Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my short time, Mr. Chairman, what we are asking is that our police department be allowed to work with Border Patrol, be able to work with INS, be able to work with those agencies so when they go in and help, that they can work in interoperability to resolve the problem. When there is violation of the law, we got somebody there that can really take care of it, and I do not believe that is asking too much. I thank the gentleman for the extra time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the teachers in San Diego County just recently went through a strike, and I think up in Santa Barbara they are going through a strike also. We have times when our State Colleges have to increase their tuition costs, and we look at less than 12 percent of the schools in this Nation have got a single phone jack, whey we are trying to proceed into the 21st century and do what the President says, which I support, is getting the fiber optics and the computers and high-technology education into the system. But quite often, when they argue for higher pay or classroom upgrades or even bond elections to extend taxes, they do not look and see why they do not have the dollars available. There are, just in the State of California, 800,000, 800,000 illegal children in our school system K through 12. 1415 Take just half of that, just half, 400,000. At $5,000 each to educate a child, and of course in New York it is much higher than that, that is $2 billion a year. Take 5 years, that is $10 billion with which we could upgrade all of our schools in California, we could pay teachers, we could hold down the cost of tuition. The school meals program, take two meals, not three. That is $1 million a day for illegals. Mr. Chairman, the vote, the very famous ruling by the Supreme Court, was based on a decision because Congress did not have a position on illegal immigration. What we are saying is that as of today, when this bill passes, we will have the congressional response for that court decision, and we prioritize American citizens and those that are coming into this country legally, and I think that ought to be the priority, not illegals.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment Members on both sides of this issue. We have remained on the issues and people have spoken, no matter how strongly they feel, and remained on the issues. Most of this debate has dwelt on those issues. Even though those feelings are strong in many cases, they have remained that, and I think that is where we want this floor to remain most of the time. I would say all the time. That working environment was degraded when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant] personally attacked the Speaker of the House. The Speaker, like the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], went point by point by point on his issues and spoke only to the issues of the Gallegly amendment. Then when the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bryant], attacked the Speaker, got into personal references, I think that was wrong. I would say to my friend that it is uncharacteristic of him and I know him as a friend, and I say this because myself, I have lost my temper on the House floor and I have done very similar things. But I think when we chastise the position of the Speaker, which this Gallegly amendment was overwhelmingly passed, we chastise the motive of the rest of us. When over 60 percent of my voters in California support that position, I think that was wrong. Mr. Chairman, I say that with the intention that I have done the same thing, and I think in this particular case it does disservice to what we are trying to do, and I just think it was wrong.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I support the proposition that we not separate illegal immigration from legal immigration in this bill, but I think when we speak about them that it is very important to differentiate between the two. I would like to speak primarily to the education problems that we have in the State of California, and Members can also relate them to their States, especially the border States. In California, we have over 800,000 illegals, kindergarten through 12th grade. Let us just take half of that. Take 400,000, half, so that the numbers cannot be disputed. It takes about $5,000 to educate a child per year. Take that times 400,000. That is $2 billion per year. Take a 10-year period, we are talking about $20 billion out of the coffers of Sacramento for our school systems. Take the school meals program, 185 percent below poverty level times 400,000, at $1.90 a meal, that is $1.2 million a day for illegals in the California school system. That is just two meals. That is not three that they quality for. The increased burden on the school systems of separate bilingual education and social services for the poor is billions of dollars out of Governor Wilson's budget. We have between 16 and 18,000 illegals in our California Federal prison system, in the California State prison system. It costs about $25,000 each to house them. We talk about sometimes building more prisons than we do schools. There would be a lot of room at the end of the prisons, maybe we could build more schools, if we did not have those illegal felons in our prison system. I take a look at the burden on California hospitals. ``20/20'' and ``60 Minutes'' did a report, the problem was so bad in the border States, they did specials on TV where a large percentage, over 50 percent, of the children born in Los Angeles and California hospitals are illegal aliens. Those children then become American citizens and then are burdens on society. I take a look at teacher strikes, classrooms that are not upgraded, and cut programs, and college programs, increased tuitions. We would have billions of dollars to spend if we could handle just the illegal situation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], is so enamored with his own opinion he states it as fact, and he is misinformed, first of all, that our schools, in almost every category we score last among the developed nations. Great Britain and Japan score far above us in every category, and in some categories Japan scores twice of our students in scores. We have less than 12 percent of our classrooms, and I laud the President for his ideas and working to get our classrooms upgraded. But we have such a proliferation of dollars with 760 programs spread over 39 programs. The ranking minority member on the budget agrees that the title I program, the direct lending Government-run program, should not be. A billion dollars just in administration fee capped at 10 percent. GAO estimates a greater cost, of up to $3 billion just to collect the dollars. We took those savings, we increased student loans, we increased Pell grants and so on. Take a look at HHS, take a look at the Department of Education's recommendation, the Department of Education, not exactly a right wing group. Every study shows that title I and Head Start are not meeting their goals, that you take two students track them along the same lines, and there is no difference, and yet we are spending billions of dollars. Did we kill them? No, but we said is it wrong to ask for quality, is it wrong to ask for performance? And a program has been reduced by 500 percent and is serving less children. Is it wrong for us to manage a program? But if that works in our colleagues' State, just like drug-free schools, that block grant, the State can decide. If Head Start works in our colleagues' State, do it, and fully fund it. If title I, fund it. I support their program. I think it is a great program, and I think it should be funded. But what we are reducing is not cutting. What we are reducing is the bureaucracy here in Washington. In title I, in Head Start, and in the direct lending program we are reducing the bureaucracy here in Washington, DC, and focusing the dollars down to the local level. We are insisting on quality, we are insisting on parental control to get the dollars down so we can pay teachers more instead of the mess that we have right now where those dollars are being squandered here in Washington, DC. Now my colleagues may want to call that a cut, and I will say, ``Yes, Mr. Obey, it's a cut, it's a cut of your precious bureaucracy, and that's what you are having a problem with.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to say that regardless of what your position is on this issue, whether political or personal belief, it is a legitimate issue, the death penalty. For 40 years we have not been able, as the gentleman said, to have habeas corpus or death penalty reform. There is a new majority that represents the majority of people that feel that there should be some reform. Let me explain, the gentleman mentioned the frivolous cases. We just had a gentleman in California to kill 14 kids, we just executed. That is one case. We have another one which the gentleman knows about, Alton Harris. This is a confessed killer in my district. He went out and killed two young boys, after eating their hamburgers and taunting the second one, and then killed him. Yet, even an admitted killer took 14 years to execute. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talks about we are building more prisons than we are facilities for education. Let us press on with it. let us take care of the people that are the criminals, and have justice be done. Think about the injustice to the families that have to suffer all the way through this, for the period of time. Again, I would say to the gentleman, he speaks of a legitimate issue and what he believes in, but we need to press on with this. The American people support it. I ask Members to support the position of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this special order makes my heart soar like an eagle because you know you are able to talk about that I know the chairman was an educator, and I know the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] owned a business, and I was a teacher, but not only in the high school, but the college level, and the dean of a college. And I have got children. And if the other side is trying to say that we are barbaric, that we are trying to destroy education, and I have got children in elementary and secondary education, and I want them to go onto college education, the last thing I am going to do is to bleed the public system that is going to help them. And the notice that they are giving to the American public, that we are cutting those programs, is upsetting to me. And I would say that you mentioned we control only 6 percent of the spending, but what does that 6 percent do? It represents over 50 percent of the rules and regulations on the States in the school systems, over 75 percent of the paperwork, and it is inefficient. That is not a legacy that we need to continue, and we are trying again to get the dollars down to the local level so that we can have better quality, we can have parental involvement to work with the teachers and the administrators and let them make the decisions instead of someone like Major Owens, or Mr. Miller, or Duke Cunningham, or anybody else here in Washington, DC. They talk about title I and Head Start and Goals 2000. Every study, including HHS, the Department of Education, the inspector general; here is the quotes: Over a 1-year period title I participants did not improve the relative standings in reading or math. The progress of title I participants on standardized tests, on criteria references tests, was no better than a nonparticipant. Two students, both parallel programs, one participating in Head Start or title I, no difference at the end. When you got 760 programs, we only have 6 percent of the funding to spread those dollars so thinly, there is not enough money in the world to function. And they said more generally the relative performance of students in very high poverty schools, one with at least 75 percent of poor children, actually declines from the earlier to later grades. But yet I do not think it is too much to ask that a Head Start or a title I program has standards, that we insist on quality, that we insist on results.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is the liberals' and socialists' excuse to just keep dumping more money into a program, regardless if it is effective or not. And you know the other side would say that we are cutting. First of all, for every dollar the government spends, it has got to take it away from somebody in the first place. It is not free money. We have the charge of making sure that those dollars are effectively spent, and when you look at our school systems, that where our systems across this country are last in most--below all nations in math, and reading, and writing, and science; I mean that is not a good system and we need to change it, and to effectively do that instead of just continually dumping money. They say, well, you are cutting. We are not cutting. What we are doing is focusing the dollars in the most effective means and letting local districts control it, and what we are cutting, whether you are talking about any other program outside of even education, is we are cutting the precious bureaucracy that they can control, and that is what their whole thing is about right now. You are cutting. What we are doing is cutting their ability to spend money so that they can get reelected. We are cutting their ability to spend money so they can get reelected so they got the power here in Washington, DC. And that power represents even a bigger bureaucracy, 760 programs all the way down the line. That is wrong. Forty years has brought us to that point. Talk to anybody, Republican or Democrat in your district. They feel something is wrong with the system. And what is wrong is we are not managing the Government, whether it is the Department of Defense, the Department of Education. Government is not and does not have the ability to manage money and get effective results. People do that work directly with the program, and I want to personally thank the chairman. And all of this results in a $5 trillion debt. Think what we could do with, you know, $365 billion. We pay nearly a billion dollars a day on just the interest. What we could not do for education. And when we talk about the deficit, every one of those Members I checked did not vote for a balanced budget. Why? Because it takes their power to spend money away.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I will make my summation real quick, so I can give the time to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, I would say what is really cruel is to leave the system, in view that we have some very good schools across the country, but across the board, a system in which I think every American sees there is a lot wrong with that system, and to where the majority of our children who are applying for entry-level jobs do not even qualify for that entry-level job, because they cannot read, write, do the math, or speak English; that we have only been in the majority for 1 year. This is after 40 years of letting the Government manage and control even the 94 percent from the rules and regulations and paperwork. Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is asking too much that they give us a chance to prove that we can ensure quality, we can ensure results, by focusing more dollars down not to the Washington bureaucrat, but to the teachers, the principals, the parents, and the children. And they should make those decisions on a local level. I think that concept is worth taking a look at. We are not killing education, but we are focusing those dollars down the maximum to local control.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] says what we are doing is barbaric. Everything we are talking about here in Washington in this political year, Mr. Speaker, is about power. It is the power to disburse money to get reelected, so you have got the power and you need a bureaucracy to sustain that. What we are doing is removing the bureaucracy, combining programs that are efficient, and those that are not efficient, we are doing away with them. Let me give you a classic example. And first I would say, though, that every nation scores above the United States in every category in education. In many cases, the Brits and Japanese score twice of what our students do in scores. We have less than 12 percent of our classrooms that have a single phone jack when we are talking about Net Day. This is 40 years of bureaucracy and Democratic-run House that has destroyed education. We have some of the best school programs. And I taught in Hinsdale, we had Evanston and New Trere, you go right outside of Chicago, where you have 7\1/2\ miles of Federal housing, and the kids have no hope. What we are trying to do is take and fund down to the local level where you have quality, where you have parental involvement, you have teacher involvement, where we can pay teachers what they really deserve and where we can upgrade the classrooms instead of dumping money into these programs. They talk about title I. They talk about Head Start. Well, every study, including the Department of Education, little liberal, and the President's own administration and every study says that title I is not doing its job. It should take two students at the end, there is no difference, and we are putting billions of dollars. Did we kill it? No, we reduced it until we said, is there quality, is there a standard, and is it effective? And I do not think that is too much to ask. Look at Goals 2000. There are 45 instances in Goals 2000 that say States will, one of those instances you have to set up a special board, every school, that board reports to the principal. The principal reports to the superintendent, the superintendent then has got to send it to Sacramento in California. Think about all of those schools doing that and the paperwork that has got to go through the State, and then think about all the schools in the United States and generating all that paperwork. Guess what there is back here in Washington, DC? There is a big bureaucracy here that receives all of that paper and all of that information to see if they are in compliance. What we are saying is let us send the money to the Governors and to the departments of education if the State Constitution says, and do a Goals 2000 on a State level. Do away with the rules and regulations. Do away with the paper, and you be the masters of the destiny of your education program in the State. But I have heard the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] sit up here and say we do not trust the States, we are the only people in the world that can decide and make those decisions here in River City in Washington, DC. Why? Because they want to keep the power here. We are saying that the power belongs with the people, it belongs with the students, it belongs with the teachers and the principals to master the destiny that we think is right. My wife writes grants for Goals 2000. She works 5 nights a week. There are other schools that hire people to write grants for Goals 2000. Many of them never get a single grant, and in some cases I have documented where you have got people that are hired to write a Goals 2000 grant that the grant that they get in does not even pay for the grant writer. And in some cases, if it does, by the time you go through the administrative fees, paperwork, and extra people you have to have to force it, you get no money. Some of the big schools do not. We are saying that that is a waste, and it is a system that, yes, Goals 2000, on a State level, do it if it works in your State. Title I, if it works in your State, do it. There are programs. And drug-free schools, we have a whole block grant for drug-free schools. I happen to think DARE works, and very, very effectively. That is taken care of in that block grant. And if DARE works in your State, do it. But we are not reducing education. What is cutting education is the President's title I, for example, costs a billion dollars more just in administrative fees, capped at 10 percent. He wants all the direct lending programs GAO said it would cost $3 to $5 billion just to collect the dollars. We took those savings, the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon], his committee, and spread it across and increased student loans by 50 percent, increased Pell grants, IDEA, we level funded for special education and the other programs. But, yes, we are consolidating some of those 760 programs, doing away with the ones that do not work and focusing the dollars down. A vision, for 5 years I have been talking about let us get high- technology and computers and fiber optics into the classrooms with only 12 percent, and the President jumps on the bandwagon. I am glad the President jumped on the bandwagon. It took 40 years of misrepresentation. Why? We have so many schools that are not up to speed. If we really want to educate our kids, we need the Federal Government to get involved in research and development, working with telecommunications, get AT&T, the Baby Bells, get the folks that can invest in our school systems an get our kids ready for the 21st century. You listen in the hearings, we have a large portion of the kids coming to our education programs do not even qualify for an entry- level job because they cannot read, they cannot write, they cannot do the math, or they cannot speak the English language. That is not a legacy, Mr. Speaker, I want to leave with our kids. I repute, and every single Member that spoke in the last hour is among the most liberal left of this House in every case, they will spend money on everything and drive us further into debt and deficit except for one area, and that is the field of the Department of Defense, and they will cut. But in every instance they are the left of the left, and they want to keep the power here in River City so they can get reelected and scare children and scare students, and I am not going to stand for it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My wife is one of them.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I heard smoke and mirrors. Let me tell you what smoke and mirrors, or a difference of opinion, at least, is in this impact aid that the President cut all of part B out of. We have restored. As a matter of fact, the bipartisan impact, and there is support on both sides of the aisle for impact aid, we have increased it $2 million more than even requested in the bipartisan. Ninety percent of the impact aid funding, it is in there. Let me tell you where, yes, we did cut in education. We cut your Federal bureaucracy once again. Ask the head of your own budget agreement, and party, about the President's direct lending program. We capped it at 10 percent. That saves $1 billion just in administrative fees, $1 billion, and GAO says we do not even know what it is going to cost to collect it, about $3 to $5 billion, we capped it at 10 percent, took those savings, we increased student loans by 50 percent. We increased Pell grants the highest level ever. Stafford loans, idea, which is for special education, is level funded. When you say we are cutting education, yes, we are cutting your bureaucracy. I go back to the fact when you take a look at title I, look at the studies that the Department of Education has made on title I. We reduced the spending there. Why? Because it has not been effective, and we are spending $1 billion. The same study by the Department of Education, not Republicans, said that Head Start is mismanaged. There are 760 programs in education. We only pay for 6 percent. Ninety-four percent of education is paid for out of State and local, and in that 6 percent we are trying to spread that over 760 programs. It is inefficient. It is not working. We are reducing the areas that do not work, like the President's direct lending program, which he wants to make the Government responsible for all student loans. That would make the Department of Education the largest lending institution in the United States. Inefficient. No, we are not cutting education. We are getting more dollars back down to the students and to the schools.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's 1997 defense budget returns us to a Carter-era hollow military. It's like the difference between Desert Storm and Desert One, Jimmy Carter's failed mission to rescue hostages in Iran. By chopping about $10 billion from 1996 spending, President Clinton jeopardizes the military's ability to train, repair and maintain equipment, and ultimately to defend our Nation. While the defense pot shrinks, President Clinton has increased our commitments to places like Haiti and Bosnia, costing the Pentagon and the taxpayer billions of dollars. He identifies spending for some important initiatives, but remains silent on where the cuts will come from. The fact is they will eventually come from important accounts that fund training, maintenance and upgrades to equipment. Either President Clinton is assuming Congress will provide necessary funding for defense, or he is not serious about defending our country. Our soldiers who risk their lives for our country are continuously being asked to do more with less. Without the proper training and equipment our national security and our soldiers suffer. The 3-percent pay raise for our soldiers included in the bill will help them make ends meet back home, but we must do more than that. We must make sure our military personnel have the training and equipment necessary to do their jobs. Cutting defense spending makes this difficult, if not impossible, to do. Clinton's shortsighted defense policy has been recognized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff who admit that defense has been under funded. Congress, which recognized the problem, kept its promise to begin fixing it. We began making the investments necessary to maintain America's standing as the world's most formidable military power. Unfortunately, while we took one step forward, President Clinton's 1997 defense budget takes us two steps back.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Safe Tables Our Priority [STOP]. STOP is a national coalition organized by families and friends who have lost loved ones to serious illness due to the contamination of ground beef with E. coli 0157:H7 bacteria. The coalition has been dedicated to educating the public and legislators about this deadly bacteria. Americans became painfully aware of the dangers associated with the consumption of raw meat products upon an outbreak of the E. coli bacteria 3 years ago. This outbreak, which occurred on the west coast, infected 600 people and killed 4 children. Following this tragedy, STOP began actively working to change the system in order to make sure others did not suffer from this deadly bacteria. Their journey brought them to Capitol Hill to work with Members of Congress to reduce this E. coli hazard, and educate Americans on the safe handling of foods. I commend the efforts of STOP in their work on the Family Food Protection Act, H.R. 1423, of which I am a cosponsor. This legislation amends the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to improve public health and safety through reduction in harmful contaminants in meat and poultry. When the Center for Disease Control estimates that 500 deaths and 20,000 illnesses are attributed to E. coli each year, legislation such as this will help protect the health of Americans. STOP has also been very active in the agriculture appropriations process. Most recently, I worked on their behalf to ensure that there would not be a delay of the USDA's implementation of safeguards and standards to improve meat inspection. Because of their efforts, additional public hearings will be held to consider the views of all interested parties throughout the rule-making process. Once again, I thank each member of STOP. I encourage my colleagues in Congress to follow their lead in the fight against the E. coli bacteria, and for better food safety.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, America's avocado growers are threatened with extinction. Why? The Department of Agriculture is likely 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. The USDA believes that Mexico can eradicate their serious pest problem. But, science has proven that Mexico has failed to destroy pests for years. NAFTA specifically left the quarantine intact, because Mexican pests would devastate American avocados. Avocado growers in my district are ringing my phone off the hook. They fear that this Clinton administration action will destroy their crops and destroy their lives. Mexican pest-infested avocados have already been smuggled across our border. Most recently, 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. We must stop this from happening every day. Stop the Clinton administration's assault on California jobs. Join me in stopping the USDA's attack on America's avocado growers.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee]. We are on the same committee. I would say, of the 256 educational programs we have, we cannot fund all the programs that really work adequately. Where do we get this free money? We take it from the people that we supposedly send it back to, but we only give it back to them at 23 cents on the dollar after we feed the Federal bureaucracy, and when we do that it is inefficient. Mr. Speaker, 93 percent of education is funded at the State and local level. We only funded 7 percent of it, but yet take a look. That 7 percent has over 50 percent of the rules and regulations that a State has to follow and over 75 percent of the paperwork. It is not efficient. So what we are doing is reducing it slowly. I agree we can just chop it off. Because of the economy, we cannot put it all back at the State. You cannot fund a school bond or election for education. But we have to reduce the waste and the spending. What did we cut? Yes, ask the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo] on the Committee on the Budget. The President's Direct Lending Program capped at 10 percent cost a billion dollars more just in administrative fees. So what did we cut? We cut the precious bureaucracy and cut that out. We took the savings and increased student loans by 50 percent, increased Pell grants the highest they have been, and increased and level-funded the IDEA Program that my colleagues are talking about in special education. It is level-funded. It is not reduced. And what else? We took the Goals 2000 that has 45 instances that say ``States will,'' and we take that money and we give it back to the States where they are not required to have boards and commissions that report to a Federal bureaucracy here in Washington, DC. We turn that money and give it direct so we can get 77 cents on the dollar into the classroom, not just 23 cents. We need to be more businesslike in our education funding.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this authorization conference report was supported by 48 to 3, 48 to 3. To be fair, it probably would have been 48 to 4, but the gentlewoman from Colorado did not think enough to show up to vote, and she calls this bill pathetic. Maybe if it was that pathetic she would show up and vote in the report. The President, in his 1993 budget, cut military COLA's. In a bipartisan way, this committee restored COLA equity for our military. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? In the President's last budget, he cuts COLA equities once again, and this is the last chance to protect those in this particular bill. Let us talk about HIV. I had two people in my squadron who had HIV. They could not deploy, I could not use them, they had to be tied to the hospital. I could only tell my executive officer and the flight surgeon, which meant a risk for other people in that unit. With the limited and cut-back funds, we need full up-rounds in our units. This also doubled the deployment time on shore duty of our military at a time when they are supposed to be spending it with their families.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and honor that I rise to share the news of a most important milestone in the life of an extraordinary American. Today Mr. Lawrence Thompson--known better to his grandkids as ``Papa Jack''--turns 109 years old. By spending his birthday at Disneyland in Anaheim, CA, Papa Jack has become the oldest first-time visitor to that famous place of eternal youth. To know Papa Jack is to know a slice of American history. His father was a doctor for the King and Queen of Hawaii when he was born in '87-- 1887, that is. He watched the first steamboats arrive around the Hawaiian Islands and sent clothing to a far-off place called San Francisco after hearing that a terrible earthquake had devasted the city. He later moved to San Francisco and then south to Los Angeles. A proud American and a great patriot, he continues to salute every American flag that he happens upon. Papa Jack later moved on to Rancho Bernardo in north San Diego County, where he was the area's lawnbowling champion at 99 years young. I am proud to say that I serve as this fine American's Representative in Congress. At 1 p.m. today, Papa Jack becomes a kid again at the Magic Kingdom during a special birthday celebration. Let us all join the good people at Disneyland as well as Papa Jack's son, his grandchildren and their children on this special day to commend an inspiring example of a citizen and his lasting love for the United States of America.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have served on two committees that I though were probably the most bipartisan committees in this body. One of those is one of the committees that we did away with under Chairman Jones and Chairman Studds, the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, in which the two groups, the two different parties came together and I think fought for what was important to the American people. The second of those committees is the Committee on National Security. Even though the previous chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] and I have disagreed on issues, he has always been fair, except maybe on one small area that we had some conflict on. But I think the reason for that is that the members of that committee are there to help the men and women that we support, and I think that is why we passed this bill out 46 to 3. I do not know of very many committees that you could get that kind of support on both sides of the aisle to do. Another area, the night we had the resolution on Bosnia, I said, please, the resolutions basically in my opinion did not mean very much. What to follow is as far as how we support the troops. How do we do that? We do it with training so that they have the skills to use the equipment that we want to give them, which is better equipment than what they could potentially face. Even more important than that, if you go off to war, you want to know that your family is taken care of. Those are important. It is not only important for the combat but it is important for the retention of those people in quality. For those reasons, I ask that my colleagues support the following resolution, and ask that in the end result the conference will take a look at only the areas of disagreement because I think they can be worked out.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, all Government will be open if the President agrees to follow his word and give us a balanced budget. That was due 2 days ago. The President signed a bill with his name on it. He has not done it yet. So it should not be too hard by January 26 to do that. All Government will be open. What less could you ask for, for the President to keep his word, for a change. If we take a look, in 12 of the 13 bills, my colleagues on the other side want to spend, want to spend, want to spend. In 1966, you want a Democrat President? You are going to increase spending and you are going to increase taxes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that the contract was signed by both, and there are some things that we need to attend to in Medicare and education and so on. Let me cover the education facts. As a subcommittee chairman on education, I think there is a difference on what is really good. We increased student loans by 50 percent. We increased Pell grants to the highest level ever. But what we did not protect is your precious bureaucracy that only allows 23 cents on a dollar to get down into the classroom because of that bureaucracy. We eliminated the President's direct student loan program, that, according to GAO, cost a billion dollars more must to administer, and those fees are not even calculated on what it cost to receive those monies. You want the power here. We have eliminated the bureaucracy and the power. Goals 2000, you say, ``Well, look, you cut Goals 2000.'' On a Federal level where you have Federal control instead of the State, yes, we did. Goals 2000, there are 45 instances that say State will, and you have got to have groups and members in different groups that put together the requirements. It is only voluntary if you do not want the money. But yet we send the money directly back to the State, and if a State wants to do Goals 2000, they can. The Department of Education, $32 billion in its budget, and the President's direct loan program would make it the largest lending institution, if he had this way, in the United States. That is wrong. We have protected education. Your welfare system has failed education.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today in celebration of San Diego's outstanding institutions of higher learning. In 1996, National University will celebrate its 25th anniversary. The year-long celebration will officially commence with an academic assembly on Thursday, January 26, 1996. National University is a nonprofit, accredited institution of higher learning that specializes in meeting the educational needs of adult learners in California. National University is the only university in California offering a unique, one-course-per-month format. The university offers 45 degree programs and a number of teacher credential programs, and its expanding Department of Continuing Education and Educational Services provides nonacademic, customized training and professional development programs to meet the specific objectives of businesses throughout the state. National has a full-time enrollment of approximately 7,800 and 101 full-time faculty members. The estimated 45,000 alumni of National University have reason to be proud of their affiliation with the university. National has been named one of the best universities in the western United States for two consecutive years by U.S. News and World Report. In 1995 the university received one of six nationwide Creative Restructuring in Higher Education Special Merit Awards from the American Association of University Administrators. Last year, the American Association of University Administrators recognized National's accomplishments through a special award presented at its annual convention. The university also received a Total Excellence in Management Award from the San Diego Business Journal for the excellence of its management. The university has developed its tone and direction for the next 5 years in ``NU 2000.'' This plan represents a year of discussion and formulation by the people at National. The main objective is to create the premier institution for adult learners by the year 2000. With the continued dedication of its students, faculty, and administrators, the excellent National University will continue maturing into the visionary institution it aspires to be.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado historically fails to see the solutions to very simple problems and requirements for national security. We can neither accept nor tolerate anything less than a superlative force in our Armed Services. Someone with HIV positive, with the limited numbers of personnel we have, degrades from that readiness. We need a full up-round of that individual to serve, both either a man or woman, in our forces. We do not need the social engineering in a defense bill. We voted 48 to 3 in the committee. How often in a committee do you vote 48 Republicans and Democrats to 3 to support a bill? Because it serves the needs of our men and women. What are those needs? First of all, you have got to be able to train people so that they are going to survive in combat. You have got to be able to provide the weapons systems. Do you know that the service life of our F-15 Strike Eagles over in Bosnia and the F-18 CD's is almost gone? The replacement for F-16's like Scott O'Grady, was shot down, and the helos in Iraq, there was no replacement? The President's budget, the military and Pentagon reacted to the President's budget. That was not in there. We went and asked, ``What do you need?'' Not what do you want, ``What do you need to do your job?'' ``We need replace those airplanes. We need the quality of care for our troops and those issues.'' And we provided that. That is why we had a 48-to-3 vote within the committee. I take a look at the Bottom-Up Review, where we are $200 billion shy of the Bottom-Up Review, the ability to fight two conflicts at the same time. And, yes, we put some more money in because the Pentagon said, ``This is what we need, a bare-bones minimum for readiness.'' What it is going to cost us, not $2.2 billion but $3 billion or $6 billion to support Bosnia. Where do you think the President is going to want to take it from? Out of this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Solomon amendment. But I would also like to commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. McDermott]. I think, under Democratic leadership, many of us thought the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, had a wrangle of an oxymoron that it really was not able to achieve very much. I disagree with you on this issue. Let me tell you why. The Senate just passed 68 to 30 to override the President's frivolous lawsuit-type thing. Democrats filed 65 charges against the Speaker, frivolous. In a bipartisan way they threw out 64, and only one of them, in a very narrow, technical use, to look at a tax loophole. If you want to look at something, ethics in this body, you ought to look at frivolous charges on a partisan matter. The Speaker took $1. There has never been, to my knowledge, anyone that signed a million-dollar contract, ever. So what are we fighting against? The Speaker took 1 dollar, and we are legislating this against it. I am writing three books. I have written one. I am writing two others. I am not going to make a million dollars on them, but I would like to be able to sell them.