Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, for years this body has tried to purchase land when they had no money to buy it, and not only no money, they were in arrears of billions of dollars paying for land that they have already taken, and then they go ahead and try to buy more. The last Congress, the same gentlemen that are arguing took 3\1/2\ million brand-new acres in the California desert plan. They took in Mojave about 1.4 million acres, in Death Valley, they took 1.5 million acres in Joshua Tree, totaling over 3.5 million acres. They did not have the money then to manage it, and then what happens is people go on this list. They say, ``Do not leave these people in this position.'' Well, when you try to buy land and you do not have the money in the first place, not only in our Congress but for the last 20 years, and you go billions of dollars in the hole and then you take people on that list and you do not let them improve their property, you do not let them do certain things to it and the value goes down and then you come in and say, ``Now, we want to give you fair market value, which is probably 10 percent on your buck,'' that is wrong. Even in the California desert plan, they are coming up with odd ways to keep people out of it by not even letting them use the current roads that access the California desert. You say it is wrong to leave these people in there. Well, look who put them in there in the first place. You need to be able to pay for the land that we have. Over 50 percent of California is owned already by the Federal Government, and we are billions of dollars in just the operations. The chairman is trying to put the money in the operations to manage the systems that we have that are also in arrears. We need to take a look at what is fairness and access. Yes, there are needs for the environment, and there are certain areas, we have got an area in Carmel Valley I would love to be able to purchase. As a matter of fact, the builders will sell it to us. We do not have the money to do it. I would love to. But we are so many billions of dollars behind, I am going to have hard trouble finding it. It would be a good area because it connects all the things that you want to in endangered species. It gives corridors, it gives areas where we can protect those things. I would love to help work with you to get the dollars for it, but we do not have it, and if we keep doing this and we keep taking governmental land and [[Page H 6975]] making new land and not being able to pay for it, that is wrong, too, by putting private property rights at risk, and that is why most of us are against this.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. There are 3.5 million acres of brand-new land in that. The total was about 7 million acres.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, the bird survey that we are talking about is put there for a specific agenda; it is to count birds. We have been asked why would we oppose the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest]. Some of the Members have indicated that it is trivial, why we would oppose it. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that it is not. Why would I say that? The previous actions of this House and of the Members and of specific agendas that have been pushed through in the past have superseded common sense. I look at the last time that this body was in the majority on the other side. They were pushing to even have these volunteers to be able to go on the land without permission, without permission of the private property owner. Now they cannot do that, so they are trying to get volunteers. I would look at the comments of the gentleman from California [Mr. Packard]. If you have different agendas, you would go to those groups to have them go into those areas. And the other side of the aisle, some of the speakers, and some on our side, too, as well, believe and they will say strongly, and they have a right to their opinion, but have pushed that agenda to the extreme. And the people that are out in the field, they support that agenda. That is why those volunteers would be even further pushing that agenda. We think that that is wrong. I look at past actions on private property rights and the inability of those same people that I discussed of yielding anything but to push right through. The gentleman here that offers the amendment on private property rights, on the California desert bill, we had a thing in California where people were even asking to disk around their field because there is a fire season, and we were denied. We lost a whole bunch of homes because of it. It is that reason why we question this amendment. In the future, if we can work closer together to come somewhere to the center of these things, then it would be frivolous to bring this up. But at this time we do not feel it is. There is no definition of carefully trained. There is no definition of carefully verified. It would be those individuals with that specific agenda in mind that would be out there in the field that would also gather the data, which would be biased. And we object to that type of motivation. So it is not just volunteers. It is the type of volunteers that would be worked in this group to push a specific agenda.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we were all going to speak for 5 minutes, too. We said that we will not object to the limitation of time. We would all like to get through the thing and give the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] his time and us, too. I will not take the 5 minutes, and I was even going to yield to cut the time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to support the creation of small business opportunities for veterans. Veterans are invaluable to the American economy and represent about 20 percent of the small business owners in this country. Veterans have much to offer to our work force. They are well trained, dedicated, and extraordinarily disciplined workers. Despite having endured the trials and tribulations of war, veterans are resilient and eager to tackle new tasks. With all this in mind, it does not make sense that veterans are continuously discriminated against in the business world. There is a perception in the banking and financial industries that veterans are a higher [[Page E 1415]] credit risk than non-veterans. Therefore, time and again, veterans are turned down for small business loans. I simply ask why? Nobody seems to know the answer. In fact, Mr. Frederick Terrell, managing director of First Boston Corp., testified before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs on March 13, 1993, that veterans are considered high risk loan applicants. However, when Mr. Terrell was asked for his reasoning, he could not fully explain his rationale. I do not understand why such discrimination exists in society. Shouldn't we have more respect for the men and women who helped America maintain its freedom? Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues present today are veterans. As you may know, I am proud to be a Vietnam veteran. Not long ago, I experienced the difficulty of returning to a country that was divided over our endeavors in Vietnam. I was one of the lucky ones. All the veterans serving in Congress today are lucky to assist the people of the United States. It is no surprise, however, that most veterans are not so fortunate. I believe that veterans deserve fair or equal opportunities in the area of small business. Many young soldiers lost their lives in war. Others, often fighting for a cause they did not fully understand, returned from battle either emotionally or physically impaired. They were not always welcomed home with open arms. Rather, veterans were forced to endure years of persistent and obvious discrimination. I believe that the time has come to rectify this situation. First, we must respond by giving veterans the treatment they deserve with respect to their disabilities. Second, priority should be given to disabled veterans, Vietnam veterans, and P.O.W. veteran business owners, equal to that of other special consideration groups deemed worthy of Government assistance. Now is the time to return the spirit of freedom to the hearts of those who fought so valiantly for our country. In closing, I ask you to join me in support for national veterans business ownership opportunities.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to my colleagues on our own side of the aisle. In 4 years, I never voted in this House for a rule unless it was an open rule. And that is what we fought for your right to come here for and that is why we fought for a majority. In the last bill, there were some things that hurt California but it was an open rule. It was a fair and open debate. I did not like that. But that is the way that I think that we have to fight for this place. The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities are in my subcommittee. You are concerned that the Senate [[Page H 6893]] has a 7 year, we have a 3 year. I voted every single year to totally cut out the humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and if I thought it was going to go on indefinitely, I would do that again. But what I do want to do is allow the good programs that survive in this program to phase out over a 3-year period and let them establish their own endowment. I think that is fair, and I think that is fair under an open rule. I urge my colleagues to vote for this. If you do not, in my subcommittee, I will not authorize it at all, if they try and go beyond that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's opinion. But let me put some actual facts. First of all, it was said that the taxpayers were against this. This technology replaces $1 billion per week in oil that we are purchasing, $1 billion, and it is cleaner. We say there is not benefit from this. There is 75 percent less nuclear heavy metal waste. It was also mentioned that Colorado was a failure. It is because they used 25-year-old technology, mechanical technology. The system in Pennsylvania has been 86 percent efficient and produces 50 percent higher yield than any current nuclear operating plant that we have in existence. So there is benefit. The private industry itself has put in over $800 million into this program, and it is good science. Only the modular helium reactor has got these characteristics, that it is also meltdown-proof, one of the problems that many people were afraid of in early nuclear technologies, which was that there was going to be a meltdown. This system will not do that, Mr. Chairman. Early demonstration plans in Pennsylvania and Colorado have proved the integrity of the basic science. As I mentioned, in Colorado they used 25-year-old technology, and that is why you have a pilot program is to determine the pluses and the minuses. We determined that it was a minus. So we established a system in Pennsylvania which proved very, very effective. The effort in the 1990's focused on driving down the cost, combining the modular helium reactor with direct drive gas turbine for higher efficiency. Combined with higher thermal outputs, it made dramatic increases in the power outputs. I could tell you the per module kilowatt-hour, but I will not. It has more than doubled it, more than any current nuclear facility, and that is important, we feel, also. The $20 million appropriation should be compared, as I mentioned, with $1 billion spent by U.S. foreign oil each week. Several years ago the National Academy expressed some concerns over the economic competitiveness of GTMHR. Since the increase in power and the increase in costs have been lowered, we expect another report. Nuclear provides 20 percent of our power today, nuclear energy. There are some Members on the floor, and they have a right to that opinion, are against nuclear energy. We feel that the energy policy of this country has got to involve nuclear energy. And I think it is fair to ask the question: What would you replace it with? Do you replace it with oil at $1 billion a week? Do you replace it with hydro? Right now the environmentalists are trying to tear down dams because of salmon and fish and so on, and there is none left. Do you replace it with fossil fuels and coal, which is damaging to the environment? Of course, the answer is ``no.'' Twenty percent of our energy can be replaced with this system, and is, and it is a viable system. Taxes and jobs and lower electricity costs: We heard about LIHEAP and that we are taking away the cost of supplementing because of energy costs for poor individuals in this country. Well, this reduces those energy rates for individuals not only in San Diego but across this Nation, and I think that is important also, Mr. Chairman. Nuclear is part of a secure energy future. Can nuclear be improved? Yes, it can, and that is why we have these kinds of pilot programs. If today's nuclear plants were as efficient as GTMHR, taxpayers would save about $10 billion a year just because of the increased proficiency that has been proven. The Committee on the Budget said ``yes'' on the GTMHR. It fulfills the 6 criteria for priority funding for essential science. I would also like to say to my freshman colleagues, this system was specifically mentioned in the Kasich budget because of its importance and is in the balanced budget. It specifically addresses it because of its importance. The Kasich budget that you voted for includes this program. I would like to ask you to vote against this amendment and support the turbine because it is the future of energy and the future of science.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleague just said that the budget was late, and we happen to agree with the gentleman that the budget was late. A balanced budget is about 40 years late. We were here for 93 days and passed the Contract With America, which was the most bipartisan Congress in the history of this body. And they have had 40 years to balance a budget, and they have not done it. We kept our word. We are here. We are going to balance the budget by 2002, and it will happen. So we do agree it was late, 40 years late.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, not process but substance. Let me put a face on substance. I have a close friend that was in Vietnam. He was a POW for nearly 6 years. It took him nearly 5 years to gather bits of thread to knit an American flag on the inside of his shirt. When they would have a meeting, he would hang that shirt above his comrades. That was fine until the guards broke in and they ripped the shirt and they dragged the POW out. And they beat him for 6 hours. They brought him back unconscious and broken bodied. When they tried to comfort him and put him on a bale of straw, they did not think he was going to survive. They heard a stirring and that broken-bodied POW had dragged himself to the center of the floor and started knitting another American flag. What kind of message do we send to our children when an Olympic athlete carries the American flag or what kind of message do we send to our children when we allow someone to burn it? We talk about value systems in this country and erosion of them. All we are trying to do is protect those value systems. Some of those said that they support the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but I would ask them to look at the same values when it comes to the second amendment rights and under the Constitution on the different things that we spend on. But to us, this amendment is not political. I would say, as Mr. Solomon has and the last speaker, that we understand that on both sides. But it is very, very important.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I have operated out of all of these bases, and I resent, and I say I resent the gentleman from California establishing and saying that the Navy is pulling these figures out of the air. Evidently the GAO is wrong, the Navy is wrong, the Taxpayers Union is wrong, the committee is wrong, the Secretary of Defense is wrong, and even the President that asked for these [[Page H 6131]] dollars is wrong. He sets himself up. Someone that has spent their life staying out of the military, now sets himself up as the sole executor of what is right for the Navy. Well, it is flat wrong. You talk about billions of dollars. We save $2 billion by closing Long Beach. You say it has nothing to do with that. Only a fool would believe that, to the gentleman of California. We saved not only billions of dollars there, when you send a sailor out to sea, which we have done since World War II, out of San Diego, we have three carriers ported there right now. You talk about environmentalists? Give me a break. We have carriers established there. We will in the future. We need to take a look at what it takes to reduplicate. We have one of the most modern hospitals, base housing, 100 training facilities, all of the fire- fighting facilities. Why do you think they call it a megaport? That is Oceania should never have closed down, because it is the megaport on the east coast. Only a fool would want to change and deal with that. That is why every single committee, this committee and all the way down from the Secretary of the Navy and the President say this is a foolhardy amendment. I take a look at what we have gone through in the past with looking at base closures. Every base closure has said, and this is the final one that says, ``Long Beach needs to close.'' Why? Because their cost for repairing a ship is three times what it is at any other facility. It is gone. It is history. And yet I applaud the gentleman for trying to save it. He says this has nothing to do with that. It is absolutely wrong, and it is not the fact. Let me quote from the 1993 base closure commission report. Substantial military construction is occurring at Everett, North Island to replace a portion of nuclear carrier berthing capacity that exists in Alameda. These MILCON projects are being accomplished separate from the base closure process ultimately result in the Navy's ability to home port aircraft carriers at a reduced cost. Now, the gentleman wants to increase and incur $2 billion from the closure of Long Beach. He also wants another $4 or 5 billion to duplicate all of these training facilities, hospitals and everything else. When he says he wants to save, that is a liberal's way of saying ``I want to spend more money.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my appreciation to the distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Spence, for his understanding of the tremendous pressures which are placed on military families today and the need for programs to assist families in coping with these pressures. I also want to thank and commend my colleague from California, Mr. Dellums, for his longstanding support and advocacy for our military families. In particular, I also want to thank Chairman Spence for his leadership for helping to ensure that the necessary funding has been provided to continue a very important program aimed at preventing child and spouse abuse within the military. In fiscal year 1992, Congress appropriated funds to expand the New Parent Support Program [NPSP], a pilot program aimed at preventing child and spouse abuse at Camp Pendleton, CA. That program operated in direct collaboration with the Center of Child Protection at Children's Hospital in San Diego. Today, the NPSP has been operating at all 18 major Marine bases worldwide for 2 years, reaching the families where child and spouse abuse are most likely to occur. The reports from the Marine Corps, at all levels, indicate the program is operating successfully and that the appropriate families are being reached. I am also happy to report that in 1994, the Army began the NPSP in direct collaboration with the USMC and Children's Hospital in San Diego. Currently, Army families at 14 installations worldwide are participating in the NPSP and 8 additional sites will be operating by the end of this year. Advocacy programs of this nature play an integral role in military readiness by ensuring the stability of military families during uncertain times and should receive priority consideration by the leadership of all branches of the services and by the Congress. Tragically, this pains and disasters of abuse reach families of all branches of the military. A review of existing DOD programs shows that most other programs focus on this problem react to the incident after it occurs. The NPSP is aimed at preventing the abuse and providing family support for families at risk. In light of the Marine Corps and Army programs' continued demonstrated value and success, I would like to continue to work with Chairman Spence and the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] to ensure that the benefits of this model program reach the risk families in all the branches of the armed services. Again, I want to recognize the outstanding leadership that Chairman Spence has provided in fostering military family advocacy programs. Our service members and their families have two committed and effective champions in both the chairman and ranking member of the National Security Committee. I look forward to working with the leadership of the committee to provide all military families the tools they deserve to assist them in dealing with stressful and uncertain times.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if you wanted a liposuction or a tummy tuck or a nose job, and you were in the military, even if you paid for it yourself, you should not be allowed to do that at a military base under taxpayer dollars. The nonavailability letter, we have retirees that live in Mexico, and just like a civilian or military retiree, if you are overseas, all you do is get a letter of nonavailability. No rights are taken away from you, and you have the same rights as you are protected under in this country as well. In emergency situations that is taken care of and provided, especially if it is in case of a life of a mother. But where taxpayer dollars are involved in this kind of thing, we don't ask you to support our side. You should not be asking other people to pay their taxpayer dollars that don't support your agenda. I ask a ``no'' vote on the DeLauro amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly oppose the position of my chairman on the Committee on National Security. I have served overseas myself, in the Philippines, Japan, and Korea, and I know that the economy is supplemented by every military troop that we have in station. Those countries' economies are supplemented by our military pay. Secondly, those countries need us in place. Japan supports 77 percent, Korea 60 percent, but yet Europe supports only 20 percent of the cost--20 percent. It has been said that Bosnia is a European problem, but yet who do you see there paying the majority and the lion's share? They need us there for their freedom, and freedom comes at a great cost, great sacrifice to our families, a lot of dollars that we have to borrow and also, yes, it does cost American lives. It is about time, and I do not think it is asking too much, that we ask the nations, in which we provide that freedom to pay a fair share of that freedom. We take a look across at other countries, and I wish we did the same. We are giving great amounts of dollars to South Africa, and yet the only place we can get titanium is in South Africa and the Ukraine. Why can we not get something back from a lot of countries, not just Europe? So I think this amendment actually falls short in a lot of areas in which we invest that we should be getting something back, and in this case we are willing to sacrifice in some cases for freedom for American lives. I think the Europeans should pay their fair share in lives, in dollars, and in sacrifice.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise against the gentleman's amendment. One of us has served on military bases, and we have men, women, and children on those bases, and the last thing that I would like is for guards looking over. As my colleagues know, if there is an attempt to escape, there is going to be a shooting, and, when we have people at our commissaries, in our exchanges, plus a lot of these bases are very highly restricted in the areas as far as security, and I would hate to see that, and I reluctantly rise on the amendment and ask my colleagues to defeat it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the words of President Bill Clinton: Today Medicaid and Medicare are going up at three times the rate of inflation. We propose to let it go up at two times the rate of inflation. That is about 6 percent. The House bill is 5 percent, the Senate is 6 percent, the same exact thing as Bill Clinton said. That is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut. So, when you hear all this business about cuts, let me caution you that that is not what is going on. We are going to have increases in Medicare and Medicaid and reduction in the rate of growth. And the President said, ``Well, I tied that to a health care bill.'' Well, remember the President's health care bill got zero votes from any Democrats or Republicans? We need to save the health care system, revise insurance and tort reform and others but, yes, we are going to increase the amount of Medicare spending from $4,800 to $6,400 per person, and they said, ``Well, is there pain?'' Think about the pain of a senior citizen on a fixed income having to increase their Medicare premiums by 300 percent. They cannot do it. We need to protect the system.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, on 10 May, flying a flack suppression mission just south of Hanoi, 35 aircraft went in to strike with cluster bombs to knock out SAM's and AAA's. We lost four F-4 Phantoms on that strike. Two of those air crews did not come back. Our B-52's over Hanoi, we lost hundreds of air crew, and what price do we put on that?'' Not one single Member that has fought in combat in the air has supported this amendment because they know the value and the expense of human life. And, yes, there is life at risk. Remember when we hit Qadhafi and we had to rely on Margaret Thatcher to launch out of England? We even had to fly around our allied bases. We would not have to do that. Remeber when Saddam Hussein in his last foray came across and the President had to deploy three carrier air battle groups? Do you know what that cost was? Billions of dollars. You have the threat of a B-2, you will not need those forces to strike there. It will prevent it, and it will save times.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to think about what a flak suppression mission is. On the May 10, 1972, it is a mission in which one precedes their actual bomber forces of their F- 15's, F-16's, F-18's, and they knock out the SAM sites like shot down our young Air Force friend, and on May 10, 1972, we lost four Phantoms. My airplane was one of those knocking out those SAM sites. A B-2 bomber can go in anywhere and knock out those SAM sites. And is there a dangerous world, in this gentleman's opinion? Yes, there is. I would ask my colleagues: Look at the lives we would have saved in World War II going into Ploesti with a single B-2, and not just our lives, but Allied lives, and now today we have got SA-6's and SA-2's and even SA-12's. In Vietnam we had a [[Page H5799]] one-to-one kill ratio against the Mig's. We shot down--for every MIG we shot down we lost a fighter. We established the Navy Fighter Weapons School, and our kill ration went from 12 to 1, but yet this year we lost all of the F-16's from Top Gun in our adversaries squadron because we do not have the dollars to pay for it. We have post-Korean aircraft, A-4's and A-5's, to train our pilots against potential enemy pilots. The Air Force has not bought a single plane in 2 years. The Navy bought 28 airplanes last year. Finland has bought more fighter aircraft than all our services combined in our last two procurements. And we are asking does it take food out of childen's mouths and so on? I want our men and women to come back, not in body bags, and I do not want to mourn them during Memorial Day. But I would like them to come back alive with the best equipment. I talked to drill sergeants and chiefs, master chiefs in the services, and they tell me they are telling their children, their daughters and their sons, not to come into our services because of base closures and the defense cuts that we have had, the uncertainty of their futures. We are way below the bottom-up review, and I would ask my colleagues to think seriously about the level in defense of this country, and I would ask my colleagues to support this bill, and I ask it humbly.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to provide the entire dossier on the gentleman, and I will provide it to him immediately.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, let me bring up a few facts. I would like to speak to the amendment of the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. It has been stated that the former Yugoslavia is a European problem, and that the Europeans cannot handle it; that in the estimation of many, Europe has not been willing to commit either the resources economically or militarily to solve it. I spoke recently with Dr. Kissinger. He said, and I quote, ``The only way for the war to expand to Greece and to other countries is if the major powers would have direct involvement to lift the embargo.'' Two weeks ago I had dinner with Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, ``Cap'' Weinberger, and John Sununu. They said that the President's lack of foreign policy in this particular area makes it even more dangerous for us to get involved in risky amendments. I look at Russia's involvement or willingness to become involved in this conflict. I look why Greece supports the Serbians; because they were in World War II, and it was the Croatians who fought with Nazi Germany. The head of the Moslems trained with Qadhafi in Libya with Moslem terrorists. Yet, on the other side, the Serbians and the Croatians both have former, and I quote, used loosely, former Communist leaders. Therefore, the whole area is awry. For us to get involved in that civil war and possibly jump in is dangerous, I think, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I voted yesterday against my own leadership on the War Powers Act, because I did not think we had enough time to look at it. I thought it was not responsible. I do not think the War Powers Act works, but we need to adjust it. I voted against my own leadership on that principle. I would say to my friend from Maryland, on the same principle, I oppose the gentleman's amendment. If we give arms to the other side, I think we invite direct input from the Russians and their intervention. I look at the Pentagon, and I know most of the generals and the admirals by first names, and I talk to them. It is wrong, in their opinion, for us to get involved and lift the arms embargo. No one wants to raise the embargoes other than those that generally have not been directly involved in combat. For us to decrease our own military size, to put and risk our own troops in harm's way, our men and women, and then to lift an embargo, would further throw kerosene on that fire. My job in the Seventh Fleet was to employ war-fighting both Allied and U.S. troops in and out of countries. Seventeen weeks ago in the Christian Science Monitor I published an article that said if you bomb, the Serbs are going to retaliate. They are going to bomb Moslems and they are going to bomb Croatians and they are going to kill a lot of civilians. They are going to capture our peacekeepers, tie them to the primary targets, and then move their weapons. Yet yesterday I heard Secretary Perry say we knew that; we knew the risk, and we consider it a success. Well, after that when they chained them, they shut down, the Serbians are still bombing, they are still gunning, but yet 70 are dead. I would ask my friend from Maryland, if you want to sit in on hearings, I will bring in those admirals and those generals, and I would just ask the gentlemen from Maryland to sit down and listen to the dangers involved in this particular amendment. I understand the good intentions of the gentleman from Maryland, but in my humble opinion, it is wrong, and I oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman from Missouri for offering this special order. As my colleagues know, quite often not only the pages but the staff members on both sides of the aisle, the Republicans and the Democrats; I see these young ladies and young men that supervise these pages. I see them yell, ``Snap to,'' when the pages arrive, and I see all of them cry when they leave because it is like a big family here, and quite often not enough of us pay attention to what I call our critters that run about. You will see them here at 5:30 in the morning going to school, you will see them here at midnight, and I challenge any one of our Members to ever see a page that did not look at them and smile and say ``hi,'' and maybe sometimes all of us can take a note from that. But I want to thank you for the special order and say, job well done, kids, or critters, and thank you very much.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, last week my constituents sent me a Contract from Americans. The first line of this contract says about the future that awaits us,'' they say. They are worried about the growing size of government. They are angry about the cruel Federal welfare state. And, above all, they call on us to get to work and balance the Federal budget. I take their concern to heart. Not just because I agree with them, but because the people that sent me this contract are very important to me. It was written by a group of students from Escondido High School in my district. Students like these are standing up to the people that say they don't care. They know how important it is that we balance and change the way government does business. It is their future that is at stake, not ours. If we fail, these students know that they will have to live with the debt. In their contract, they note that, ``the interest alone on our national debt is more than our entire national budget was when America was a better place to call home.'' These young adults are taking the initiative to make a difference, and to make us change our ways. I am proud of them for making their voice heard. Mr. Speaker, this contract represents the voice coming from the future of our country. I ask unanimous consent that it be included in the record so that every Member of this body can read it. We must hear their voice. We must make the future better for these children. Contract From Americans We the undersigned citizens are concerned about the future that awaits us. We feel the role of Government is to ensure the safety of the citizens, and prolong the sovereignty of the nation. unfortunately, the nation that awaits us is not safe and is not sovereign. The continual waste of tax dollars on entitlement programs such as unending welfare, food stamps, special aid for drug addicts, paying farmers to not plant, and ensuring farmers profits must stop. In a true democracy everyone would vote on such spending. But as we live in a representative republic, you were selected to represent our wishes. With this in mind, we ask that you ensure the stability of our futures by enacting the following legislation: 1. The spending on welfare, food stamps, AFDC, and others must decrease. These programs have increased to 54% of the total federal budget with no end in sight. If this spending continues on the same course, you will authorize spending of all our tax dollars on programs that are designed to help only a fraction of our nation's population. We believe some people deserve help, but only for limited periods of time. These programs were designed to make life better. In reality they have not made people's lives better, and in many instances' people have been so harmed by the continual give away of money they have lost the will to ``get off welfare.'' The welfare program is so full of waste, fraud and redundancy, that it can only be repaired with a major overhaul. We feel if the social programs continue, they should be managed by the states where the recipients reside. 2. The furnishing of money to drug addicts must stop. Under your current rules, if someone is a drug addict, you authorize additional welfare (SSI) income over and above their ``normal'' welfare entitlement. Drugs cost money. If you give someone, who is addicted to drugs more money, that means they will only buy more drugs. This program was created to get people off drugs, an idea with good intentions. Unfortunately it has not worked. There are no indications that drug addiction is on the decrease. In fact, drug addiction is on the increase, with the addict's drug of choice being once again, heroin. 3. Farm subsidies in all forms must stop or be reduced. You are authorizing farmers to receive income by not planting crops, at the same time people are going hungry, and food prices are going up. It is difficult to understand the concept of paying people to ensure they do not do their job, especially when others that need jobs cannot get a job. Additionally, if farmers grow certain crops, such as sugar, and do not make enough profit, you authorize payments to them to ensure they make what has been predetermined as a reasonable profit. 4. Balance the Federal Budget. Every American and every American business can spend only what they earn. The Federal Government should be held to the same standard. We are deeply in debt, yet the overspending continues. The interest alone on our debt is more than our entire national budget when America was a better place to call home. The discussion in vogue these days, according to U.S. News and World Report, and the New York Times is ``how little Generation X wants to contribute to the world, how they only play video games, buy CD's and watch television.'' We are members of Generation X, and very much want to contribute to the world. That is why we are so concerned about its current condition. Most of us work while going to high school. Hopefully, we will all be working soon. We want to contribute our fair share. People of all ages need role models. We expect you to be a role model. But continually giving away our tax dollars on frivolous programs that pay people not to contribute sends a clear message that it is acceptable not to contribute. That is not acceptable to us. You were elected to be a leader. We expect you to lead the way for all of us for a better tomorrow. Sincerely, Iriceyda Baza; Ryan Bezenek; Maria Borbolla; Juan Broderick; Amy Brooks; Chris Cabrera; Fernando Carranza; Elizabeth Cervantes; Toeey Chov; Abe Copeland; Michelle Dalope; Lorena Delatorre; Matthew Dewall; April Dillard; Elva Duron; Mainardo Flores; Karin Giron; Christi Henderson; Saul Hidalgo; Jennylind Johnson; Crystal Lara; Tessa Larsen; Jose Morales; Elizabeth Nunez; Josh Pippins; Art Reyes; Araceli Rodriguez; Alfonso Rosas; Ana Salas; Adriana Sanchez; Marty Sanchez; Kimmy Sitaket; Karen Stivers; J'nesse Thompson; Valerie Torres; and Damion Voss.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay homage to America's merchant mariners. As you may be aware, each year, at the request of the Congress, the President declares May 22 as National Maritime Day to honor the Nation's merchant mariners. The significance of National Maritime Day was marked the week of May 21 with special ceremonies and events held in Washington, DC, and cities throughout the country. Fifty years ago, on Maritime Day in 1945, the leaders of the U.S. Armed Forces, including General Eisenhower and Admiral Nimitz, praised the American merchant mariners who sailed on civilian merchant ships moving war materials to Europe and the Far East. These men and ships participated in every landing operation of the Marine Corps in the Pacific. Their skill and courage made a vital difference to our Armed Forces in the European and Pacific theaters of World War II. The American merchant marine later provided strong support to our Armed Forces during the conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf. As a Vietnam veteran, I was grateful for the assistance of the civilian merchant mariners. [[Page E1203]] In fact, 172 Victory Ships were activated during Vietnam as part of the Maritime Administration's National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF). A crew of approximately 35-45 U.S. citizen merchant mariners manned each vessel. I wish to extend a special thanks to the 15,000 or so merchant mariners who crewed the various National Defense Reserve Fleet ships throughout my time in Vietnam. Any member of the Armed Forces will tell you that the cooperation of the entire organization is needed to retain order, readiness, and fighting efficiency. As I flew over Vietnam, I was grateful for our dedicated mariners at sea. As we pay tribute to their service to this country, remember that the American mariners need U.S.-flag ships to sail on in peacetime in order to be available to us in emergencies. Unless a maritime bill is enacted this year, our U.S.-flag presence in international trade is likely to vanish, along with civilian sealift support and seafaring jobs. I urge you to support our mariners by supporting H.R. 1350, the Maritime Security Act of 1995.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want Members to listen to the rhetoric. I would like to quote from President Clinton: ``Today Medicare and Medicaid are going up at 3 times the rate of inflation.'' That is the President. ``We inflation.'' That is 6 percent. ``This is not a Medicare or Medicaid cut.'' That is President Clinton. Now when we are proposing the same thing, it is a cut against the people. This is what the President himself has said: ``So when you hear the business about cuts, let me caution you that we are not cutting, we are reducing the rate of growth.'' This is a direct quote from the President when he defended his 1993 budget cut. If we take a look at what we are doing, the Senate is reducing the rate of growth to 6 percent. We are reducing it to 5 percent. The President himself wanted to reduce it to 6 percent, and states that it is not a cut. Look at the fraud, waste and abuse. A lady called up and said ``Hey, I have a Medicare problem with a doctor. He charged me twice for a mammogram. I did not have a mammogram.'' The doctor said ``Yes, you did,'' and she said, ``No, I did not, I had a mastectomy.'' The doctor's reply was ``Who cares, Medicare will pay for it.'' There is $44 billion per year in just fraud, waste and abuse. We can manage the system better and reduce the rate.