ago there were other products that came into this country that cut them out. For 100 years our workers have been the finest in the world, and I think we need to honor them. I laud the gentleman for his initiative.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass 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.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to support H.R. 3269, the Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act of 1996. The Federal Government has a responsibility to the children attending schools that lose tax revenue associated with a government facility, such as a military base. That is why we have impact aid--to make sure those schools have the resources they need to educate children. Unfortunately, parts of the impact aid law, last authorized in 1994, 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 makes four changes in the impact aid law. Two are related to Federal property payments. One addresses the effects of military housing renovation. And the last clarifies the intent of Congress with regard to impact aid payments to Hawaii. grandfathering consolidated districts for section 8002 payments The first change restores a grandfather clause for consolidated school districts impacted by Federal property. A consolidated district is where one district may have met the criteria for section 2 payments, having 10 or more percent of its property owned by the Federal Government, but whose section 2 payment eligibility disappeared when it was consolidated with another district. Prior law allowed these consolidated districts to receive section 2 impact aid payments. And during the conference on the last impact aid authorization, Congress assumed that the Department of Education would continue the eligibility of these consolidated districts. However, the Department has since ruled that they are no longer eligible. This change, grandfathering these schools and restoring their eligibility for the new section 8002 payments, affects approximately 75 districts, many in South Dakota, Kansas, California, and Indiana Hold Harmless for section 8002 payments in fiscal years 1995 and 1996 The second change establishes a hold harmless for current section 8002 recipients, similar to the hold harmless for school payments for federally connected children. The 103d Congress changed the mechanism for determining payments for section 8002. That change directed payments based upon an assessment of the highest and best use of property currently adjoining Federal property, rather than the highest and best use at the time such property was acquired. This change shifts the allocation of certain impact aid dollars. The hold harmless provisions would provide section 8002 district 85 percent of the amount they received in fiscal year 1994 in fiscal year 1995, and 85 percent of what they received in fiscal year 1995 in fiscal year 1996. Because of delays in distributing fiscal year 1995 funds, this hold harmless would still work for fiscal year 1995. effects of Mass Renovation of Military Housing The third change addresses a matter related to the refurbishment of military housing. The Department of Defense has started a major renovation of housing across the country. In most cases, families must move off-base during renovation. The Department of Education, as a result, no longer considers children in such families as so-called A kids--those whose families live and work on base. In some areas, this has caused a major reduction in impact aid for a school district, with no corresponding reduction in the number of children they must educate. According to the Pentagon, the average period of time children are off base is 90 to 120 days. But if they are off when impact aid counts are taken, the school district loses funds. The Department of Defense indicates these mass renovations will go on for years. Allowing these students to continue to be classified as A students should not have an adverse impact on other schools, since it would neither increase nor decrease the amount a district is currently receiving. clarifying congressional intent regarding hawaii The fourth and last change addresses the Department of Education's calculation of impact aid payments for the State of Hawaii. Hawaii is the only State in the Nation with only one Local Education Agency, or LEA. However, for the purpose of administering Federal grants, the Department of Education has routinely recognized the seven administrative districts within Hawaii's LEA as individual school districts. This has been the case with impact aid for many years. With over 30,000 federally connected children in Hawaii, certain areas of the State are among the most impacted in America. When the 103d Congress modified the impact aid law, it did not intend to change the treatment of Hawaii for the purpose of determining impact aid payments. It fully intended the Department to Treat Hawaii as having seven school districts. However, it was not clearly spelled out in the law, and the Department has decided to treat Hawaii as one LEA. This has cut Hawaii's impact aid payment nearly in half. Chairman Goodling and Congresswoman Mink wrote the Department to state that such a cut was not the intent of Congress. The Department responded that Congress had to change the law. This amendment does so, and it has Congresswoman Mink's support. In fact, she is 1 of 3 original cosponsors of this bill. That summarizes H.R. 3269, the Impact Aid Technical Amendments Act of 1996. 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 103d Congress. It is not a comprehensive correction, particularly when one considers the many new ways the military is arranging family housing. Furthermore, we have avoided mentioning specific districts in these impact aid technical amendments, so we can maintain fairness, integrity and trust in the impact aid program. H.R. 3269 was introduced April 18, reported by the Youth Subcommittee on April 24 by voice vote, and by the full Opportunities Committee on May 1 by voice vote. I would like to include for the Record letters of support from the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, and the National Military Impacted Schools Association. I encourage the bill's adoption, without amendments. And I yield back the balance of my time. I include for the Record the following: National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, Washington, DC, April 30, 1996. Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Chairman, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Economic and Education Opportunities Committee, E227 Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Cunningham: On behalf of the 1,600 school districts represented by the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools, I write to thank you for your leadership in bringing H.R. 3269 to the Committee and wish to communicate are total support for this very important piece of legislation. As you know, H.R. 3269 only corrects certain provisions of the law that were inadvertently overlooked during consideration of the ``Improving America's Schools Act of 1994''. These are provisions that are extremely important to those schools receiving funds under section 8002 (federal properties), as it applies to their FY '95 funding as well as FY '96. The bill also insures that the Department of Education in making payments to the State of Hawaii, will do so in the same manner as they did under the previous statute. Again, this provision was mistakenly left out of the 1994 reauthorization. None of the above represents any kind of policy change, rather it simply conforms the present law with the previous statute as it applies to section 8002 and the State of Hawaii. I also commend you for your foresight in seeing the current problems that are facing many of our heavily impacted military dependent school districts. Because the Department of Defense is now undertaking a national on-base housing renovation project, many of our school districts face uncertainty when it comes to impact aid funding because of the differences in how the law treats children residing with parents living off-base. Section 3 of H.R. 3269 addresses this problem so that these schools will be allowed to develop school budgets knowing what their on-base student counts will be. Your approach is fair and it is reasonable. Again Mr. Chairman, NAFIS appreciates your leadership and would only hope that H.R. 3269 can be dispensed with quickly in order that FY '95/FY '96 funding for section 8002 districts and the State of Hawaii, can be allocated by the Department of Education without any additional delay. Sincerely, John B. Forkenbrock, Executive Director.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman], who has been a leader.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I truly believe that liberals want to help in Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, just like conservatives do. Let us take the case where you tell one of your liberal constituents that you are going to have him give his money to a broker. That broker is going to take care of Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment. But then tell him he is only going to get 50 cents of every dollar he gets back and the other 50 cents is going to go pay for his staff and his overhead. That guy will tell you that he does not support that kind of an issue. That is what happens in this place. First place, it is not your dollar. You have to take it away from the constituent. Then you turn it around and give it back at a very low rate, for example, welfare. You only get about 30 cents on a dollar. Education, you get a very low percentage back on the dollar with 760 education programs. Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is we are giving the money back, but we are doing it without raising a single tax, and we are cutting 200 programs and streamlining government. Mr. Speaker, this is a monumental bill. It is $43 billion less than we would have had under Democratic control.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support, as the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Mrs. Lincoln], and I know the gentlewoman is set with twins and that she would be participating in the Sportsmen Caucus, Republican versus Democrat, shootoff on May 6, but I do not think her doctor would let her do that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But she would be there, I understand, and I speak as one of the new cochairmen for the Sportsmen Caucus along with the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner], and the Sportsmen Caucus is founded to support the rights of fishermen and families that are interested not only in conservation, in the environment as far as fishing and hunting and a national treasure that we have enjoyed over a lifetime. This is a pro-environment bill, although there will be some that say it is not, and I think what we need in this body is more of a middle- of-the road kind of direction instead of those that want to pave over the world, like those groups like Earth First, Earth Island, in which the Unabomber's manifesto was drafted and the extremist groups and special-interest groups on both sides, and I think that this bill tries to come somewhat in the middle. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues that there is a very good Jewish proverb that was born out of the movie called ``Jazz Singer,'' and I am old enough, like the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman, to remember a guy named Al Jolson, and later Neil Diamond played in a movie, and it is about a father who has lost his son, not to a death but because of an argument, and the Jewish proverb goes like this: The father says, ``Son come home. We have argued too long.'' And the son replies, ``Father, I cannot. There has been too much between us.'' And the father's reply to his son is, ``Son, come as far as you can, and I will come the rest of the way.'' I think this bill comes the rest of the way and meets somewhere in the middle, and we would ask our colleagues from both sides of the aisle to make that distance in between because that is the intent. We are trying to protect a long history of the ability of people to use recreational areas, to hunt to fish, to look at birds, to preserve the environment and conserve. And if you take a look at those groups like Sportsmen Caucus, those are the groups that have provided, for example, the duck and the wetlands up in Canada. The species would be almost totally eliminated if they had not purchased the land that will allow the nesting of our migratory birds. And all of those efforts have come about from the Sportsmen Caucus-type groups and have actually enhanced our environment. The environmental groups opposing this will claim that unlimited hunting and fishing will occur on all refuges. This is not true. This is not the case. The bill provides the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the option to disallow hunting on refuges if it is decided that these activities pose a treat to public safety or conservation purposes of the refuge. What it does do: It eliminates an individual with a certain agenda at the head of each of these refuges from making an arbitrary decision to just cut off recreational use, and we think that this is wrong. I believe that that is median policy and, I think, can be supported, and I think will be supported, just like the gentlewoman from Arkansas and my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Tanner]. It establishes conservation plans for each of the 504 refuges within 15 years. Mr. Chairman, the bill is the first significant refuge reform bill considered by Congress since 1966. I would ask my colleagues to support it. I look back when I grew up. I lost my dad about a year and a half ago, but I can still remember as a youngster going to Swan Lake in Missouri and hunting with my dad and fishing. I can remember just recently going over with my dad to the Imperial Valley at Wooster and doing the same thing, and I got some duck mud between the toes of both of my daughters, and I would like to be able to continue that because I think that communication between father and son and father and daughter and grandfather, which also takes some hunting, is very important to the tradition of this country. I thank the chairman for sponsoring the bill and supporting it, and I ask an ``aye'' vote on it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I introduce the renewal of America's special education law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] Improvement Act of 1996. This measure is the product of 16 months of work, building consensus to improve this law that has transformed the lives of children with disabilities. For 20 years, children with disabilities have been assured a free, appropriate public education. But as one of my Democrat colleagues said in one of our IDEA hearings, we no longer question whether children should be educated, but how well their education is being done. We see and know that education transforms individuals who were once thought to be helpless into productive, working, taxpaying citizens. This legislation, which I will summarize, is based upon certain foundational principles. First, we need to improve IDEA because children with disabilities can and should have a fighting chance to achieve the American dream. We need to make the system work better for children and their families, for teachers and schools, and for the taxpaying citizens who work hard to pay the bill. We want quality education for children, not just a process. Second, where we recognize that resources are tight, we direct more money to schools to provide services to children. We also reduce paperwork and other administrative burdens, freeing more resources to educate young people. Third, where we find unnecessary and costly conflict and discord, this legislation renews a focus on education and cooperation. And fourth, where we have identified confusion in the process of educating children with special needs, we have sought to provide certainty and understanding, based upon consensus and common sense. The area of this law that has probably drawn the most attention is the area of discipline. The IDEA Improvement Act of 1996 contains clear procedures for removing dangerous students from the classroom, with instructions to determine whether the behavior is a manifestation of a student's disability. If a child's wrongdoing has nothing to do with his or her disability, schools should have authority to discipline in a manner consistent with the way they discipline other children. Schools need authority to maintain safe classrooms, and children with disabilities need protections against arbitrary discipline. Let me say a few words about the process which has brought us to this point, and where we go from here. For 16 months, through three staff drafts, numerous hearings and public and private meetings, we have sought to find agreement in the many difficult issues affecting renewal of our Nation's special education law. This bill represents much of that consensus, but not all of it, and certainly not the end of it. And while I believe this is an excellent bill, no individual or organization will wholeheartedly support it all. That is the nature of this process. But the process thus far has given me, and should give all Americans, hope for a successful conclusion. For the past several weeks, my friend from Michigan, Representative Dale Kildee and I have been negotiating on many issues in this bill. We have come to many agreements which are reflected in this legislation. There are some issues reminding. Between today and the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families markup, scheduled for Wednesday, April 24, Members and committee and personal staffs from both parties will continue seeking to resolve issues. Some may be completed in time to be included in a chairman's mark. Others will be held for possible bipartisan amendments, in subcommittee or full committee. In the interest of citizens and Members who wish to review this bill, its text will be available most quickly on the House Opportunities Committee World Wide Web site, which is ``http://www.house.gov/eeo/'', and soon through the Thomas service of the Library of Congress. I welcome comments and cosponsors, encourage citizens to understand that this is a work in progress, and urge Members to support the bill. Following is a summary of how the IDEA Improvement Act of 1996 addresses key issues of interest: Overview of The IDEA Improvement Act of 1996 As Introduced April 18, 1996 The following are the major improvements to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in the IDEA Improvement Act of 1996: 1. Funding Formula (Sec. 611). The bill makes a ten-year transition from a ``head-count formula based on the number of children with disabilities counted in the State, to a population-based formula with a factor for child poverty. The new formula would be based 85% on number of children in the State and 15% on State poverty statistics. Transition years would use a declining fraction (90% in FY 1997 to 0% in FY 2006) under the current formula and an increasing fraction (10% in FY 1997 to 100% in FY 2006) under the new formula. 2. Least Restrictive Environment and State Funding Formulae (Sec. 612(a)(4)). The bill requires States to use ``placement neutral'' funding formulae for distributing funds within the State. 3. Discipline/``Stay-Put'' (Sec. 615). Under current law, a school cannot suspend or expel a disabled student for more than 10 days except where the student has brought a gun to school. With guns, the school may remove a student from school for 10 days, and then may place the student in an ``interim alternative placement'' for up to 45 additional days. During that period, the student's Individual Education Program (IEP) team must agree on a new placement. If the parents and school disagree, the student will remain in their interim alternative placement for the pendency of any due process proceedings. This bill addresses the classroom safety issue, but maintains protections against arbitrary placement changes. The student's IEP will include behavior management techniques to help avoid disruptive, dangerous, and inappropriate behavior. The bill adds the following categories to the ``firearms'' category in current law, permitting removal from the classroom to an alternative educational placement for up to 45 days: Bringing weapons to school; Bringing illegal drugs to school or illegally distributing legal drugs; Engaging in an assault and battery (striking another person with the intention of bringing about harmful or offensive contact which is not legally consented by the person); or By proof of substantial evidence, representing a danger to oneself or others. These terms and, in the case of the first three categories, which school official would have the discretion to remove the student would be defined through State law or policy. The bill requires a review by the IEP team of whether the child's action was a manifestation of the disability. The team will consider the implementation of behavior management strategies in the child's IEP, the appropriateness of the placement, and other information presented by the parents. Where an action is not disability related, any school discipline policy applied to nondisabled students may be equally applied to the disabled student. 4. Mediation (Sec. 615(d)). Three-fourths of the states have established mediation systems on their own accord and have been successful in reducing the number of formal disputes. The bill requires states to offer voluntary mediation to parents prior to any administrative or judicial dispute. Attorneys would not be permitted to participate for either side in mediation, and attorney's fees would not be available for mediation proceedings. 5. Categorization/Eligibility (Sec. 602(3)(B)). The bill permits States to extend use of the ``developmental delay'' definition for children aged 3 to 5 (current law) up to age 9, but otherwise maintains the current categories. 6. Discretionary Programs (Part D). The bill reorganizes and consolidates the existing discretionary programs (currently Parts D-G), and I). Subpart I grants broad authority for national projects to the Secretary of Education. Subpart 2 permits State grants for reform and improvement of their special education and early intervention systems, with an emphasis on in-service and preservice professional development for general educators and special educators. Subpart 3 maintains the current Parent Training Center program. 7. Reduction of State Education Agency Funds Reservation (Sec. 611(c)). Current law only requires that at least 75% of IDEA funds flow through to local schools. The bill would require states to pass at least 90% through to LEAs, with the remainder reserved for administrative and statewide activities, unless the State seeks a waiver permitting retention of an additional 15%. 8. Restructuring of Parental Notice Requirements (Sec. 615(c-d)). IDEA currently promotes the use of consolidated notices that notify parents of a host of procedural and other rights under the act. The prior written notice and the notification of procedural safeguards requirements in current law have been separated for the purpose of clarity. The prior written notice will only address actions proposed or refused by the local education agency (LEA). The new procedural safeguards notice provision details the frequency and content of the notice to be given to parents. 9. Attorney's Fees (Part B). The bill maintains the current law on attorney's fees by permitting them for parents who prevail against the school. Parents are required to have notified the school district of their concerns at some point prior to filing to obtain attorney's fees. In cases where there are multiple issues in dispute, the judge will be permitted to award fees only on the issues upon which the parents prevailed. 10. Policy Letters (Sec. 605(c)). Currently, many U.S. Dept. of Education ``policy letters'' are treated as having regulatory authority without being submitted to public comment or without having underlying regulatory authority. The bill limits the applicability of such letters to the parties to whom they have been addressed. 11. Parent's Right of Refusal for Initial Evaluation and Consent for Evaluation Not Construed as Consent for Services (Sec. 614(a)(1)(C)). The bill clarifies that the parents of a child who has been referred for an initial evaluation have the right to refuse that evaluation placing the onus of making an administrative appeal on the school district where it believes that a child needs special education services. This provision would also clarify that parental consent for a child's evaluation shall not be construed as consent for delivery of special education services based on that evaluation. 12. Commingling of Funds (current Sec. 613(a)(9)(A)). The bill maintains the requirement that funds must be expended for the benefit of special education students, but removes the prohibition on commingling of funds. This provision will only permit commingling of Federal and state special education funds. This change will not permit consolidation of Federal special education funds with other Federal funds or with other non-special education funds. 13. Personnel Standards and Personnel Development. The bill maintains the current requirement that States establish and enforce personnel standards (Sec. 612(a)(15)). In the bill's newly configured discretionary programs, the State Improvement Grant program will dedicate 75% of appropriated funds to personnel development (Sec. 674). 14. Narrow Exceptions for Maintenance of Local Education Agency (LEA) Effort (Sec. 613(a)(2)(B)). The bill permits school districts to reduce special education expenditures in the following limited circumstances: replacement of higher cost staff with lower cost staff, such as with retirement; departure of particular high-cost students from the LEA; decreases in special education enrollment; and one-time expenditures of funds by the LEA. 15. Payment for Placement of Students in Private Schools without the Consent of or Referral by the Public Agency (Sec. 612(a)(9)(C)). This change would prevent tax-payer financed private school education where the public schools have never been given the opportunity to determine if the child can be served in public schools. This section would require parents to give 10-day written notice to receive reimbursement private, special education school tuition without LEA consent. The bill would establish that local schools must be permitted to conduct an initial evaluation of a student prior to publicly-funded private school placement. Exceptions would include: (1) where parents are illiterate or cannot write English; (2) where providing notice would result in delay that would likely result in physical or serious emotional harm to the child; (3) where the school prevents the parent from providing notice; and (4) where parents did not receive notice of this requirement. 16. Disclosure of Evaluations and Recommendations (Sec. 615(f)). This provision would require schools and parents to disclose to the other party any evaluations and recommendations based on those evaluations 15 days prior to any due process proceeding. This change will ensure that both parties are given the opportunity to review evaluations of a child's special education needs that the other party intends to use in a due process hearing. 17. Modification of Requirements to Achieve Innovative Delivery of Services (Sec. 613(g)). This provision will apply to 10 LEAs or groups of LEAs selected by the Secretary of Education who have demonstrated excellence in providing services to students with disabilities and who have obtained the cooperation of parents of students with disabilities in the area. Selected LEAs will be permitted to modify existing Part B requirements for improving services to disabled students and for improving the operation of the local special education system. Analytic instruments will be developed to quantitatively determine the effectiveness of the modification, and determine the ability for replication of successful changes. 18. State Application for Part C (formerly Part H) (current Sec. 678). The bill essentially maintains the current Part H program as Part C. The bill will enable Part C funding applicants to reduce application process paperwork by eliminating the requirement that all State policies and assurances pertaining to Part C be filed with every application to the U.S. Department of Education. This language corresponds to the language in Part B.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, all 14 members of the National Security Committee's Special Oversight Panel on the Merchant Marine circulated a ``Dear Colleague'' letter expressing our strongest support for America's cabotage laws, including the Jones Act, and our continuing opposition to changes in these laws. Effective at the beginning of this Congress, the National Security Committee became the committee of primary jurisdiction over cabotage matters such as the Jones Act. In addition, a majority of the members of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee also signed the ``Dear Colleague.'' In the letter, we noted the national security, economic, environmental and safety benefits of the cabotage laws. I have a particular interest in the national security importance of the U.S. fleet. Recently, 61 retired Navy admirals, including five former Chiefs of Naval Operations, penned an open letter to Congress calling the commercial maritime infrastructure of the United States--the domestic vessel operators, shipyards, seafarers and others operating under the cabotage laws--the true source of our maritime power. This is an extraordinary endorsement from the people who know best. This ``Dear Colleague'' sends an unmistakable message to those who have spent the last year attempting to tear down the Jones Act and allow foreign ships into our domestic commerce. The Merchant Marine Panel's commitment to America's cabotage laws is unanimous. Although those 14 members--Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives--disagree on many issues, there is an absolute agreements on the importance of cabotage. We will continue to oppose any changes to these important laws. A copy of the ``Dear Colleague'' letter is attached. Signers of the letter include Representative Herb Bateman, chairman of the Merchant Marine Panel; Representative Gene Taylor, ranking member of the panel; Representative Duncan Hunter, chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Readiness; Representative Ron Dellums, ranking member of the full National Security Committee; Representative Bob Clement, ranking member of the Coast Guard Subcommittee; Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham; Representative William J. Jefferson; Representative Curt Weldon; Representative Jim Longley; Representative Bob Borski; Representative Joe Scarborough; Representative Neil Abercrombie; Representative Tillie K. Fowler; Representative Jim Saxton; Representative Patrick Kennedy; Representative Owen Pickett; Representative Don Young; Representative Jane Harman; and Representative Susan Molinari. Cabotage Laws Provide Important National Benefits Dear Colleague: Congress has always supported the principle that vessels used to transport cargo and passengers between U.S. ports should be built in the United States, crewed by American citizens, and owned by American companies. The body of law affirming this principle is known as ``cabotage'' and is sometimes generically referred to as the Jones Act. (Other countries throughout the world, including major industrialized nations and key U.S. trading partners, have similar cabotage laws.) These laws provide critical national security, environmental, safety and economic benefits and deserve our support. The national security benefit of the domestic fleet is substantial. In times of international crisis, the U.S. domestic fleet keeps goods flowing reliably and securely between U.S. ports, supporting military action overseas. In times of peace the cabotage laws help assure a vibrant, competitive marine infrastructure so critical to our nation's security. A recent letter to Congress from 61 retired Navy admirals, including five former Chiefs of Naval Operations, stressed the importance of the domestic fleet: American maritime power is the sum of our national maritime infrastructure . . . Carrier battle groups and modern containerships are at the forefront, militarily and economically. However, it is the shipyards and their skilled artisans, the pool of experienced and trained seafarers, marine suppliers large and small, vessel insurers and financiers, and the federal, state and private maritime training establishments that constitute the true source of our total power. Of particular significance, the U.S. fleet provides vessels and crews to meet U.S. security needs without requiring the Defense Department--and hence the taxpayer--to bear the substantial costs of building, manning, and maintaining a government fleet and logistics capacity already provided by the private sector. Repeal of the cabotage laws would result in a takeover of our domestic waterborne transportation system by foreign companies. Those foreign companies could enjoy a significant competitive advantage by: 1) operating subsidized vessels (U.S. domestic fleet vessels are not subsidized); and 2) operating exempt from the American tax system, labor laws, safety statutes, environmental requirements and a host of other laws. Our maritime industry--as well as railroads, truckers, and others engaged in the competitive American transportation business--should not be asked to compete here under a system that institutionalizes a capital and operating cost advantage to foreign operators. The American government must not discriminate against American business in this fashion. The cabotage laws promote the highest standards of marine safety and environmental protection in U.S. ports and waterways. These laws ensure that vessels moving between U.S. ports comply with the full range of applicable environmental and safety laws, all of which are among the world's highest. The U.S. Coast Guard's ongoing ``Port State Control'' initiative, which aims to crack down on substandard foreign- flag vessels calling at U.S. ports, underscores the important contribution made by the cabotage laws in preserving the health of our resources-rich waters and coastlines. Finally, because of our cabotage laws, the economic benefit of the U.S. domestic fleet is substantial. Our fleet pumps some $15 billion into the nation's economy annually, including $4 billion in direct wages to the 124,000 American workers employed in the operation, construction, and repair of Jones Act vessels. Jones Act wages alone generate $1.4 billion in Federal and state tax revenues. Because the domestic fleet receives no operating or construction subsidies from the U.S. government, these benefits accrue to the nation at no expense to the federal government or to the U.S. taxpayer. American cabotage laws greatly benefit the U.S. national security, economy, and natural environment and deserve our committed and continuing support.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I heard the excuse that, well, we have not had hearings. I do not think you have to have a hearing, to go in your district, to have people feel that they are taxed too high. You can go into any district across this country and people will say that they are taxed too high. But the Democrats will give you every excuse in the world why we should limit Democrats from increasing taxes. Why? Because everything that we have been fighting for on these budget debates is about the ability of the Federal Government to spend money, to spend money to their constituents so they can get reelected, so they got the power to start with, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid, education, the environment, welfare. It is about the flow of dollars that are going out of the Federal Government. It is like they are talking about free money. Mr. Speaker, it is not free money. They have to take it from their constituents in the first place, send it to Washington, DC, feed a big bureaucracy, and get very little of the money back to the areas which they are trying to help: for example, welfare, where you only get about 30 cents on a buck back; education, 760 programs in education, where you only fund about 6 percent of the total education revenue; 760 programs, where you only get 23 cents on every dollar back into the classroom, because of the spending. Mr. Speaker, they say, ``Well, we all want a balanced budget.'' I submit that that is not true, Mr. Speaker. The President submitted four budgets that increased the deficit $200 billion a year. When he was finally forced and cornered into producing a balanced budget scored by CBO in 7 years, what did he do? He put off 90 percent of the discretionary cuts until years 6 to 7, when he would not even be here, if he is elected to a second term, and then increase taxes during that time and increase spending. Mr. Speaker, a balanced budget amendment takes the power away from the Democrats. That is what they are fighting.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of Health Coverage Availability and Affordability Act, H.R. 3103, particularly the provisions which will provide small employers with the ability to reduce health insurance costs through the formation of multiple employer arrangements [MEWAs]. H.R. 3103 will bring affordable health care to millions of Americans who currently are uninsured, and will also provide greater assurance that those who already have health coverage will not lose it when they change jobs. Without the small employer pooling provisions, any incremental health reform measure only addresses the problem of security for those who currently have health insurance. However, by providing small business with the same tools that are already available to large corporations in obtaining health coverage, we can also help the problem of the uninsured. Eighty-five percent of the forty million uninsured are persons in families with at least one employed worker, and the majority of these workers are employed in small businesses. As small business becomes a larger portion of the economy, more and more people will find themselves employed by smaller companies. Thus, if we are ever going to make health coverage affordable for the uninsured, it is imperative that we provide small business with the same opportunities that already are available to large corporations for keeping health costs down. Small employer pooling arrangements must operate uniformly across state lines, just like large employer arrangements do currently. We must provide a market-oriented, 21st century solution to the problem of the uninsured. I urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 3103 to increase health care security and affordability for American workers.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from California, this is a system that is working backwards. We spend millions and millions of dollars in border patrol and INS and signs at the border saying ``Do not come across.'' It is illegal to cross into this country illegally. It is illegal. But yet once they get here, we say once you have run that gauntlet, we are going to give you all kinds of services. That is an oxymoron in itself. The American public is saying that we want a priority, we want a priority on American citizens for limited dollars, and our deficits are going up. We want priority on those that are legally immigrating into this country, that those services are being taken away from. We want priority for our chronologically gifted people, because they are taken away from Medicaid dollars and they are taken away from welfare dollars we are trying to get down to help those people. It is working backward, and we are saying that has got to come to a stop. Illegals, if we can identify who they are, then we ought to give them a ticket out of here, out of this country. We ought to stop them at the border. If they are illegal in this country, I do not care if they are from China or Ireland, my national heritage, or whatever country, they ought to go back. The only thing they deserve is a ticket out of here.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have worked very closely with the gentleman from California, and I know that he does not support criminal activities and those kinds of things, and what I would say is that we are not having an attempt for police departments to take over the job of INS and Border Patrol. But I think, just like in the military, where the Air Force, and the Navy, and the Army, and the Marine Corps not working together, there is a detriment to what their goals are, and that is national security. The more that we can encourage the interoperability of INS, of DEA, of our police departments, and all our forces that are dedicated to securing our borders to making sure that crime is not illicit and running rampant in the streets, to stop the muling of drugs, we need to work together. Let me give my colleagues a couple of classic examples. Down in San Diego I had an apartment house down in South Bay, San Diego, not even my district, but I go along on the San Diego police department drug ride-alongs. About 90 percent of the apartment was illegals, and INS would go in there and bust some of them, and they would get word, they would move out, they would not be there, and we knew that they were illegals. But yet San Diego P.D. could not go in there and bust those people. We went into the place, and I mean it was so bad, the conditions, that it was unbelievable; I mean the filth, the debris, and I could see needles where druggers were using it. We would see a mattress where prostitutes were using it, and in the corner was a teddy bear, and yet we could not go in. There were violations, and it seemed like there were more rules to keep us from resolving the problem. Mr. Chairman, that is the problem we are talking about, and we see potential problems. We are fighting in California a monumental problem with illegal immigration, and we are trying to stop that. We look at the drugs coming across the flow, and on those drug ride-alongs, 99 percent have involved illegal aliens. American citizens that are dealing in drugs know that if an illegal is caught, then there is not as much penalty that is going to go to them versus if they are an American citizen. So they use, I mean they use these people to sell the drugs, and they get busted, and it is a disaster in what is happening. In shipping, we have ships coming in, and the preferred method of getting drugs now into the United States is with cargo because we cannot check all those containers. And we have police department, we have INS, we have Border Patrol with their dogs, all going through the containers from shipping. Now, this is not just our southern border, but coming in from all different countries, and they are working hand in hand to combat the problems that we have. My wife is a principal in Encinitas, and we have many of the illegals living in the canyons, and yet the police department cannot go in there and bust or arrest these individuals. They are coming up at night, they are defecating on the lawn, they are using the water systems because they do not have showers down in the canyons, and the teachers are literally afraid to go into the classrooms at night and work with people in the school system. If we cannot put and tie and make it legal to where all law enforcement agencies work together in an interoperability and not violate the rights of different people, I think that we can move in the same direction. I wish I could get, as my colleagues know, the support of my friend from California because I know he is genuine in his interests. But we feel that every time we bring something like this up, that there is always a reason not to do it, and proposition 187, people from the gentleman's side, it is drastic, but we have a drastic problem and we are trying to solve it.