Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1995. I am very pleased to support the continuation of the Older Americans Act which has been so successful and means so much to our Nation's elderly population. This act continues to address the special needs of our Nation's chronologically gifted, as I like to say. The Older Americans Act encourages and assists State and area agencies on aging to concentrate resources on comprehensive and coordinated systems to serve older individuals. Over the years it has evolved into a nationwide network that provides a wide array of service programs that include promotion of independent living, senior nutrition programs, in-home and community based care, programs for elder abuse, and the sole Federal jobs creation program benefiting low-income older workers. The Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families held four hearings this past summer to examine the Older Americans Act. While support remains strong for this legislation, the subcommittee heard consistent testimony on the need for increased State and local flexibility and on the practical need for consolidation and streamlining. As a result, the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1995 focus on increased flexibility that will improve the aging networks' ability to improve service to our elderly population now, and well into the 21st century. This legislation will provide maximum authority to States and localities to design and operate services and programs for seniors. It will drive more money directly to the States and local communities by decreasing bureaucracy and administrative costs. The Older Americans Act Amendments of 1995 will consolidate and simplify aging services programs by combining multiple programs and funding streams under the act. It encourages the establishment of a system that is more streamlined, that is designed to empower consumers through encouraged competition and easy access to services. With Congress committed to balancing our country's Federal budget, Federal spending programs across the board have been subject to evaluation and review. While current budget constraints and actual appropriations prevent us from increasing funding for OAA programs; streamlining this act and reducing the Federal bureaucracy will allow Congress to retain these vital services while bringing our country's fiscal responsibility into order. This bill authorizes amounts for fiscal year 1997 that are consistent with the House appropriations for fiscal year 1996. Should those numbers increase in a House and Senate appropriations conference, those increases will be reflected [[Page E 2094]] in the final legislation. The Older Americans Act Amendments of 1995 assures that the maximum amount of funds available will go directly to our elderly with the greatest needs. Resource limitations make it all the more important for us to remain vigilant in ensuring that we reach those elderly persons with the greatest economic need and greatest social need. Our intent in this bill is to encourage maximum flexibility so that State and local agencies can improve service delivery systems that are currently in place. In nutrition services, we eliminate the restrictive nature of the current nutrition programs that have separate funding for congregate, in-home delivered meals and USDA commodities by consolidating the nutrition funding streams into one flexible account for nutrition services. After years of requests by service providers, this legislation, for the first time, allows States to implement a cost-sharing program for in-home type services and nutrition programs in order to expand programs to seniors. Cost sharing would be based on self-declaration of income. The legislation also continues to encourage voluntary contributions and allows States to develop a voucher system for services, such as nutrition or supportive services that are not available through traditional providers. In addition, the Senior Community Service Employment Program will be administered directly by the States and competed among local public and private non-profit organizations and area agencies on aging within the States. This new administration of the program will allow for more resources to go directly to low-income seniors for part-time employment and allow States to better meet the needs of their older individuals. In making changes to the Senior Community Service Employment Program we have allowed for a transition period to mitigate disruptions to individuals currently enrolled in the program. States and localities have been given more flexibility to determine appropriate services and address local needs. In addition, States have more discretion in the development of their intrastate funding formula. Title VII Elder Rights Protection has been consolidated into Title III Supportive Services which can provide for a wide array of services from transportation, in-home type services to elder abuse activities. The requirement for the Statewide Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program is maintained. The ability to transfer up to 50 percent of funding between Nutrition and Supportive Services is also included in the legislation. In an effort to consolidate senior related programs into the act, we have moved three senior volunteer programs, the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, the Foster Grandparent Program and the Senior Companion Program from the Corporation for National Service. We feel that this move will provide a secure home for these important programs well into the future. There have been concerns in the past about the wide array of ever increasing mandates that appeared in the act with each new reauthorization. The Administration on Aging was overwhelmed with increasing demands while resources were shrinking. In this legislation we try to relieve the AOA of some of those demands so that it can focus on its' most critical and primary mission. For the first time, the Administration on Aging will be responsible for administering all programs under this act. With the elimination of the former Title IV Training Research and Discretionary Programs, the Assistant Secretary has been given broad authority to carry out these types of programs. Requirements for special offices within the administration were eliminated while maintaining the need for individuals with expertise in these areas. While nothing in the act precludes the AOA from continuing these offices, it provides the administration with additional flexibility. The Older Americans Act has always been viewed as a most worthwhile piece of legislation. I firmly believe that the 1995 Amendments will provide the flexibility to address the changing needs of our older individuals and continue to honor our commitment to them now, and well into the future. I urge my colleagues to support the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1995.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am in a dilemma because I both support the words of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli] and the words of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter]. I think that the issue of Azerbaijan and Armenia needs to be addressed. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] tells me that it will go back to conference and it will be looked at. I hope that is the case. On the second point, this Member personally believes that this body in Congress has no reason to get involved in family planning of other countries. As a matter of fact, I feel, no matter what side of the issue one is on, it should stay out of the bedrooms of American citizens, and I do not think it should be funded abroad or here in Congress, either way, and basically stay out of it. As my colleagues know, it is established under Roe versus Wade, and I think this body ought to stay the hell out of it. Insofar as this bill, I would ask support of the rule, and I will work with the gentlemen on the other side to make sure that the Azerbaijan-Armenia issue is included.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we were told about the process. In 48 hours the President is going to ask our troops to go to war. Yes,;any process to tell the President that we disagree should be moved up. A lengthy debate should follow. But take a look at our record in Somalia, in Haiti, in the bombing of Somalia and Bosnia, just recently. The lasting effect is zero. We killed Americans and we spent billions of dollars. Mr. Speaker, this is going to cost us $1 to $5 billion. The President will come back and ask for an emergency supplemental. Is it wise? Well, this is Afghanistan with trees. General MacKenzie said he would not touch it with a 10-foot pole. Today, the French President said plan on a 20-year American occupation. Twenty years. Are we ready to make that commitment when we are trying to take care of our own house in this country? Mr. Speaker, I advise a yes vote on this resolution.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, among the many budget issues that Congress continues to work on is our effort to revitalize our national security. In these tight budgetary times, every spending decision we make must be cost and benefit justified. The following commentary, written by former Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger in the November 6, 1995, issue of Forbes magazine, provides some of the many outstanding arguments for our Nation to continue to fund the B-2 Stealth Bomber Program. As Secretary Weinberger notes, ``few people understand just how good, how revolutionary, this stealth bomber is.'' That said, I recommend that all of my colleagues in the [[Page E 2065]] House and Senate read this piece, and consider the value and benefit that the B-2 offers our national defense. [From Forbes magazine, Nov. 6, 1995] Keep the B-2 Program Alive (By Caspar Weinberger) Whether to continue production of the B-2 stealth bomber, the world's most advanced aircraft, is an issue that creates strange alliances. Many proponents of a strong defense favor terminating the B-2 program, leaving us with only the 20 aircraft already paid for. A second group favor making the required expenditures now (roughly $500 million) that would enable us to resume production of the B-2 should international conditions require it. This would be far less expensive than closing the production line and having to start it up later. A third group, small in number, believe we need more B-2s and should continue production on a low-level scale. The second group's approach is the most reasonable, practical and necessary. The B-2--the world's only stealth bomber--is, as even one of its strongest opponents admits, ``a technological marvel . . .widely praised by our highest- ranking military leaders.'' But few people seem to understand just how good, how revolutionary, this stealth bomber is and what it adds to our ability to keep peace and freedom. Of course, the word ``stealth'' does not mean the plane is invisible. But when the B-2 is at high altitudes, where it flies when delivering nuclear or conventional bombs, it is virtually impossible for any existing or projected defense system to detect it on radar, and it therefore is invulnerable. Two B-2s with a total crew of four can deliver a bombload which, if dropped from conventional planes, would put the lives of 132 crewmen at risk. In the Gulf war's first hours, 45 sorties by stealth fighter F-117s struck almost as many Iraqi targets as did 850 sorties by conventional aircraft. In the first 24 hours of Desert Storm, we sent 1,263 conventional aircraft to strike 144 major targets. Thirty-two B-2s could have attacked the same number of targets-- and more effectively because of precision weaponry--in less time. The debate turns on whether we need this astonishing capability now that the Cold War is over. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), a skilled and effective advocate of a strong defense, believes that we no longer need a ``large fleet of stealthy, long-range, nuclear delivery aircraft.'' He also views aircraft carriers, submarines and other weapons as better serving our national security needs because they are ``visible, forward-deployed forces,'' enabling us to ``put our capability on peaceful display''--a good deterrent in and of itself. McCain makes the point that, although the B-2 can carry conventional weapons, having it do so is not cost- effective at a fixed price of $556 million per aircraft. Each additional B-2 will use scarce defense budget funds, precluding necessary modernization and replacements for the trucks, tanks, other aircraft, artillery and ships that will be needed shortly. These are understandable, reasonable arguments. It seems to me, however, that events over the last several years have demonstrated conclusively that we are going to need the B-2's capabilities. The Gulf war exemplifies why we need to be able to project our military power over vast distances quickly and effectively. It would be nice--but scarcely safe--to believe that there will be no more Gulf wars or events that will require such capabilities. But, for example, we are committed to the defense of two other potential hotspots: Taiwan and South Korea. Should the U.S. be called into action, the B-2 would be extremely useful. It serves us well to remember that the more strength we have, the less likely it is that we will have to use it. In any event, the ultimate question of whether we need to buy more than the already-ordered B-2s need not be decided now. What we do need now is the option to acquire more later and the ability to exercise that option without the staggering costs of restarting production. If we terminate the B-2 production line now, we virtually preclude securing any more of those remarkable aircraft in the future. We should instead agree to use the funds in the Defense appropriations bill to procure some of the parts necessary from the B-2's nearly 3,400 suppliers, thereby keeping the line open for later low-level production. General John Loh, former commander of our Air Combat Command, sums it up well: ``I see the B-2 as the centerpiece of . . . [a] strategy that places increasing importance on projecting immediate, responsive power from the U.S. to a regional crisis anywhere in the world.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as our freshman class came in, we fought for the line-item veto. The second class to follow that fought for the line-item veto, the 73 Members, and most of them voted for it. What I have found in the couple of hundred days that we have been here is if we take a look at the delaying tactics, the gridlock tactics of the business at hand. Let us get through the balanced budget, let us get through the Medicare, let us get through the tax back to the people, let us get back to welfare reform. Let us take care of the business at hand. We have got everything to go before Christmas. Yes, I have bought my Christmas tree here because I think we are going to be here at Christmas. When we get through with that business, we will bring up the line- item veto. But until you quit your delaying tactics on all the legislation from your liberal leadership, then we will never get it done. Looking at every single bill that we have here, they want to continue spending. There is always a good reason for it. they want to continue more spending. Your heart is not in what you are saying. Some of the Members are and they fought for line-item veto and I appreciate that. But the overall leadership of the Democratic Party does not have their heart in it and they will not follow through and the continuing gridlock will not allow us to bring it up. Help us do that and we will be more than happy to bring it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H.R. 117, the Senior Citizens Housing Safety and Economic Relief Act of 1995. Passage of this measure is vital to ensure that our Nation's seniors are kept safe within their homes. I do not want any elderly public housing resident within my district, or any other district throughout the United States, to continue living in fear because their neighbor is abusing drugs or alcohol. Under the Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA], people of any age with mental or physical disabilities can reside in any federally assisted housing program that is designated to house elderly families. This is good and fine. However, when current and former drug abusers fall under this disabled category, senior citizens do not receive the quiet, safe living conditions they deserve and expect. Instead, they are plagued by the threat of guns and violence. Such elderly residents of public housing are horrified to leave their houses in fear of falling victim to crime. As you can see, this effect of ADA is ridiculous and must be changed. On this corrections day, we must right a wrong and prevent drug abusers from disrupting the lives of seniors. H.R. 117 will allow public housing authorities to evict drug abusing tenants living in elderly family housing. I urge each of you to join me in voting in favor of this bill to protect our nation's seniors. The elderly population must be afforded the right to live the duration of their lives with peace of mind in safe surroundings.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, what I think we are seeing on this side of the aisle is that we had about 5 million Californians overridden by 1 judge. Prop 187 was approved by an overwhelming majority of Californians, and a couple of other issues. We are just saying that is wrong and we would like to make sure that that does not happen again.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 743, the TEAM Act. Today, an employer who works together with employees to improve work safety, boost productivity or address employee morale, is violating the law. I have got union groups in my particular district. Labor works with management, management works with labor, and it is as it should be. But in all circumstances it does not work that smooth. As a matter of fact, these individuals sit down and they plan the goals, plan how much work is to be done, and the group, labor and management, actually sits down and determines if they want to shut down because they cannot reach their goal or if it is good for business, because they are smart enough to realize it is better to be working than not working, and they work very closely together. But for management to be able to sit down with workers and organize as far as what is good for that company and be in violation of the law, it is just not good common sense. Mr. Speaker, the labor unions represent less than 12 percent of the work force in this country. The rest of the work force, over 82 percent, is made up of small and large business in private industry, and the opposite side of the aisle say they constantly represent the worker. If that was the case, they would represent 82 percent of the private enterprise and the unions. But that is not the direction they want to go. The TEAM Act says simply that an employer can work with employees, period. It does not permit illegal employer unions. It does not affect union shops at all. It does not intrude on collective bargaining. It simply allows employers and employees to work together. That is good common sense. Unfortunately, that does not exist in this body many times. The TEAM Act has a broad range of support, because happy employees who are involved in their work are unlikely to join labor unions and pay union dues. The TEAM Act is opposed, of course, by organized labor. Vote ``yes'' on the TEAM Act and oppose weakening amendments and support a strong labor force, both private and union.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], talked about poor children, education, and he used the rough language to scare the American people. I would like to remind the gentleman that the President cut defense $177 billion, and cost over 1 million jobs in California. Ninety-five percent of education is funded out of State tax revenue. We also, on a partisan line when they were in the majority, extended Somalia. We said, ``It is going to cost billions of dollars.'' We had to run out of there with our tails between our legs. Look at Haiti, another embarkation. What would happen in Haiti? It is costing us billions of dollars. These kinds of funds which we need to support the defense of this country the gentleman disregards. Yes, there are a lot of critical issues. They cut defense $177 billion. They called for additional base closures. Where do Members expect to put the carriers and the military construction when we close places like Alameda and put millions of people out of work? Think about it, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not take 2 minutes. I understand with good intention what the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] wants to do. I know in my State of California, if you are driving 55 miles an hour, you are in danger. You cannot pull out, you cannot do anything, because you have streaks of lightning going by you. But I think what the amendment attempts, there are a could of issues. It is not just a States rights issue, but an issue of do we trust someone outside Washington, DC, to make the determination on what is right and proper for that particular district, or that particular State. I think we can trust local government and local people to take responsibility, and I think this bill says no, we do not trust them to do that. There is a big difference between San Diego, CA, and Maine, and a lot of country in-between, and each one has different rules, different rights, and I think that if we allow the States to make that determination, they will do it in a responsible way. So even though there is good intention to the gentleman's amendment, I stand opposed to it, and I ask my colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, the chairman of the committee, who has worked valiantly on this particular area. We got 40 years of Democratic rule that has given us the current disastrous bureaucratic system that they are talking about, and it is going to cost a lot of tax dollars. The tax dollars, the bureaucracy, the rules and the regulations actually make it more difficult than the current system we are trying to save. The CAREERS Act is one of the most commonsense, conservative pieces of legislation ever to be considered by any Congress. It replaces 150 federally run job training, adult education, and literacy programs which did not talk to each other and do not work together. All have Federal bureaucracies, and all do not work. We need to replace it. The current CAREERS Act provides States maximum authority and flexibility. One of the concerns from a group that came to me was that we are going to take out the State legislators in this. I have been assured by the gentleman from California [Mr. McKeon] that that is not the case. As a matter of fact, the language, if not in, is going to be placed into the CAREERS Act so that the Governors do not have full control, that we do put in the State legislatures. I would be against the bill if it did that because, my being a States rights advocate, I want to make sure that the State legislatures, not just the Governors themselves, have got control of this. The Governors might not like it, but that is the way it should be for the States rights. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, I would like to focus on the portions of the bill that my subcommittee worked on. Title IV on adult education, family literacy and library technology, was moved through the subcommittee. I also have an interest in title II and its role in vocational education. Title IV of the CAREERS Act consolidates again 22 programs under the Adult Education Act, the National Literacy Act, and the library literacy program under the Library Services and Construction Act, into one block grant for States. By the way, the Library Association and libraries groups fully support the implementation because one of the areas in which I think that if on our side of the aisle, if we are talking about higher technology, higher education, and the technological age, we need to transfer and make sure that they have up- to-date technology, technological equipment such as computers, fiber optics, and so on. The subcommittee held hearings on this issue in Washington and in San Marcos, CA, in my particular district. We learned from someone like John Corcoran, a teacher, businessman, and author who made statements that men and women who cannot read or write have great difficulty in the most basic skills and can hardly benefit from a regular job training system. Literacy is a program. The National Adult Literacy Survey showed that of Americans at the lowest of five literacy levels, 17 percent receive food stamps, 43 percent live in poverty, and a stunning 70 percent are unemployed or underemployed. So we do need special programs. He also established that adult education and family literacy grant States recognize that basic education for adults is one of our highest priorities. When we talk to educators, educational institutions, administration employees, even citizens who need the adult services, the current fragmented job training system keeps them from working with one another in their communities. It is a tangle of 150 programs; in the case of this subcommittee, only 22, much like the welfare system that does not work because it is too big, too cumbersome. We learned from Scott Himelstein, of the Lynch Foundation for Family Literacy, that if a man or a woman cannot read, one of most successful ways to teach them to read is with their children, so it is encouraged. Mr. Chairman, the programs that we have before us, there are a lot of areas that work. I think one of the problems with the President's health care bill is he tried to do too much too quick with too many things. What we are going to try and do is make some improvements to the system over a period of time. We would ask for support from both sides of the aisle for those improvements, and we feel right now it is a basically a good bill. I would urge its support.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am amazed, especially at my California colleagues. When they vote for a $177 billion cut in defense, and California is the leader in the defense industry and most of our bases are in California, what did they expect? What did they expect? They vote for a Clinton tax package and $177 billion cut, after Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and then-candidate Clinton said that anything above a $50 billion cut would put us into a hollow force. And then I hear that the President wanted to save California bases. Yes, California is important in a 1996 election. Sure, he would like to save them. But I think we need to look at why we are closing those bases in the first place. Who called for an additional base closure round? The very same people now that are saying that the President wants to save those bases. Give me a break. Mr. Speaker, in committee they used the analogy of a fisherman and they said take the analogy of a catfish that has now been cut and we are going to skin him alive, gut him, and eat him. Well, do not expect us to sit there and take it. If my colleagues voted for the defense cuts and they are from California, they are not the fish; they are the in the role os a fisherman. They caused the problem. I take a look at what we have gone through and why many of us are fighting against the continued assaults on DOD spending. I look at the increase in nondefense spending by 261 percent by Members and, yes, even some of the Members on our own committee in this House. I take a look at the extension of Somalia, which cost us billions of dollars, and Haiti, which has cost us billions of dollars, and what they want to do is delay this process. And right now, DOD is having to eat the overhead, because we have not funded BRAC. Mr. Speaker, if families are from El Toro and they are have to move, or Miramar and having to move to Fallon, Nevada, NTC, all over the State of California, those families are being disrupted and they are losing their jobs, defense jobs with the military and associated jobs. We lost a million jobs in the State of California. But as Paul Harvey said, the rest of the story is look at who caused it. And they say that the President wants to save those bases. Absolutely, he caused it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I disagree.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from Vermont in the fact that it would be inappropriate to bring up those issues if they had not been brought up by your side as saying that we were taking away from this bill. That is the reason I addressed them. Secondly, as we have been only in power for a very short time as far as the majority, those kinds of things did not happen on our watch. Look at the welfare system as it has failed today. Look at the education system. We have good schools. But as you take a look across the board, there is a lot of work we can do to help those things, and with the Intelligence Committee and with the drawdown of our defense forces, you cannot say the majority party is destroying these other things to beef up defense. Those systems are already in dire need of help. That is what we are trying to do by taking the power away from you and away from Washington and giving it back to the people.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I have heard a few things said on the floor, and I feel that if people would have served in the frontline, either in the intelligence agency or in the service of this country in the military, that their views might change because of the threat. First of all, I heard that the cold war is over. Russia, the former Soviet Union, today has built and is producing an airplane called the Su-35. It is superior to our F-14's and even our F-15 Strike Eagles. That airplane carries an AA-10 missile superior to our AMRAAM. They are stealthing their [[Page H 8654]] Baltic fleet. They are second in the world at accomplishing that. Mr. Chairman, I look at Bosnia and the threat that we have there, the imminent threat of putting our troops; another reason why I did not want to lift the arms embargo. Saddam Hussein is still out there. The problems in Israel and North Korea. The Bottom-Up Review was a level at which we were supposed to fight two conflicts simultaneously after our drawdown. Well, according to GAO, we are between $150 to $200 billion below the Bottom-Up Review, and this is the bare-bone minimum, after a drawdown. Mr. Chairman, especially in a weakened state, and after the hearings and the testimony time and time again before our committee where they say we could go to war, but it would be a very short-lasting readiness level, that we definitely need more intelligence instead of less. Second, this is at times, Mr. Chairman, a very evil place and I believe that. It is a place about power. It is a place about the ability to disperse money so that you can get reelected with interest groups. It is the ability to get reelected so that you can control the power and control the majority. And to do that, what we are actually trying to do in education and welfare and the other things are damaged. Let me give you a couple of classic examples. We get a very low percentage of the dollars back down in the education because the Federal bureaucracy that eats it up here in Washington, DC, but I have heard people say we are cutting education. What we are doing is cutting the Federal bureaucracy. We only get 23 cents of every dollar that we send here back to the classroom. Take a look at the State bureaucracy, which we have to limit as well. That is not helping education. Look across this country with the SAT scores and reading comprehension, the system has failed. The gentleman from the other side has his right to a view of bigger government and bigger bureaucracy. I am not disputing his right to have that view. But in that view, it damages the national security of this country, and that I do dispute. I look at welfare and a very failed system where we only get about 30 cents out of every buck down to it, but yet they will tell you that we are taking food out of mothers' mouths. And in the Medicare system where we are increasing it from $4,800 to $6,700, that is not a cut; that is an add. Mr. Chairman, we are not going under the same assumptions that they do that we are going to allow the mismanagement, the $16 billion in fraud, waste, and abuse and other things. The bottom line is that we are taking that power out of Washington and moving it back to the States. In the meantime, we are trying to protect this country and its national security needs. In a weakened state, we need to encourage the increase in the intelligence community. Right now, today, over Bosnia, we have an unmanned drone called the Predator. We are also using the Hunter. That information allows us to find those targets and lessen the risk to our pilots as they are flying over Bosnia today. Yet those systems under these cuts would probably go away. They are just hanging on with the limited funds we have available for national defense. Can we afford to put our people's lives at risk when we are taking these kinds of cuts? When we are already $200 billion below the Bottom- Up Review and the President of this country, in his first Budget Act, wanted to cut defense $177 billion, after candidate Clinton himself said that $50 billion would put us into a hollow force. So, Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's right to have his view, but on the same term, I do not respect the ability that it would diminish the chance of our men and women coming back in combat.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming what little time I have left, the gentlewoman says that pay raises would not be affected, but, if it is an across-the-board, there is one that we have bipartisan support in trying to fix back the High-One problem that we have. In that account we either affect the COLA, Elk Hills, or High One. Which will it be? If we do a 3-percent cut, we either are going to cut the COLA of military retirees or we are going to affect those few people that have decided to get out recently. I take a look at what our problems are right now across. We have got ships that are not being repaired. The gentlewoman in support of the base closures, we cannot give the dollars for the base closures to reap the benefit of the dollars back to DOD, because we do not have the dollars. That would be hurt. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. W. Lindsay Lloyd, my legislative director, who departs my staff today for a position overseas with the International Republican Institute. Mr. Lloyd, a native of La Jolla, CA, previously worked for Representative Duncan Hunter, the House Republican Research Committee, and the Jack Kemp for President campaign, before joining my staff as legislative director upon my January 1991 swearing-in. In his relations with Members, staff, constituents, and parties interested in his chief legislative area of defense, Mr. Lloyd built and cultivated a reputation for steadfast and reliable work, vigorous and dispassionate analysis, reliability, responsiveness, and integrity. At all times, he served the American people and this Member with honor. My staff and I will miss him and his diligence on behalf of the people of San Diego County. Within the next month, he will travel to Bratislava, Slovakia, to train the citizens of that new Central European nation in the techniques and process of representative democracy. I am confident in his success. Member often feel ambivalent about having excellent staff leave. We miss their contribution to our work. But we also enjoy watching them grow and prosper elsewhere, always in the knowledge that we knew them way back when. Mr. Lloyd's family is very proud of him. So am I. May God bless him and guide him on his way. And may the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States state that Mr. Lloyd served his country with distinction as a member of the staff of the House of Representatives.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, throughout the day yesterday, during House consideration of H.R. 2127, the fiscal year 1996 Labor-HHS- Education Appropriations bill, several Members and I worked together to transfer resources from lower priority spending to education. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, as a former teacher and coach, and most importantly as the father of three, I believe we must continue to invest in education and in our Nation's future. Federal authority over local education should and will be transferred appropriately to the States. After several weeks of work, and with the cooperation of a great number of Members from both sides of the aisle, we successfully increased vocational education funding by $100 million and Chapter 2-- Eisenhower Professional Development by $50 million, insured that Impact Aid funds could be provided to schools serving children of military families, and agreed to work through the authorization process so that $35 million provided in the House version of fiscal year 1996 National Security Appropriations could be used for Impact Aid Basic Grants. First, the House approved by voice vote a Cunningham amendment to H.R. 2127. As reported by the Appropriations Committee, H.R. 2127 prohibited Impact Aid funds to schools based on children of military parents who do not reside on base. It also prohibited Impact Aid funds to schools based upon the number of such children with disabilities. These children used to be known as ``military B's,'' before the Impact Aid reforms enacted in the 103d Congress. The Cunningham amendment simply struck that legislative language. It insures that Impact Aid funding can be provided to schools based upon the number of children of military parents who reside off base, and the number of such children with disabilities. Second, the House approved by voice vote a Johnson of Texas- Cunningham-Riggs amendment to H.R. 2127. This amendment cut appropriations for the Agency for Health Care Policy Research [AHCPR] by half, generating savings of $60 million. Owing to the peculiarities of the congressional appropriations process, we successfully parleyed that savings into significant funding for education: $50 million for the Chapter 2--Eisenhower Professional Development program, and $100 million for Carl Perkins Vocational Education Basic State Grants. The funds for Chapter 2 contribute to an Education Reform Block Grant under development in my Youth Subcommittee. And the Vocational Education resources boost funding for the Youth Training portion of the CAREERS Act, a major reform, consolidation, simplification and decentralization of Federal job training programs. The CAREERS Act has been reported out of the House Opportunities Committee and awaits House consideration. As a bonus, the Johnson-Cunningham-Riggs amendment prohibited AHCPR from continuing to receive $8 million annually from Medicare, effectively making that money available to provide health care services for our ``chronologically gifted'' citizens. Third, an agreement has been made such that $35 million in Impact Aid funds provided in the House version of National Security Appropriations legislation for fiscal year 1996 will be disbursed in a manner agreeable to the National Security Committee authorizers. As Youth Subcommittee chairman and as a member of the National Security Committee and a likely conferee for the fiscal year 1996 National Security Authorization bill, I will work with Members to direct that $35 million to Impact Aid Basic State Grants. I should note further that H.R. 2127, the fiscal year 1996 Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill, provided $50 million in Impact Aid for ``heavily impacted'' districts, an increase of $10 million over fiscal year 1995. Last, a colloquy was conducted among several Members and the leadership, in which there was agreement that gross Impact Aid funding for fiscal year 1996 would be at least 96 percent, and perhaps as much as 98 percent, of the amount provided in fiscal year 1995. Upon this agreement, if the Impact Aid ``hold harmless'' funding is not allowed, and if we successfully hold this plan together through the Senate and the conferences on these various bills, public schools are likely to receive in fiscal year 1996 about 100 percent of their funding for what used to be called ``A'' and ``military B'' students. I assure my colleagues that we will not rest on this issue. I know many Members are in this for the long haul. Thus, I wish to thank the many Members who worked together closely to make it possible to direct savings from lower-priority spending to education, specifically: Mr. Goodling, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Porter, Mr. Riggs, Mr. Johnson of Texas, Mr. Metcalf, Mr. Watts, Mr. Edwards, Ms. Mink, Mr. Clay, Mr. Christensen, Mr. Armey, Speaker Gingrich, plus several additional Members whose contributions and support are appreciated, and numerous staff.