Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about not delaying dollars to Federal workers. A balanced budget, someone with a home mortgage of $90,000, at 8\1/2\ fixed over a 30-year period means $38,000 to that individual. You are stealing that money by not balancing the budget. A student loan of $11,000 over a 4- year period is $4,500 back in that person's pocket. You want to talk about delaying money, you want to talk about being the grinch that stole Christmas, then balance the budget. Mr. Speaker, this is about a principle. It is about a principle whether you want the power here in Washington, DC, so people can disburse money down so they can get reelected, and to do that you need a big bureaucracy, which takes away the dollars. Welfare will only get 30 cents out of a buck down to the welfare recipient. In education we only get 23 cents because of the bureaucracy. We are saying we want to balance the budget, give the money back to the people instead of keeping it here in River City. That is what we are talking about. That is the real grinch that stole Christmas. Mr. Speaker, if Members really want to help, go along and override the President's veto of a balanced budget in 7 years. You will get more money to those Federal workers, you will give them a brighter future. And guess what? their kids will have something in the future, and the seniors will have something in the future. Mr. Speaker, if we take a look at those 270,000 workers, the President has appropriations bills on his desk that would put them back to work. I am not saying Republicans or Democrats are to blame. I am saying if you really want to sit about and talk about this thing with some legitimacy, let us do it, but let us do it now. Let us do it. I ask for support of the resolution.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we have done that for years with welfare.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. de la Garza] my friend, there have been more Mexican-Americans win the Medal of Honor than any other group in the United States. They were here legally. Mr. Speaker, this bill also affects, especially for the border States, illegal immigration. If you are here in this country illegally, I do not care if you are Irish, I do not want you to get a penny of services that the taxpayer pays for. Just in the State of California, there are 800,000, we use the term 400,000 so that the figures cannot be disputed, illegal aliens K through 12. At $1.90 a meal, that is $1.2 million a day just on the school meals program. At $5,000 to educate a student, it is actually $4,750 in California, that is $2 billion to illegals. Governor Wilson, $400 million in just emergency services, $400 million in emergency services just to illegal aliens. This bill eliminates services to illegal aliens. Let us focus on legal residents of this country that are in need. Take it away from those that do not belong here and have come here illegally and focus on what the system needs to take a look at. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following article for the Record: [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Dec. 21, 1995] Medicaid System Handcuffs California (By Pete Wilson) Contrary to what the weather maps indicate, a hot-air front has stalled over the nation's capital. It's hot air in the form of deception and distortion over the transfer of income support programs to the states. President Clinton and the congressional Democrats would have us believe that the current Medicaid system protects all vulnerable populations--and that, without the benevolent oversight of the federal government, those populations would be denied needed care and thus devastated by the insensitivity of callous governors. The former governor of Arkansas wants you to believe that current governors can't be trusted with the reins. Regrettably, it's the same kind of shabby scare tactics that the White House used in the ``Mediscare'' campaign to hoodwink the elderly into believing that Republicans were cutting the bottom out of their safety net. The truth was, Republicans proposed reducing the increase in Medicare spending to 7.2 percent. In fact, in September 1993, Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested slowing Medicare growth ``to about 6 or 7 percent annually.'' With respect to Medicaid, the White House and liberal Democrats in Congress have been even more disingenuous. They want you to believe that governors who have balanced budgets--even with limited resources--can't be trusted to manage block grants without savaging the poor (as though anyone would want to savage the poor.) The truth is, the ``benevolent'' federal government has fostered a Medicaid system that prevents states from helping their own residents. Here in California, for example, many children, families and low-income pregnant women are excluded from eligibility categories established by the Federal Government. Consequently, two-thirds of California's disadvantaged families lack health insurance. To try to mend holes in the current system, California has chosen to use state-only money to fill in the gaps in Medicaid coverage created by Washington. We've implemented a program to provide prenatal and well-baby care to low-income pregnant women who do not qualify for Medicaid. We've also proposed expanding a package of preventive health-care benefits to low-income children who don't qualify for Medicaid. Why does the Medicaid system hinder such efforts? More importantly, why is the White House defending such a system. To add insult to injury, the federal government forces states to cover the health care costs of low-income illegal immigrants. This means that California, which carries nearly one-half of the illegal immigrant burden for the entire nation, must spend $400 million annually to provide health care for illegal immigrants, thus forcing us to reduce or deny benefits for needy legal residents. If the White House took a closer look at California, it would see a state where health-care reforms are well under way. We've accelerated the enrollment of Medicaid recipients in managed-care programs. Those enrollees are guaranteed access to quality care, case management by a primary-care physician, and state monitoring of the care being provided. California has managed to contain costs and deliver quality health care for about $1,600 per recipient per year (by contrast, some states have a more expensive program costing taxpayers over $4,500 per year, per Medicaid recipient.) One would think that a state would be rewarded for such efficiency and innovation. But to the contrary, California is punished by a federal Medicaid funding scheme that fosters runaway growth and rewards inefficiency. States that have run efficient programs and manage costs effectively are penalized by a federal funding formula which results in huge funding inequities that choke state budgets and impede further reforms. One might ask: Is there any way for Washington to make the Medicaid system worse? Regrettably, the answer is yes. President Clinton has proposed capping the growth in per- recipient expenditures, without giving states like California the tools to slow the growth in overall Medicaid expenditures. This would reduce growth in Medicaid payments by $54 billion over the next seven years. As a result, California would have to find an additional $5 billion to make up for Washington's shortfall. In other words, we would be forced to keep the current federal system with all the federal rules and requirements--for less money to operate it. As long as the current Medicaid system is in place, states will be blocked from implementing reforms that meet the health-care needs of our most vulnerable populations. The Republican MediGrant plan offers a better alternative by providing states with the flexibility they deserve to design more effective and cost-efficient systems of health-care delivery. Clinton entered office promising Americans real health-care reform. Back then, he was asking the American people to trust a governor to run the federal government. Now, he won't trust governors to help him better manage federal health care. Columnist David Broder has noted this inconsistency. As Broder writes, ``In his former life, Clinton, like every other governor, was complaining that federal Medicaid mandates were wrecking his state budget. Three years ago, in fact, Arkansas was being sued in the federal courts for jeopardizing the health of expectant others by slashing Medicaid spending--a policy Clinton then defended as necessary to save state funds for schools, roads and other important projects.'' The times have changed. With a former governor in the White House and a Congress willing to give states greater autonomy, Washington has the opportunity to do what's sensible: give states the freedom to enact health-care reform that benefits all Americans, and let Californians help Californians. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, who held firm, and I also thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, newspapers being delivered across the country are hitting the doorsteps of military families hard enough to rattle their households. The papers, radio, and the television are carrying President Clinton's message that it is no longer worth the trouble to serve your country in the armed services. Mr. Speaker, this Congress has made the difficult choices that will take this Government to a balanced budget by 2002, while at the same time re-establishing the security of our Nation. Just this week, we sent the President H.R. 1530, a Defense Authorization bill that restores a reasonable quality of life for our military, sustains basic military readiness, reinvigorates the Pentagon's efforts to modernize weapons, and makes a downpayment on our effort to make the Pentagon run more like a business. The bill gets the Pentagon back into the business of defending our country, without a skyrocketing Defense budget. Despite the fact that this bill includes a long overdue 2.4-percent pay raise, a 5.2-percent increase in housing allowance for our troops and their families, and $35 million to educate children of military personnel, the newspapers now tell us that President Clinton will veto that bill. Any sergeant, colonel, admiral, or general will tell you that their most important asset is a well-trained and dedicated man or woman. Unfortunately, because of a declining quality of military life and number of broken Government promises, the rank and file soldier and sailor is becoming an increasingly rare asset. We have American soldiers and sailors trying to feed their families with food stamps. Some of the kids that the President is sending into harm's way in Bosnia are leaving their families behind in housing that is substandard. Clinton's historic 1993 tax hike not only forced more taxes on hard-working middle-income American families--despite a promise to actually cut taxes--it also delayed COLA's for military retirees by three-quarters of a year--breaking a promise that was made to many of those men and women while they served this country overseas and at war. The Defense Authorization bill fixes the Clinton COLA grab. The veterans, retirees, and active military families that I talk to every day tell me that they don't trust the government anymore. Fully half of this country's new military enlistees come from military families, and those families are beginning to tell their kids that it just isn't worth it. As a 20-year veteran of the U.S. Navy, I dedicated my life and service to this country in exchange for a few promises of pay and benefits. If the Government, led by President Clinton, continues to break those promises and deny a reasonable quality of life, our military families will find it even more difficult to dedicate themselves to military service. Mr. Speaker, what the President is doing is wrong. I challenge him to change his ways and demonstrate a commitment to our men and women in uniform. At a time when he plans to send over 32,000 troops into war- torn Bosnia, enactment of the Defense Authorization bill is a good place to start.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry. The gentleman should not be----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, everything that both sides are arguing about boils down to power. For 40 years the Democrats had the power to spend money out of the Federal Government, which improved their chances to get reelected. They are not handling being in the minority very well, and they are doing everything they can to get the power and the ability to spend money. They do not want a balanced budget, because it limits their ability to get reelected. Let me give you two different ways. One, let us take a look at education. Two principles: One is the power in the Federal Government, the other is back to the people. Let us look at the President's direct lending program. It cost $1 billion more than sending it down to the private industries to do it. $1 billion, and that does not even include what it costs to take the money back, because it takes seven years to find that out. But yet we turn it back to private enterprise and save $1 billion. We increase the amount of money going to education, but we cut out the Federal bureaucracy, the power orientation in Washington, DC. We increase Pell grants to the highest rates. We increase student loans by 50 percent. Yet the other side says you are destroying education. What we are destroying is your ability to disburse money down out of the Federal Government Let us look at Goals 2000. We only get about 23 cents out of every dollar back into education because of the bureaucracy. Logically, you would want to increase education by getting more money down to the people and to education. Goals 2000 at the Federal level, absolutely, we killed it out of the Federal level. We send the money back to the States. They do not have the rules, the regulations. That 7 percent of the Federal Government education budget requires over 50 percent of the rules and regulations, 75 percent of the paperwork. It is not effective to do it that way. But yet you still want the power, the power to disburse money, so you can get reelected, and that is wrong, and that is what this whole fight is about.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, let me give the gentlewoman an idea that we brought up when we were in the minority, the discharge petition on legislation we wanted brought up that you could not bring up, that the party held down, and she is well aware of that discharge petition that we fought for. I would recommend that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, you know, there has been a longtime debate, a legitimate debate, on whether we need a strong national defense or a socialistic model for this country. But when it comes to the point where defense has been cut so deeply, $177 billion, we are $200 billion below the Bottom-Up Review, then we need to add the dollars to protect our kids. Look at what it costs to go to Haiti, look what it cost, the billions of dollars in Somalia. Bosnia is going to cost billions of dollars. Where do you think that money comes from? Many of us did not support any of those activities, but yet some of those that would fight for more dollars for the social programs supported those issues, and that is a legitimate debate. But we also need to protect our kids, and that is what I talked about the other night in the Bosnia issue when it comes time to protect our soldiers so they do not come back in body bags, and we give them the wherewithal to come back, then we do it. This bill does that, and I ask for support. Among the many vital programs that the fiscal year 1996 Defense Authorization Conference Report moves forward is the B-2 stealth bomber program. The conference report provides $493 million in additional B-2 procurement authorization in order to permit the continuation of the B- 2 production beyond 20 aircraft. The conferees also repealed the previous restrictions on the procurement of long-lead items for the B-2 program and the standing cap on the numbers of bombers that would be produced. We clearly feel that the B-2 program, which provides our Air Force with the technological edge and the security to accomplish its missions without the massive air and ground support that other bombers require, should move forward beyond 20 aircraft. The B-2 production facilities are currently operating under the balance of the $125 million in fiscal 1995 funds that were provided for the program last year. In further authorizing the B-2 program for fiscal 1996, the conferees fenced the availability of the $493 million authorization, and will not preclude the Department of Defense [DOD] from acting to sustain the industrial base and the production and procurement activity necessary to smoothly maintain the B-2 production program. In fact, the conferees expect that, based upon our realization of the need for a continuing B-2 program, the DOD will act to sustain the B-2 industrial base activity until the new funds are made available. This will allow the ongoing program operations to continue and will prevent the additional costs that the DOD would incur if it had to restart any portion of the industrial base's activities. The B-2 stealth bomber is an important part of this Congress' renewed effort to maintain a sound and solid American defense. Our commitment to a reinvigorated, modern stock of defense assets coupled with our dedication to solid core readiness, an improved quality of life for our service people, and a Pentagon that runs like a business, will help ensure our national security for decades to come.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer]. I think he was right on the ball. I do not necessarily agree with the strategy or the tactics used by the House, and I probably would have supported the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] if it had--I did not fight to get that unanimous consent removed. As I stated in my opening remarks last night, I thought all the Members across the board had good intentions in this thing. I would support that. I would also tell my friend that quite often when we sit on this side of the aisle, we feel that there is a lot of misinformation on Medicare, that there are no cuts and different things, and a different way to get to education, and it is difficult to come to those terms sometimes when you are getting slammed down on the ground all the time. I would work, and I know the gentleman does, and I know how he works, and I know that he himself would do that. The problem sometimes is with leadership. I would work with the gentleman. Let me go to the issue that I want to talk about.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, what I want to talk about a little today, and I do not have time to do it fully, and it is not on a partisan issue, is that many of us voted last night on our consciences, and feeling that we were doing the best thing for our troops overseas. My concern, as I stated, is not the votes last night, Mr. Speaker. My concern is what comes in the future, that we hear people say they want to support the troops, they want to make sure that they do not come back in body bags; that they come back. There are legitimate issues on how much we should spend for defense and how much not. But remember when the President ran in his campaign, he said a $50 billion defense cut would put us into a hollow force, and then in his first tax bill would put us at a $177 billion defense deficit, would decrease defense. Because of some of the different environments we go to in the world, with Haiti and Somalia, the different areas, and I am not going to go through the negative of those, but it has put us even further below what the requirements of defense are. GAO has said we are $200 billion below the bottoms-up review. The bottoms-up review was, remember, drafted by then-Secretary Les Aspin and the President to see what our needs would be to be able to fight two conflicts, and the minimum we would need to be able to do that. When you are $200 billion below that, then it tells you that you need to put some more dollars into national security for this country. Some people on the debate tomorrow will say that there is more in this Defense authorization bill than the President asked for. This is true. But as I take a look, let me give you a couple of examples. The F-15 Strike Eagle, the Air Force has not bought a single airplane in 3 years because of the budget. They are using the F-15 Strike Eagles in Bosnia today, out of Italy and other places. They are also using the F-16. The Navy is using the F-18 CD, which is the latest model. The service life on those airplanes is coming due and there is no replacement for them. In this budget that is coming up tomorrow, what we do is replace some of the life cycle in the aircraft that we have been using prior to that in Bosnia and Herzegovina. We take a look at something my friend has fought for, impact aid that we took out of the budget, and to be able to provide for that. He and I agreed we do not have as much as we would like in that. I also look at Captain O'Grady. Captain O'Grady, when he was shot down over that portion of the world, told me personally, he said, ``Duke, I did not have the training, the ACM time that we need,'' the air combat maneuvering. I would ask my colleagues to take a look at what the needs are in defense. We need to support our kids. Support the bill tomorrow, and do what is right.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is a very difficult subject for me to even speak about. It is wrapped with emotion, it is wrapped with anger, and it is wrapped with pain. I do not think, no matter what you vote for today, if you vote for the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], I am against sending the troops to Bosnia. I think if you vote for the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], that is a message, again, that you do not want to do that. The Senate is not going to pick it up. I think that is an acceptable vote. If you vote for the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Buyer] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] to support our troops in what they are doing, I think that is acceptable, also, and the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton] as well. I am not concerned so much about the vote today, Mr. Speaker, as I am in the future. Many of us served overseas. In 1968, President Johnson stopped the bombing over in North Vietnam. Our hands were tied. I watched friends of mine die. They did not have to die. We had Mogia and Van Kari and Ban Nappi Pass where we could see supplies coming through, and we could not stop them. There was an ROE that you had to wait until a MiG shot at you first before you could shoot back. No Member of Congress ever devised that ROE. They never strapped their rear end into a fighter. I looked at the thousands of my friends that died over there when we could not hit the SAM sites and we could not mine the harbors. Yet when President Nixon came up, he let us do that. My concern is in the future because there are going to be some tough votes. There are a lot of people here in this body that will do anything they can to cut defense. It is a legitimate issue. They would rather put it in social spending. But in the future, we are going to have to vote, ladies and gentlemen, on supporting our troops. Make sure that you do. Another area that kills me, not just under this President. Lebanon was a disaster, to tie down our Marines. Those kids died and they did not have to die. In Somalia, we have gone through the reasons why our troopers died. It is because we did not give them the support, the votes in this Congress and the President. Not just this President but other Presidents. My real concern, Mr. Speaker, is the future. Because the votes are going to be tough. You are going to have to increase defense dollars probably if we get tied in there. I would ask my colleagues that want to cut defense, that want to cut defense, think about the amendments and the bills that you are going to vote for and all of them, because what you are saying is that you are going to support these kids. It is important. Do not forget the way you vote today. Most of us have lost too many friends. There are 30 kids that fought in Vietnam and in Desert Storm that because of Tailhook are not passing and making Captain or Commander because there are certain people that would exacerbate that. Some of these kids had nothing to do with Tailhook. But yet the Senate failed to confirm them. I would ask you, when we ask our men and our women to place their lives on the line, do not forget those sacrifices. Because we have over and over and over again, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask, think about your vote but carry it on after today.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First of all, there will be a lot of the conservatives that will miss the gentleman. Your willingness, I know on the civil rights bill, and other issues that were very complicated, it does not mean we do not disagree on certain models, but the gentleman will leave this House with integrity, value and substance, Mr. Mfume. And I want to let the gentleman know that of a lot of the Members on that side, the gentleman has been someone that I have been able to sit down with, even with differing issues. The gentleman has been very amendable, very supportive, and I want to thank him.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to go through this special order tonight on education. I would like to cover some of the myths, some of the truths, some of the other, basically the good, bad, and the ugly of the program. First of all, I covered a little bit of it the other night when we split up, with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], talking about Bosnia, but I would like to reexamine some of the figures. First of all, the Federal Government provides only 7 percent of the funding for education. Let me repeat that. The Federal Government provides only 7 percent of the education. The other 93 percent is paid for by State revenues. Now, of that 7 percent that goes down, less than 25 cents on every dollar that we send back here to Washington, less than 25 cents on a dollar goes back and down to the classroom. Why? Because of the bureaucracy that eats up the dollars in between. So it is a very inefficient system. When people talk about Head Start and Goals 2000 and some of the better programs, it would be much better to get a better return on the dollar at the State level and provide those systems without the Federal intrusion. Now, also that 7 percent that the Federal Government sends down to the States, that 7 percent takes over 50 percent of the rules and regulations to the States and the schools. Only 7 percent requires over 50 percent of all the State rules and regulations. It requires 75 percent of all the paperwork that a State has to do. While that is being accomplished, that also affects the 93 cents on a dollar, or 93 percent, that the States fund education itself. If we look at just the State of California, which I am from, and let me go through and you can go through State by State and find out that there are many similarities, but let us look at the State of California. Why is education being shut down right now and programs are being cut? Why can we not get school bonds passed? Why can we not put a tax increase on the State recipients to support our education systems? Why do we have teacher and school programs that are being canceled under the current system as it exists today? If we ask ourselves those questions and we look at the problems we are having in every State on our education programs, then I would think Members on both sides of the aisle would say there is a lot of room for improvement. Let me take a look at some of these factors that affect the State of California. Remember, again, 93 cents on a dollar, 93 percent of all education is paid for with a State tax dollar. So that means you have to have people working in the States that are paying taxes. Let us take a look at the 1993 tax bill under President Clinton. President Clinton cut defense $177 billion. The State of California is one of the largest defense States in the Union. A $177 billion cut as between our military and secondary and defense-related jobs has lost over a million jobs. Now, let us say that a portion of that million jobs that were lost in the defense industry and our military, they get another job. Well, studies have shown that they do not get the same high scientific-level job but it is something less, so there is even less revenue. But let us take half of that, or even a quarter of that, that those people do not have jobs in the State of California. Now, that means less revenue, 93 percent less revenue that goes into the coffers in Sacramento, CA, for education and for law enforcement and the other infrastructures. Let us take a look at another factor in the State of California, and primarily on the border States. There are over, Mr. Speaker, there are over 800,000 illegal aliens in kindergarten through the 12th grade. I only use the term 400,000. That way it cannot be disputed. But there are nearly a million illegals in kindergarten through 12th grade in the State of California. Let us take a look at just the school lunch program. Of that 400,000, the majority of them are under 185 percent below the poverty level. At $1.90 a meal, that means if you take that times 400,000, that is over $1.2 million per day just going to illegals in the school lunch program. And then? we talk about that we do not have enough dollars for education. It takes about $5,000, I think the average is around $7,000 nationwide, but it takes about $5,000 a year to educate a child in the State of California. If we take that and multiply it times 400,000, that is over $200 billion out of the coffers that we could be using for education, Mr. Speaker, in the State of California. We have documented 18,000 illegal felons; these are just the ones that are caught, in California prisons alone. There are actually about 24,000 aliens, but only about 18,000, between 16,000 and 18,000 of those are illegal aliens in the State of California prison system at an average of $25,000 a year to House them. We are spending billions of dollars in a program that could go for education. When they talk about there are more prisons then there are dollars for education. That is the one area that we could really work on is to stop the illegal immigration into the United States and protect our borders. Over half of the children born in San Diego and Los Angeles hospitals are to illegal aliens. Then that child then becomes an American citizen and qualifies for all of the Federal programs. That, again, is draining the resources out of Sacramento, the dollars that we need for education. Let me just, Mr. Speaker, let me go through one single, just one single Federal program that was written with good intent, and in many cases has done a lot of good but has gone to the extremes. I would talk about the Endangered Species Act. You say, ``Duke, how does the Endangered Species Act affect education?'' Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. How many jobs have we lost in the timber industry and the billions of dollars of revenue in the State of California that would go into the Sacramento coffers for education? Billions of dollars. Look at the gnat catcher and the construction industry in the State of California. It has cost us billions of dollars of revenue that is not going into our coffers for education. I look at the water and the salmon and Central Valley water project that was passed when we were not in the majority. Look how that has affected the farmers in the State of California. California's No. 1 commodity is agriculture. A lot of people do not understand that. Take a look how it has affected the farmers, avocados and exports and different areas, again revenue. How many jobs, Mr. Speaker, have we lost to the tuna industry because of the porpoise? When we have valuable resources and we have systems in which even in the Panama agreement that have been represented by five of the environmental groups, except for Earth Island, that receives a lot of its money, over a million dollars, just for the Tuna Save, but yet they are one of the organizations that does not support logical reform in the tuna industry. I look at the kangaroo rat, the least tern vireo, the California desert plan that took millions of acres off of the tax roles that do not go into education, hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of revenue that is not going into the coeffers in Sacramento, Mr. Speaker, and then we are having to close down education programs because we do not have the funding. You will find that library services and media and central and study halls and those areas are being closed down, not just in the State of California but across this land, because of the lack of jobs and because of the lack of money that is going into those coffers from the State level because of Federal systems. Alan Greenspan, and my colleague just a minute ago spoke eloquently about the need to balance the budget, another reason we do not have dollars for education, Mr. Speaker, Alan Greenspan testified last week before the committee that interest rates have gone down 2 percent primarily because the markets and the lending industries believe that the Republicans can balance the budget in 7 years. He also warned that if that belief goes away, that interest rates will not only rise beyond the 2 percent but will keep spiraling upward. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? For example, a college loan, let us talk about an individual family in California or your State or anybody's State, a college loan with 2 percent interest rates over 4 years at $11,000 means $4,500 back in either the student's pocket or the parent that loaned the money in the first place, $4,500. People are wondering why, why are two people having to work and they cannot make ends meet. I mean, it is crazy. In the State of California, and I am sure across the States, where people are having to work, they are slaving, they are working 10 to 12 hours a day and they are just barely making it on a margin in small business. But if you look at the interest rates, for example, in a home mortgage, why are they paying these excess costs? Why can they not make it? A home mortgage, 2- percent reduction, $90,000 mortgage, which is not real high in the city of San Diego, it is in the inner cities, but a $90,000 mortgage, 8.5 percent fixed over 30 years means $37,500 back in the pocket of that individual, and you can attribute that to the balanced budget, or lack of a balanced budget, because of those interest rates. Alan Greenspan also said that those interest rates will continue to go down if we balanced the budget by 2 to 4 percent, and think of the dollars that that will put back into the pockets of the American people. They will buy products. The cost of goods will go down. And that will mean there will be more dollars in the coeffers of Sacramento for education. An auto loan, $15,000, will be a thousand dollars back in the pocket of an individual. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you would like to have another thousand dollars in your pocket to spend at Christmastime, or whatever, and, by the way, then you are going to buy a hamburger, you are going to go to a movie, and that is going to support the other businesses. That revenue is going to be generated, and it is going to go into, again, 93 percent of the revenue for education, which comes out of the State, and we need to provide that. But that is another reason why the balanced budget is important to education. I would like to provide for the Record, Mr. Speaker, an article where it says the Endangered Species Act, in the State of California, has added $44,000 per home in the State of California. Let me repeat that: The endangered species has added 7.5 percent to every home, and we are talking about low-income homes for the poor and the impoverished, and we increase it. We just talked about how important 2 percent is. If it is increased 7.5 percent, $44,000 per home. Why? It is because in endangered species, you have got set aside land, and you build on others' lands. Who is going to pay for that? The consumer is going to pay for that, Mr. Speaker, and in doing that, that means less revenue again for education that goes into the coffers, and so on. I would like to provide that for the Record. It is called ``Habitat Protection Raises Building Costs.'' It is ``In the Opinion,'' North County, San Diego. I will give you that in just a little bit. It is very important why we do not have the dollars in education. Let me tell you about this institution, Mr. Speaker. For the past 40 years, it has been about power. It has been about the power to be reelected so that you can maintain a majority. That power has emanated from the ability of the Federal Government to disburse money down to many groups. I am sure, like myself, every day we have people coming into the offices for dollars. Everything is important. They can find a reason to support their particular Federal program. But that is why we have ended up, and in all the debate about why the deficit and the debt are important, it comes down to what is important for us in education. But if you take a look at what we are trying to do is take the power out of Washington, DC, because the power to be reelected equates to the power to disburse money out of the Federal Government, which acquires power at a Federal level, and a bigger bureaucracy to disburse those dollars. Those dollars that go down to disburse are as little as 23 cents on every dollar. There is only 30 cents on a dollar in your welfare programs because of the bureaucracies. Some of my colleagues will tell you, well, look, you are cutting education, you are cutting education, you are cutting the money for the environment, you are cutting the money for Medicare. We zeroed out, Mr. Speaker, the dollars for Goals 2000 on a Federal level. Absolutely, you could say on a Federal level it is accurate to say we cut Goals 2000, zeroed it out. But as Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story is we take the dollars and we send it directly to the State, take those dollars directly to the State, and the State can run a Goals 2000. The proponents of Goals 2000 will tell you, well, it is a voluntary system. It is the old bait-and-switch, Mr. Speaker. It is voluntary if you do not want the money in the Goals 2000, and I would challenge you to read it. There are 45 instances that says ``States will,'' ``States will,'' mandates from the Federal Government. It set up five, actually six bureaucracies and institutions, new bureaucracies and institutions that the States have to adhere to. You have to file boards. You have to send the reports to the Federal Government, and guess what, Mr. Speaker, while you have got this manpower at the State that is having to do all of these things which takes dollars away from the classroom, you have got a catcher's mitt of bureaucracies on the other end receiving all of those reports and analyzing. Do the States meet those requirements? Do we allow them to run with the dollars just like it is? The answer is, again, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Let us do away with that: Remember, 7 percent requires over 50 percent of the rules and regulations. Let us send it to the States. Let us let the States run their own Goals 2000, and prosper better. But yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will say ``You are cutting Goals 2000, a good program.'' If it is so good, let them run it, but let them run it at the State level, without the Federal bureaucracy and the Federal intrusion. As I mentioned, there are 45 must-do clauses, while it only has three that said you should do in Goals 2000. Six new bureaucracies and research institutions under Federal control. It is also established and run by the union bosses and the Federal administration. In 1979, the Department of Education doubled. It went from $14.2 billion to $32.9 billion. If the President's direct loan program were allowed to be affected, it would be the largest lending institution in the United States. That is Federal intrusion, that is Federal control, and it is Federal waste, Mr. Speaker. Per pupil spending grew 35 percent between 1979 and 1992. Federal programs and taxes have increased threefold. SAT scores have declined 12 percent, and yet we have less than 12 percent of our classrooms that have a single phone jack. We look at the bureaucracy that eats up the dollars, and we look at why we do not have dollars for education. Let me give you another idea about Goals 2000. The humanities standard at the Federal level, after spending $900,000, $900,000, was suspended, Mr. Speaker. One of the required standards was that English be replaced, English be replaced, Mr. Speaker, with the words ``privileged dialect.'' That type of social engineering and politically correct Federal intrusion is one of the reasons I believe that our school systems are doing poorly. Look at the Federal history standards. They emphasize everything but the foundations of Western culture. I sat with the creators of those standards, with the gentleman from Michigan, Dale Kildee, the ranking minority member on the education subcommittee that I serve on, and Dale Kildee, an ex-history teacher before he came to this body, stood up and said, ``It is wrong. You are not teaching history, you are emphasizing non-history issues.'' For example, there is more in the Federal standards for history on Madonna than there is the Magna Carta. There is more on McCarthyism than there is on the Constitution of the United States. These are some of the reasons why many of the people do not support Goals 2000 on a Federal level, but where at a State level, where the State establishes the standards, they can establish the same aid standards under Goals 2000, but it does not have the rules and regulations, it does not have the Federal intrusion, and it sure costs a lot less to run. Mr. Speaker, I have heard some of my colleagues say, ``Well, we are cutting student loans.'' Well, Alice Rivlin of the Clinton administration proposed to eliminate college loan subsidies for a savings of $12.4 billion. Well, that is not done in this body. There is no subsidy taken out. I heard my colleague just before say, ``Well, maybe we will not have to cut Pell grants.'' Pell grant awards are the highest this year than they have ever been in history. Mr. Speaker, let me repeat: Pell grants, Pell grants that I believe in, for low income students, is at the highest level it has ever been in its history. Now, I would also let the Speaker know that it is not enough; that with the rising costs of tuition and with the rising costs of books and college courses, that it does not pay what it was originally intended for with Mr. Pell. But we put $6.5 billion into that program. Perkins student loans increase by 50 percent, Mr. Speaker, over 7 years. Let me repeat that. They say we are cutting education in this balanced budget. But, again, I give you the Goals 2000. Zero it out at the Federal level, yes. I want to cut most of these things out of the Federal level and put it back to the States. The same thing with the environment. There is a lot of sand and dirt between San Diego, CA, and Maine, Mr. Speaker, and to blanket across the Nation with a rule and regulation from the Federal Government that has been obtrusive should not happen. It should be at the State level. But, again, we are sending the money to the state on the environment. My colleagues will say we are cutting funds for the environment, we are cutting education, we are cutting Federal instruction. Let me repeat, student loans increase by 50 percent, from $25 billion to $50 billion over the next 7 years. The Republicans will spend $340 billion over 7 years on education, job training and student loans. The last 7 years, the Democrat leadership, when they were in the majority, spent only $315 billion on education, job training, and student loans. Spending on K through 12 education has increased by 4.1 percent, but yet we bring better management, less rules and regulations, less Federal paper, less Federal reporting, and more local, school and down at the LEA control with the teachers, the parents, and the educators. From 1983 through 1993, the States put in education $60 billion and have increased that to $115. But yet if you take a look the increase in spending for education across the board, Mr. Speaker, on reading skills, I heard on the television today that a great number, better than 50 percent, of the children do not read up to grade level 4 in the State of Maryland. California was last in literacy. I think there are different reasons for that. A lot of it is probably the immigration rates and other things. I want to tell you, my wife is a teacher and a principal, and there are a lot of great schools that we have across this Nation. There are some great teachers. But across the board, Mr. Speaker, our education systems are failing our children, and it is not efficient. We can do better. From both sides of the aisle we can do better, by taking the power out of Washington and putting it back at the State level. Let us look at, for example, title I. I was back in my district this weekend, and one of the teachers said ``Duke, don't take money out of Title I, because it is important.'' Well, let me tell you what the Clinton administration said. Title I is not achieving its goals. Comparisons to similar cohorts by grade and poverty levels show that the program's participation does not reduce test scores gapped for disadvantaged students. Indeed, Chapter 1 student scores in all poverty cohorts decline between third and fourth grades. They also go on to say that once a student goes on in education, that any gains made are lost. Let us look at Head Start. This is again what the Clinton administration says, effective in some areas. I would say in all fairness, Mr. Speaker, I have visited some very good Head Start programs. In the State of California, my district, there is a great Head Start program. Even the administration agrees that there is mismanagement across this country in the field of Head Start. But yet we continue to pump money into it and do not demand that the standards and the values and the management is there for the Head Start program. We have got to change that. Several studies indicate a short-term cognitive and effective social benefit for poor children. However, the same studies indicate as the child moves into the elementary school the effects decline. They decline to zero. If we are going to put the dollars into education, Mr. Speaker, that are effective, that are long lasting for our children, that teach reading, writing, arithmetic and so on, then I think we need to focus on getting what will get the best bang for the dollars. Let us look at the student loan program, where we say we have increased student loans by 50 percent. But where did we get our savings from? The Clinton administration, President Clinton's direct student loan program cost $1 billion more than the private industry, like the banks and lending institutions. My colleagues on the other side will say ``Well Duke, that is just for the rich. You are just supporting the special interest groups and taking it away from the Federal Government.'' Well, with the Federal Government and its mismanagement, and I think you can look across the board, that is in defense, that is in education, that is in welfare, NIH, anywhere, the mismanagement of dollars the taxpayers give us, and you can save it by privatizing that, then we will do that. So we limit the President's direct loan program to 10 percent and save billions of dollars. That is not including the savings CBO scored. They do not even know what it would take to receive those dollars back. That is just the administration fees on the direct loan program. So, yes, there are programs that we have eliminated and cut. But, again, Mr. Speaker, those are on a Federal level in driving the dollars back down to the States. Let me tell you about other savings that we made on the loan program. This country has a law on the books that has been overlooked. I want to separate illegal aliens form legal aliens. We have legal aliens in this country that are going to our colleges and universities. It is to our benefit to educate those aliens at a time, because they plan on becoming American citizens. Over a lifetime, for just completing a bachelor's degree, there is an increase of earnings in that household by over $300,000. Again, that means $300,000 in revenue that that person is going to earn and pay taxes on. Remember, State taxes pay for 93 percent of education, so it is to our benefit. But, at the same time, almost anyone has been qualifying for those education loans. So what we did, let us say, which I am not, but let us say I was a low-income parent applying for a student loan at a low- income rate, low-interest rate. I would have to show what my earnings are to qualify. Well, all we have done, Mr. Speaker, is ask the sponsor of that legal alien, because under the current law that sponsor has to sign a document that they will be responsible for the alien, that legal alien, while they reside in the United States and are working for citizenship for this country, their earnings are calculated to see if that student qualifies for a low-income loan, the same as an American citizen would have to do. We think that is fair, either as a citizen or as a legal alien, to qualify to see if you should qualify for a low-income loan. Say, for example, Imelda Marcos' relatives came to the great State of California. We may to want to give those individuals a low-income loan, because they can pay for it themselves. But there is an increased cost on lenders, guarantors, and agencies in the secondary markets in the Federal education loan program. We save over $1 billion, Mr. Speaker, I think that is important also. Let me speak to something else, and I think we could probably get support from both sides of the aisle on this issue. As I mentioned before, we have less than 12 percent of our classrooms across this Nation that have a single phone jack in it. I think every Member in this body understands the importance of the information age in the 21st century. In the olden days, as my daughters like to report, it used to take 30 years for us to double our knowledge. It now takes 1 year, Mr. Speaker. Look at the amount of children that are using computers now in many of the homes. Of course, many children are not. Take a look at the information they have available to them. Look at our libraries. Try to get an airline ticket without going down and using a computer. Or even in our classrooms or in our offices. Yet, less than 12 percent of these classrooms have even a single phone jack. If we want to take that 7 percent as a vision and really do something with education on a Federal level, Mr. Speaker, I think there can be a partnership between the Federal Government, between the States, and between private enterprise. I want to give my colleagues an example. If we really want to help education, if we do not upgrade those classrooms with the technology for our children to learn, then the delta, the difference, between the rich and the poor, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to point to all the time, that delta will increase significantly because we do not provide the skills for our children to go on and apply to the job market. I have industry and small businessmen across the board come to me and say, Duke, as little as 25 percent of the people that come to us even qualify for basic entry level into the job market because they cannot read, they cannot write, they cannot do math, or they cannot speak English. We are failing our kids, Mr. Speaker. Now, let us work at a Federal partnership, let us work with the telecommunications subcommittee with the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Jack Fields. Let us create, which they are doing, a market where there is profit sharing, to where the AT&Ts and the Baby Bells, and the IBMs and the Apples work and build up our classrooms. Let us let them make a dollar. Profit is not a dirty word, unless one is a socialist. Let us let them build up our classrooms, provide for our kids, because we cannot do it. We do not have the dollars on the Federal level to invest in our classroom. Mr. Speaker, walk down here in Washington, DC and look at these schools. These kids are lucky to have books sometimes. Or look at a Federal housing project, where kids are carrying guns. They are not carrying books. If we do not build these classrooms and work with that private partnership, then I think we will be lost. I talk to Alcoa and I talk to AT&T and the Baby Bells, and the people I am talking about. We have about a 3 percent disintegration of copper wire in our electronic system. We have about another 3 percent where we build new schools and new facilities. That would be a 6 percent investment in this Nation that we could work with the Federal, the State and private enterprise. Six percent a year. And it would not take us that many years to build up our classrooms. Now, let the AT&Ts and the Baby Bells and the IBMs put the fiber optics in there, and the Alcoas. Let them make a profit from that, but, at the same time, they are investing in our school system. Let us give incentives to do that because again, if we do not do that, Mr. Speaker, our kids are going to be in the big delta between the rich and the poor because they will not hare the skills to go forward. I want to give my colleagues a classic example. I have a school I have spoken about in the committee. It is Scripts Ranch. The city and private enterprise went in and put fiber optics into the school. Every classroom has a computer. We have boys and girls at the high school level, on the vocational side, that are swinging hammers. They are building modular units, and they sell those units, those classrooms. And if we were to inspect them, they are as good as any tradesman would do, because they are supervised by tradesmen, both union and private, by the way. And they are making sure the kids are safe when they swing their hammers. But they sell those units and they buy other high- technology equipment for that school. On the other side, the kids that are college bound, not vocational bound, are the engineers, the computer designers and the architects. They are using the computers and they have redesigned the whole school. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, in the summer, and were chastised for the summer jobs program. Probably not very many jobs were created by the summer jobs program, other than keeping kids busy, but let me tell my colleagues about the summer jobs program at Scripts where they have the computers and they have the kids working in vocational and college bound. The city of San Diego hires these kids. The unions and private enterprise, under apprenticeship programs, they teach them a skill on the vocational side and they give them a better on-the-job training for their college preparation. And it works, Mr. Speaker. It is a good program. And it is an investment between the Federal, the State, and private enterprise. This is similar to the model that I can see for this whole country, Mr. Speaker, in investing in our school systems. We can do that, if we can get away from the Federal socialized meddling with States' rights and let the States set their own educational standards, and let the States, if they want, have their own Goals 2000, and let the States do their own Head Start Program and keep the Federal rules and regulations, the inadequacies and the bureaucracy. But, again, this place is about power. This whole balanced budget, and we will hear over and over and over again, from those that would put a socialist model on education, that this is the only place that can make those decisions. This government, at a Federal level, is the only one, because the States will not do it. We do not trust the States to do it because they want the power here in River City. And that is what this whole debate is on the balanced budget. Because if the budget is balanced, Mr. Speaker, that power to disburse money and control dollars with rules and regulations down to the State level limits the minority party for reelection. And if we limit reelections, we limit the power. We limit the power to get reelected. It is a self- contained sewer system. That is what the budget debate is. They do not want to balance the budget because it limits their ability to flow dollars down to constituents. I have told my colleagues about the plaque the President has on his wall during the election that said ``It is the economy, stupid.'' It is not. It should be their pocketbook, stupid. Because when we touch somebody's pocketbook, liberal or conservative, they are up here fighting for those dollars, because the Federal Government is not going to provide it for them. And we should learn that lesson, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree with this next statement; that part of the problem that we have with education is the current welfare system. I look, and I used to teach at Hinsdale High School in Hinsdale, IL. We have some of the finest schools in the, Chicago, IL, area, and, I think, in the world. We have Hinsdale and Evanston and Nutrier. But any time we look at the good schools, the good teachers, where they have good facilities, we need to look beyond that at the inner cities and some of the areas where the education programs, like Washington, DC, or any great city that we could come across. There is an area of about 5 miles in Chicago of Federal housing. Those kids do not carry books, Mr. Speaker, they carry guns. It is loaded with pimps and prostitutes. Their pregnancy rates are terrible for unwed mothers. And what hope do those kids have? Do we think if we put computers in those schools that they would learn? Do we think across the country there is a low percentage of our teachers that even know how to turn on or even use those computers to teach those skills? That is why I think the intereducation program, the Eisenhower grants, even through we get very little of the money back down, I would rather have the State provide it. But if we do not teach and give our teachers the funds, the wherewithal to upgrade their schools, like title 1 and Eisenhower grants, then how can we ask the teachers to perform and teach the kids, especially when they do not have computers in there in the first place. They have to learn those skills to be able to teach our kids. If we look at the welfare system that we have, and I think it is one of the biggest reasons why education has failed, Mr. Speaker, where we have a system that discourages a parent coming together with a mother, a single mother, and a child or vice versa. If they do, we take that welfare check away from them. We discourage that couple getting together. And I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would agree that every time I have been to a college event for graduation, or someone going to an academy or an education event, where there is success, the overwhelming majority of those successes involve where parents were involved with their kids. And if we do not have the parent involvement, the percentage, of those kids are going down. Yet the welfare system deters people from coming together or even a mother working. Take a single mother. She wants to go to work. She will have to pay for child care. She is probably going to have to buy a new set of clothes. She will have to probably get some kind of training, because she has not worked in a second or third generation in many cases. But in many cases it is not, it is someone that has lost their job, that is having a hard time and they need to go back and they need the support. But there is a discouragement to get off of the system, because, again, we say go to work. You will have to have all these other costs, but we will take your welfare check away from you. Well, I think we need to provide that. I also do not think we have provided enough funds for the job training, which my colleagues harp on. Why? Because if we are going to solve the problems of the welfare problem and reform, and if we are asking these people to get off of welfare, then they are saying for what? If I do not have the skills, if I have never worked in my life, or I have limited skills and I cannot read and cannot write, which the statistics show across the country, and I cannot even qualify for an entry-level job, how am I going to go to work and support my family? That is the area where I think, if anything, we need to increase the amount of job training for people, to help them get off of welfare. I think, also, that when we look at the folks on welfare and look across the board, the low-income child is more likely not to succeed than those that come from higher socioeconomic levels. My colleagues on the other side are exactly correct on that. But the question is, Mr. Speaker, the model. Do we have a socialistic model, where the Federal Government does all and costs us extra dollars to get the dollars down because of the bureaucracy and the power and the rules and the regulations; or do we let the States, where we take away all those other costs? My colleagues will say we at the Federal Government are the only ones that can do that. Mr. Speaker, I think that is intolerable. I think if we want to clean up our education system, we need to give States more responsibility and more power to do what they need to do. Because like I said, there is a lot of sand between San Diego, California, and Maine. There are a lot of great programs out there, Mr. Speaker, and the States can still run those programs. But when we are getting as little dollars down that we can, down to the State level, I think that there is a lot of room for error and a lot of room that we can improve. I want to give my conservative colleagues a caution, however, which I am a conservative. But serving on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities, I have been enlightened in some cases by my collegues on the other side of the aisle, and I see one of them grinning right now. If we try to do this too fast, and we can look at the State of California and the economic situation that I have just talked about. Try and pass a school bond in San Diego County. It is very difficult. Even on a State-wide election or an initiative. Most people check no if we want to increase their taxes or increase their burden. It is very difficult to support that. Try an increase in tax, a gas tax or anything, to pick up that load to the State. People are resistant, Mr. Speaker. A lot of my conservative friends, and which I consider myself one of, want to chop it off now; want to do totally away with it. If we do that, in my opinion, in my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, we will damage some of the very programs that we are helping. I say that in the face of only getting 23 cents out of a buck. But until we have that transition, until we can balance the budget, and it all ties in together, welfare, balanced budget, and education and jobs and revenue. It all ties in. It is called microeconomics. But until we can reduce those interest rates, until we can improve the economy, until we can get more dollars into people's pockets by having a $500 tax rate per child, that goes back into the pockets of people, until they can see where they are not both having to kill themselves just to get by to pay their mortgage, which they are paying $40,000 more for, or they are paying $4,500 more interest on a loan because of the deficit, then I think we will have trouble shifting that power. And I think over the next 7 years, we ought to look and do very, very carefully. Are we going to make some mistakes, Mr. Speaker? Yes, we are. But I think the blessings of it are that are going to return that power to the States. We are going to reduce the size of the Federal bureaucracy back here, which is so key to the Democrat Party and their maintenance of power. And that is why they will blast us night after night saying that we are hurting the environment, we are hurting kids, we are hurting seniors and so on. What we are hurting is their power to get reelected so that they can have the power in River City.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Congressman who?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Only 30 cents in welfare gets down to the recipients that really need the welfare check because of all the bureaucracy. Now my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or this side of the aisle, or the American public, you cannot run a business like that, and what the Governors have come to us and said is let us have the dollars, you do not want children to go hungry, you want the needy to be taken care of, you want the help. But you have got 144-some welfare programs, you have got 250 education programs. Let us set our own State standards, give us the money, do away with the Federal requirements and the bureaucracy, and we can make it more efficient. And guess what? We can apply those savings to the deficit and reduce, and what you have been talking about, what Alan Greenspan said, is that interest rates have already come down 2 percent. Why? Because the lending institutions for the first time in over 40 years believe that Congress is serious about [[Page H 14154]] balancing the budget, and if that expectation goes away, those interest rates would not only go back to where they were, they will spiral upward and upward, and then look what it costs for a student loan in the increased interest. Look what it costs for a home with increased interest. I do not know about you, but most Americans, when interest rates came down, they refinanced their home, and I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, if you have not done it already, take a serious look because it is going to be cheaper on your payments, and what does that mean? It means more dollars in the pockets of the American people. And these are some of the things on education, and I have a special order later tonight that I want to go through in depth some of these same issues on education and go through grant by grant, loan by loan, education bill and education program by education program and show what we have really done. If you say cut at a Federal level, yes, I will zero out any program I can at a Federal level and pass it on down to the State because I think and believe from the bottom of my heart it is much more efficient, it is closer to the people, and they can decide better where those dollars will be used, and I think that is what we are trying to do here.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Just the overhead, $1 billion more than sending it to the private enterprises, but yet our colleagues say, well, that is only for the rich, that is for your loan guys, and that is for your banks. Well, I can do something cheaper and better and provide more loans to the students that really need them, and the Pell grants which have been increased higher than any other level in the time of history, then I think that is better, instead again of having the Federal Government up here being able to dole out the money, and guess what? That direct student loan program, the President wanted billions more dollars to increase it by fourscore, and that would make the Department of Education the biggest lending entity in the world, I mean other than the World Bank, and that is what they want. They want that power of the Federal dollars to come down so that they can say, well, look at the grant that I gave you here. But they forget one thing, Mr. Speaker. They forget where the money came from in the first place. It is not their money. They take if from the very people, send it up here, and let me give you another accurate figure, Mr. Speaker, and this is one for my colleague to remember also. Only 23 cents out of every dollar that comes to Washington gets back into the classroom, 23 cents on every dollar.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me be very specific. I would like, Mr. Speaker, for you to listen to these figures because they are accurate and they are important in this debate. The Federal Government only supports 7 percent of education funding, 7 percent. 93 percent of all education is paid for out of State tax dollars. Now, of that 7 percent that we send to States, it occupies over 50 percent of the rules and regulations and burden on the State itself. It represents 75 percent of the paperwork that the State and the schools have to go through that tie up portions of the 93 cents that comes out of the State tax dollars.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If you remember, it was our freshman class when I went aboard 5 years ago that had the gang of 7 that closed down the House bank, that found out they were selling cocaine downstairs here, and brought the check scandal to fruition. I think it was the first radical group to come in to make change, and the sophomore class followed, and the 75 young Turks that came in after that have done a bang-up job. I thank you for yielding, and one of the things I would like to talk to is that, you know, some of the more radical Members on the other side of the aisle say that, well, we are cutting education, we are cutting the environment, we are cutting, hurting senior citizens. Unfortunately, this place is about power. It is about the power to be reelected. The power to be reelected over the last 40 years means the power to disburse money from the Federal Government down to the lower ranks so they are going to vote for you so you can get reelected so that you have got the power, and to support that you need the big bureaucracy to support the flow of the money so you can get reelected so you have got the power. What we are doing, and I think the American people would have a legitimate complaint if this Congress and the Republicans were trying to shift that power to the Republican Party, but the whole agenda and a balanced budget amendment and the agenda that we are trying to do is take that power not to Republicans but to the American people, to the States, where it can be more effectively used. We believe that government works closest to the people and it works best there. [[Page H 14153]] You will hear over and over and over again by more liberal Members from Congress here that this is the only place that those decisions can be made. The States cannot make those decisions because in the past they have failed and that they are the only ones that can tell the American people how to do their business. That is a good issue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is. It is very accurate. It is accurate for any State you go into. We happen to have one in eight Americans lives in the State of California. It is the same for any one of the States. The Federal Government only provides 7 percent of the funding for education. 93 percent, or 93 cents out of every dollar, comes out of the State. But yet of that 7 cents, 50 percent of the rules and regulations that tie up the State comes out of that 7 percent of funding from the Federal Government, 75 percent of the paperwork, and by getting back, and for example, my colleague says, well, you look, you cut out Goals 2000, you cut out all the funds for Goals 2000, what a great program. Well, if I send the money directly to the State and the State likes Goal 2000, the Governors have told us they can do a Goals 2000 program much more efficiently. They do not have the Federal rules and regulations, and they will argue, well, it is all voluntary. In the Goals 2000 bill there are 48 instances that say ``States will,'' and requires reporting, requires paperwork, and guess what, on the other end it takes Federal bureaucrats to take in that information, to record it and so on. My wife is a principal. She has to write grants for Goals 2000, and they receive some of the dollars. Many of the schools set up and hire people to write grants. They do not get the dollars, in most cases. Even in the cases they do, quite often, if it is not a larger school, the amount of dollars they get is not as much as it costs to pay the grant writer and to perform the rules and the regulations and the paperwork that comes back to Washington, DC. So when they say we are cutting, we are actually providing more dollars and more efficiency to the States. And those savings; guess what? Those savings go to balance the budget, and in the case of the education bill, Mr. Speaker, some of those savings went up to NIH for medical research on AIDS, and heart disease, and some of the things that I believe most people in America believe are of national interest and that the Federal Government is the one that can host. So I get kind of upset when they say that we are cutting education, and they say I think the gentleman covered the student finances and the student loans. We are providing more money for student loans than ever in the history. But guess where the savings come from? The President's bill on direct lending, and I would like to give you, Mr. Speaker, some accurate figures as well, if I can find them here, that what the costs of the President's direct lending costs us. The President asks, or the President's costs, cost $1 billion over the next 7 years more than private student loans, $1 billion for the direct loan period, and guess what? CBO and OMB have not even calculated what it costs to collect those loans. That is just the distribution of it. So when we say----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In a manly way. He has not only stuck up for me physically recently but in campaigns and everything else, and I consider him a very close friend. I am not running for President and I am looking at the presidential side of it. But I would not presuppose, and I would tell my friend from California, that the Frenchmen had been shot in the legs. I would hope that is not true.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I retired from the Navy in 1987.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Can we stay on Bosnia, Bob?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me comment and give you my opinion of a couple of the events. My friend knows the warm affection I feel for him.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I give credit to the liberal education system that our colleagues cannot add or subtract. There is no cut in Medicare, and they know that. Mr. Speaker, the Clinton budget costs American children $187,000, just on the interest of the national debt. By contrast, the Republican Congress is turning toward the best interest of our American children, balancing the budget and investing in their education. I have heard colleagues say we are cutting programs such as Goals 2000. Absolutely. We zeroed out, and I would do it again, Goals 2000 on a Federal level. We are spending the money down at the State level, sending the money closest to the people, driving it down to the school districts. And they can do a Goals 2000 at the State level, but they do not have 38 instances in the bill of Goals 2000 that said the State will do this or the Federal intrusion. They can still do a Goals 2000 and these other programs. Any additional savings goes to the children.