Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter], the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the Speaker, and I have met and they have promised me their commitment to this. This whole package is part of those pledges that you talked about and that the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter] spoke of. I do not think the gentleman from Illinois can do any more for us. I wish we could do more, and in the future, I promise to work with the gentleman to even make it ``more better,'' as they say. Mr. Chairman, I also understand the gentleman's concerns. The gentleman has my tireless pledge to make sure that that happens, and I have the pledge of the Speaker and the majority leader to help do that. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, there is a difference in philosophy, and I think, if debate boils down, I think we ought to point out the differences in philosophy. This side of the aisle are saying that we are cutting education. On our side we think that they will fail to see the solution to a very simple problem, that there is too much bureaucracy that eats up the dollars that we send back to the Federal Government, and, by the time we send it back to the States, we only get about 23 cents out of every dollar back down into the classroom. The second misnomer is it is not their money. Every time that my colleagues take and give a dollar out, they have got to first take it away from somebody. They are taking it away from the very people that they try to give it back to, and they give it out, and only 23 cents on the dollar. I say to my colleagues they sure could not run a business like that. So, if my colleagues want to increase the amount of spending on education, we need to send it back to the States. We also need to limit the size of State government so that that bureaucracy does not eat up the money for the very thing that we are trying to do. Let me give my colleagues a classic example. I have got a school in Scripps [[Page H 8351]] Ranch. That school has got fiber optics into it. It was a partnership between the city and State. We have got computers in every classroom. I have got boys and girls in vocational education swinging hammers. They are building modular units. And guess what? They are selling those units, and then they reinvest the money in high-tech education equipment within that school. Those that are college-bound in architecture, design, and computerization are also encouraged, and they have actually redesigned the whole school, and guess what, in the summertime the partnership of labor and private enterprise are higher in those same kids. Now think of the advantage that these kids have over someone that does not have that program. It is on a local level. And then they chastise us and say we do not care about kids because we are cutting money from the summers jobs program. The summer jobs program has probably taught less than 5 percent of the kids how to work and how to get a job. The place to teach kids on how to survive in the future is in education, is at the site, either vocational or those that go for college bound, and we need to take those kinds of moneys and invest them in those programs. We double our knowledge every year now, not 30 years like we used to, Mr. Chairman, and, if we do not have the facilities for the kids to learn, then they have a legitimate gripe that the difference between those that have money and those on a low-income will increase disproportionately, and that is what we need to do. If my colleagues really want to take a look at how to kill education, keep the Federal bureaucracy going. We have got to eliminate the power of Members in this body to send home dollars so that they can get reelected over and over, and take that power away and give it back to the people, and that is the difference of opinion. We are not killing education. We are giving the power of the people and the States the power to control their own destiny and take the money and the power away from Washington, DC. That is the total difference. Now the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] said that, if it had not been for the National Defense Education Act, he would not be here. Many of us wish in that case that it had never existed. Mr. Chairman, I am joking. The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is a good friend. But in the grant that the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] worked hard on, those are good grants out of the Federal Government. Education is financed by 95 percent in the States. We only fund about 5 percent, and we are destroying it? No, what we are doing is saying we need to turn that 5 percent, get most of it back into the classroom, eliminate the bureaucracy in Washington, limit the bureaucracy in the States, and get more of the money down into the classroom. That is not a concept that should be beyond the Members over here, but yet they want to hang on to the power, the power to get reelected. And I look at the Pell grants, and the history and look at the number of dollars that have been taken from the GI bill. We did not have the bureaucracy we had when the GI bill was stated. Most of it went directly down to those people that loaned it, and, Mr. Chairman, when my colleagues think about cutting education they should take a look and mention the school lunch. The school lunch program is set to feed those kids that need it, 185 percent below poverty level, and the gentleman from Texas fails to see that solution also. Why should the Government, why should they have the power to send dollars to feed my daughters? They do not need the money, but yet they want the exclusive right to control all the dollars. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman, and that is the difference between the philosophies. Let us take care of the people that really need it, and let us take the power away from the Federal Government. I am trying to take my own power away, and my colleagues', and treat that power and get it to the kids and to the families. That is the difference of opinion. We are not cutting education. My colleagues are stopping education from growing because of the big-government Clinton politics that their side supports.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the frustration of the gentleman from Texas. I also have gone through a lot of frustration on this particular issue. The reason that I brought up the impact later on and what we are going to do is, first of all, this amendment does not add direct dollars, but it gives the flexibility to move. If the gentleman's particular district has impacted A's or B's, it gives it that flexibility, and all this initial stage is doing is trying to remove it. The second aspect of it, the $35 million from the defense authorization bill, I have been guaranteed, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], that this is going to happen and it is going to go into the general fund. Mr. Chairman, I am also supporting an amendment of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards] later on, from other sources to impact, to put the $23 million into that fund also. It is kind of a series of packages, but I also understand the gentleman's reservations.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the problem. The way this House works sometimes boggles all of us. As far as the scoring, when they did away with the old system and they went to the A system only, the formula was a little different. We are going to make sure in the future legislation that the formulas agree, so that we do have strong confidence that it is a positive impact. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has zero effect, no effect on hold harmless.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may. Mr. Chairman, I believe that Members on the other side of the aisle do have some legitimate issues. One of the issues, in my opinion, is that while we attempt to move this money back to the States that I know an example in the State of California, the devastating defense cuts have cost us nearly a million jobs. We have little things called gnat catchers and spotted owls that have affected those positions. We have had natural disasters, and the people in the State of California, on a State level and a Federal level, are taxed at pretty much an extreme rate. It is very difficult to pass a school bond to build a school or to provide for that instruction. When we affect education, we also affect, because it is forward- funded, not only the funds in the future but the funds that go down right now. We have to provide a transition for those. This particular amendment helps that. It also sets the stage for a direction where we can reallocate and put a little different priority and put some of those dollars back into education. The amendment improves the Labor-HHS- Education appropriations bill that deletes legislation language in the bill that prohibits impact aid funding to schools for what they call military B kids. Impact aid, for the Members, if you are a military recipient of funds and you register, say, in the State of Illinois and you move to the State of California, you still pay your State taxes. You shop at the commissary; you shop at the exchange. All those taxes go not to the State where your children go to school. You impact that school, but they do not get any money back for it. So what we are doing is shifting the money. All this amendment does is, in the current language it restricts it only to impact aid. Impact aid students are those students that live on base with their parents. But the majority of Members, both Republicans and Democrats that represent districts, those military families live off base and do not qualify for that funding. This amendment eliminates that. Second, it sets the stage. I have got two of my colleagues that, one is the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], the other one is the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], from the other side of the aisle, who have been bulldogs on this issue. They have fought tooth, hook, and nail to preserve something that is very important, not just in their districts but around this country. What it does, it is also going to allow us later on in an amendment to put over $18 million in authority into BA. We are going to put $15 million more back into Eisenhower grants for teacher training. We are asking our teachers to increase it. We are also going to put another $100 million in BA into the vocational education programs. This amendment does not affect it, but it is part of a series of amendments that we are going to offer to try and help the gentleman with some of his reservations and put the money back into education. Mr. Christensen and Mr. Edwards have been tigers in this field. I want to commend Members from both sides of the aisle in helping us with this. What it is going to do is allow us to take that impact of those students and put some of it back in. I would also like to thank my colleague from California, Mr. Riggs, who has also been fighting not only on impact aid but these other areas to fight for that. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I sat back in my office and I am watching the rhetoric on both sides, and I think there are some things that we can actually work to help some of these things. We have got an amendment, for example, that is coming up that is going to provide $6 million in outlays, in which we are going to be able to plus-up the Eisenhower grants. We talk about we want teachers to be better and our students to be better. I understand you all are going to accept the amendment, which is great. This is the kind of thing we need to fight toward, to work together. I also feel eventually I would like to take education and would like to move most of it to the States. We get a very low percentage of the tax dollars back down to the classroom. A lot of it is eaten up with the in-between in the bureaucracy. I think it is better off down there. But in the meantime, what we need to take a look at is, while we are doing this, education is front loaded. It is forward funded. And unless we provide some transportation or some in-between time to do that, we are going to actually damage some of the things that we need to do. We are going to provide the money for Eisenhower grants. We are going to provide the money to help impact aid for B's and B's. We are going to take some of the money, over $100 million, and put back into other programs, in job training for students. These are the kinds of things that I would hope my colleagues would focus on. Yes, I think in some places we have probably gone a little too far. Let us work together and bring it back in line. Let us work at it, instead of just firing rockets at each other all day long. [[Page H 8342]]

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the reason for part of that is, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards], the gentlewoman from Hawaii [Mrs. Mink], the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], and the coalition that is supportive of this issue. I would like to personally thank them in public.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not eat up the whole 10 minutes. I think this is an important piece of legislation. I think it is a piece of legislation that Members on both sides of the aisle will support or can support by taking some of those dollars and allowing the impact of military families on the school systems to help relieve those school systems and also help the teacher training and also come back and help the vocational education program. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, this amendment cuts appropriations for the Agency of Health Care Policy Research by half. It generates savings of $60 million in budget authority, and $18 million in outlays. The savings is then transferred to two high-priority education programs. The merged Chapter 2-Eisenhower Professional Development Program receives $6 million in outlays, generating $50 million in budget authority. And the Carl Perkins Vocational Education Basic State Grants Program receives $12 million in outlays, generating $100 million in budget authority. The amendment is outlay neutral. It stays within the 602(b) budget allocation of the Labor-HHS-Education bill. In short, we have to evaluate our priorities. While health policy research is important, the education of our children is more important. It has the support of the authorizing and appropriating subcommittee and full committee chairmen, and the support of the leadership.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I will have three amendments printed in the Record regarding restoring education funding in the fiscal year 1996 Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill. These amendments restore from $130 to $174 million to education. They insure that critical health research funding grows at least 4 percent. And they seek to make positive, balanced change to the Labor-HHS- Education appropriations bill. The first amendment transfers $174.93 million across the board from the National Institutes of Health accounts, permitting health research funding to continue growing by 4 percent, same as the administration's request. With those funds, resources are distributed as follows: $49.58 million to impact aid, $40 million to the chapter 2/Eisenhower Education Reform and Professional Development Program, $80.45 million to vocational education basic State grants, and $4.87 million to the National Institute for Literacy. The amendment also deletes legislative language in H.R. 2127 which prohibits impact aid funding for military B's, military B's with disabilities, and schools affected by the hold harmless provisions of last year's reforms. This amendment is also being submitted by Mr. Riggs of California, a member of the Appropriations Committee, and will most likely be offered by him on the floor. The second amendment transfers $160 million across the board from the National Institutes of Health accounts, permitting health research funding to continue growing by more than 4 percent, an amount greater than the Administration's request. With those funds, resources are distributed as follows: $46 million to impact aid, $40 million to the chapter 2/Eisenhower Education Reform and Professional Development Program, $69.13 million to vocational education basic State grants, and $4.87 million to the National Institute for Literacy. The amendment also deletes legislative language in H.R. 2127 which prohibits impact aid funding for military B's, military B's with disabilities, and schools affected by the hold harmless provisions of last year's reforms. The third amendment transfers $130 million across the board from National Institutes of Health accounts, permitting health research funding to continue growing by more than 4 percent, an amount percent greater than the administration's request. With those funds, resources are distributed as follows: $46 million to impact aid, $40 million to the chapter 2/Eisenhower Education Reform and Professional Development Program, $39.13 million to vocational education basic State grants, and $4.87 million to the National Institute for Literacy. The amendment also deletes legislative language in H.R. 2127 which prohibits impact aid funding for military B's, military B's with disabilities, and schools affected by the hold harmless provisions of last year's reforms.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, last month I was fortunate enough to have dinner with Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, John Sununu and ``Cap'' Weinberger, and everybody was in agreement the one way to expand the war in this part of the world is to get the major powers involved and also to increase the arms in those areas. Mr. Chairman, none of us want the atrocities to continue. But if we look at the solution logically, increasing arms into an area is not going to help us to a peaceful solution; it is going to expand it and in my opinion, and many others' opinion, it is going to increase the length of time before we could ever go in and stop it. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues would just think logically, by increasing arms is it going to stop the war? No, it is not. It is going to encourage it. More will die on all sides if we put in weapons. And we do not just put in a weapon and ask them to pick it up, especially high-technology weapons. We have to put in those 25,000 U.S. troops. When we do that, we are going to lose a lot of those U.S. troops. We expanded arms in Vietnam; 55,000 Americans died. That was not a good solution and, Mr. Chairman, I say this is not a solution either. If we put in those arms, it is going to encourage. Why do my colleagues think that Greece and Russia support the BSA? Because, first, they were allies in World War II and, second, because of the orthodox religion. But if my colleagues will take a look at history, it was the Croatians that fought with Nazi Germany and they ethnically cleansed millions and millions of Serbs. Where were we then? My idea is not to focus on the atrocities, as the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Taylor] said, but on a solution. Mr. Chairman, putting arms in that area is not focusing on the solution. I recently attended an event where over 400 allied pilots gave homage to the Serbs for getting them out in World War II. Misinformation damages the solution. For example, the press reported that when Captain O'Grady was picked up, he was shot at by the Serbs. He was not. He was not shot at until he was over Croatia by the Croatians. Mr. Chairman, that is immaterial. If we focus on who shot who, and who commits the most raids, and we dump arms into that area, Mr. Chairman, we are inviting pain. If we get involved, the things that the Republican Party has stood for, balanced budget amendment and Medicare solutions, if my colleagues want to get us involved, we can kiss it all good-bye. It is gone. It is history. Mr. Chairman, once the fighting starts over there, try and get out. We could not even get out of Somalia without running with our tail between our legs. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a ``no'' vote on this resolution.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I did not realize this was a 5-minute vote. I was sitting in the cloakroom and missed the last vote. I asked that the Record reflect that I would have voted ``aye.'' personal explanation

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my good friend the gentleman on the other side of the aisle has stated that this legislation was motivated by politics. Commissioner Ganagi, the mayor of San Diego, the Governor of the State of California, the delegation that represents the area, 2 million people, support this legislation. The gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] as a mayor supported this years and years ago and now is in the House and still fighting the same battle. The Ocean Pollution Reduction Act that was rushed through Congress last year only says that San Diego can apply for a waiver. The gentleman stated that no other place has ever received this waiver. This is an extreme example of an unfunded mandate. Every Member, Republican and Democrat, has onerous rules and regulations by the Federal Government that is inflexible, that [[Page H 7568]] should be allowed some change. The EPA and the rule for off-sewage was written when you dump already treated sewage into a lake or river. Best science from Scripps Oceanographic, these people deal in what is good for the ocean, have stated good science, it actually enhances the ecology of the ocean because this is not dumped into a lake or a river, it is dumped miles and miles out to sea below a depth of 300 feet. What else does it mean? It means that the residents of California will pay. Think of the senior citizen on a fixed income that is going to have her sewage bill doubled when it is not even necessary and good science says it is not necessary but certain special interest groups fight to change it. Speaker Gingrich took a look and said, let's take some of these Federal regulations that affect Members on both sides of the aisle, that are onerous and that are not working, written with good intention but they are inflexible, and let's change some of that on the House floor. That is what this is about. For years and years we have been working on this situation, and just applying for a waiver does not do it. This does it. This completes that requirement. The delegation from San Diego, with Mr. Hunter, Mr. Packard, Mr. Bilbray, myself, and even Mr. Filner on the other side of the aisle, have worked on this thing over and over again trying to make this change. This is a chance finally to come to fruition. I ask my colleagues to support it. It is important, and it is one of the first steps we have to bring logic back to this House.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, about the only agriculture I have in my district is at the swap meet. So this is not real big. And I know the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] has good intentions in this thing. I grew up in Sheldon, MO, about 2,113 folks. I went back just a couple of months ago. Every single one of those farmers are having to work two and three jobs just to hang onto their farm. I think where you have a bigger organization that supports those organizations all the way down, I think we need to oppose this amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I cannot begin to express how pleased I am that a compromise was reached yesterday between Agriculture Secretary Glickman and Representative Walsh regarding the implementation of meat and poultry safety rules. Representative Walsh's withdrawal of his amendment to the fiscal year 1996 Agriculture appropriations bill is a clear sign of his commitment to enact change into the current food handling process. The new agreement will allow for additional public hearings to be held to consider the views of all interested parties throughout the rule-making process. I am relieved that there will not be a delay of the USDA's implementation of safeguards and standards to improve meat inspection. Unfortunately, the issue of safe food and the devastating effect of foodborne illness are not new to me. I have closely followed this issue since the 1993 E.coli outbreak on the West Coast. I have had the pleasure of working with members of STOP [Safe Tables Our Priority], an organization founded by victims' families who are dedicated to the prevention of foodborne illness. Until the tragedies were highlighted a few years ago, I do not believe that people were aware of the inherent dangers associated with the consumption of raw meat products. It is unfortunate that a number of deaths occurred before significant changes were made to the current food handling processes. I think that we would all agree that our Nation's meat inspection policy must be improved. Obviously, a system that was created in 1906, and has changed very little since that time, is in need of repair. A new inspection system based on HACCP or hazard analysis and critical control points, is needed to prevent problems from occurring throughout the production process. Once again, I commend my colleague, Representative Walsh, for his willingness to compromise with the administration regarding the procedural problems in an effort to improve the current system. I also want to applaud the efforts of the ranking minority member of the Agriculture Subcommittee, Representative Durbin, in bringing this matter to the House's attention. I believe that the risks are too high to wait any longer to implement change into the current food handling process. We cannot rest until everything is being done to protect the safety of our food, and provide for the well-being of our loved ones.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the words of my friends, the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] and the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], as well. Most of us had never heard of E. coli before a few years ago. A child in my district also was affected and died. If Members can imagine the parents, very loving parents telling them that they were relieved when their child died because of the extreme pain and agony that that child was going through, it kind of reemphasizes the issue to them. I think, second, and the gentleman from Washington [Mr. Dicks] has talked about this, E. coli is still out there. What happens in our meat processing, if you still have fecal material left on the meat and that meat moves on, it can turn into the E. coli. And they say, well, all you have to do is cook your hamburger well. I personally do not want it on there in the first place. I think it is something that in our food processing that we can. I would like to, again, thank the leadership of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], because I do not think without his leadership this whole issue would have come to resolution. I would also like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], because I think at times when we look at dialog, it is good, but when we take action where children's lives are at risk, I think it is very, very important. We have a group in San Diego called Stop, and they have been very active. And I am sure that in Washington State they have got an equal group that are parents that have gone through this disaster with their children. I would like to commend all parties. I think this is something in bipartisanship that I think is a proud day. I thank God we had not a failure to communicate on this issue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in opposition to any effort to alter the longstanding ban on offshore oil drilling on the California coast. As I am sure that you are well aware, the House Appropriations Committee voted on June 27, 1995, by a 33 to 20 margin, to continue a ban on oil and gas drilling operations on the Outer Continental Shelf. The vote reversed an earlier vote by the Appropriations Interior Subcommittee to remove the moratorium, which has been maintained for the last several years as part of the annual Interior Department appropriations bill. I have been closely following this issue for many years. I have written to Chairman Livingston, Appropriations, Chairman Regula, Subcommittee on the Interior, and to Chairman Young, Resources, to maintain the ban. I have tried to encourage members of Appropriations, and whoever would listen to my pleas, to include the ban in their appropriations bill. I believe that the Congress must operate in accordance with California's interests in this regard. Governor Wilson has made it clear that Californians are in favor of the moratorium. In fact, the State of California recently enacted a permanent ban on all new offshore oil development in State coastal waters. Californians agree that the environmental sensitivities along the entire California coastline make the region an inappropriate place to drill for oil using current technology. The 1989 National Academy of Sciences [NAS] study confirmed that one exploration and drilling on existing leases and on undeveloped leases in the same area would be detrimental to the environment. The findings of the NAS study encouraged me to introduce legislation on the opening day of this Congress to address the offshore oil drilling issue for California. My bill, H.R. 219, would prohibit the sale of new offshore leases in the southern, central, and northern California planning areas through the year 2005. In other words, H.R. 219 will ensure that there is no drilling or exploration along the California coast unless the most knowledgeable scientists inform us that it is absolutely safe to do so. Unfortunately, the moratorium, as included in the Interior appropriations bill, is only extended through October 1996. Therefore, I am hopeful that my legislation will allow for the moratorium to be extended on a longer-term basis until environmental and economic concerns can be addressed. For all these reasons, I commend the committee for including the moratorium and will oppose any effort that would allow for oil and gas drilling on our U.S. shoreline.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put it in perspective, because the Tailhook example was brought up on the other side and said that all members had not been chastised, and I would like Members to know that even as we sit here today, those members in the United States Navy that were commanders are still waiting after a year to be selected as captain because of Tailhook, and so they were chastised, and they were penalized. We took and fired the Secretary of the Navy, the chief of naval operations, two flag officers, and I want to tell Members on both sides, whatever the issue is, that all Navy people are not bad, all ATF agents are not bad, and I agree with that. But we need to send a message to the Navy, which we did, and I think we need to send a message not only to the AFT but to the committee that is holding the hearings to hurry these things through. When my daughter is bad, or daughters, I do not increase their allowance. Now, they can always prove themselves, but I would also ask, you know, the gentlemen on both sides of this issue that when we take a look at these kinds of issues, we do need to go after the people that are responsible, and I would say if you fire the Secretary of the Navy and you fire the chief of naval operations and all the other flag officers, then maybe you ought to look at the top, Janet Reno, who is responsible for this issue, and be consistent.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. What about Catellus?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The first thing, I would not give $5 billion to the former Soviet Union when they are building submarines. I would not give money to Haiti that can sit there for the next years, and we are spending billions of dollars there. We are looking into Somalia. We are going to spend billions of dollars there. There are a lot of areas this Congress could do it. We are not doing it. I think the chairman, with the limited resources he has, has done a good job.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are lands, I would say to the gentleman from California, that I would love to work with the gentleman on, especially in our jewel State of California, that I think we can still say that cannot be used, that we would not be violating those private property rights. I think the chairman has done a good job in acquiescing to the point that we need to support the current systems that we have and maintain the operations.