Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the men and women of our Defense Department's medical corps for the fine job they performed during the Marine Corps' annual Kernel Blitz combat exercise, held last month at Camp Pendleton, California. This exercise showed how military medical care is on the cutting edge of the latest automation technology, and Kernel Blitz demonstrated the integral role that this technology plays in supporting the troops. Our fighting forces deserve nothing less than the very best. Last year, Congress and the Defense Department proposed a demonstration project known as the Pacific Medical Network [PACMEDNET] which utilized investments already made in the Defense Department's Composite Health Care System [CHCS] and expanded these attributes for effective wartime deployment. This technology was successfully used in Kernel Blitz and will take the Defense Department into the 21st century in both its peacetime and wartime medical missions. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to share the following article from Federal Computer Week on how this investment in technology is improving emergency medical care for the Defense Department. This successful usage of CHCS technology is a simulated wartime exercise demonstrates that PACMEDNET is the future of battlefield medical care. [From the Federal Computer Week, Apr. 10, 1995] Hospital System Survives First Battlefield Trial (BY BRAD BASS) The Defense Department's $1.1 billion Composite Health Care System (CHCS) went into battle last week, and early reports said the system came through with the colors flying. The Marine Corps' annual Kernel Blitz combat exercise, held at Camp Pendleton, Calif., last week, featured deployable medical information systems for the first time. The training mission linked hospital based CHCS to battlefield medical systems composed of smart cards, ruggedized handheld and laptop computers, and wireless communications. The expansion of CHCS to the battlefield stems from lessons learned in Operation Desert Storm and other hot spots, where Defense forces suffered from inadequate medical technology, said officials with both DOD and with CHCS contractor Science Applications International Corp. ``The fleet hospitals in Saudi Arabia had no automation,'' said Cmdr. Mel Baxter, director of development in the DOD CHCS program office. ``Things could have gone a whole lot better if they had these tools,'' Baxter said. The Air Force has already decided to put a version of CHCS in its base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, next month, Baxter said. Simulated Casualties The Kernel Blitz system connected two ships--the USNS Mercy, a medical ship, and the USS Peleliu, both off the coast of Camp Pendleton--to forward surgical companies near the beach. After the Marines simulated a full-scale landing operation using helicopters, tanks and armored personnel carriers, troops moving inland suffered about 200 simulated casualties, according to Steve Hudock, SAIC's director of CHCS deployment. Each soldier carried a CHCS Multitechnology Automated Reader Card, a smart card equipped with a 2K chip, a bar code and a photograph. Manufactured by 3G Inc., Williamsburg, Va., the cards contained basic medical information on the ``injured'' troops. Field medics used SAIC's ruggedized SE-1415 Agilpac, a 486SX-based handheld computer purchased from the Army's Common [[Page E1043]] Hardware/Software (CHS) contract, to translate data from smart cards into a format compatible with

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I should be at a dinner tonight, but I thought it more important to set the record straight. First of all I heard tonight that Social Security was going to be touched. Social Security is not touched, neither in the budget nor in the appropriation or the reconciliation package. We have heard the rhetoric about the contract and how bad it was. But yet, the American people have embraced the Contract With America. And I have also heard tonight that the tax cuts are only for the wealthy. Let me state the only way that we can beat rhetoric and/or basic lies is with facts, and I would like to present some of those facts, Mr. Speaker. And I will let you decide what is the truth and what is not. In our package we gave the family tax credit for each child of $500. Is that for the rich? We have families from all walks of life with children. And the basic argument is do you want those dollars to go to the American people or do you want those dollars to be spent by the Government? I would also ask you if an IRA for $2,000, that each family can save for their future, tax free, is for the rich? No, it is not. I would also ask you in our contract we provide an IRA for a spouse, either a mother or a father at home who was not even working. You would be able to set aside $4,000 each year for a child. You can provide for a lot of education after 17 or 18 years on an interest-free loan. In our contract, we did away with the marriage penalty, to encourage families to come together, that if you filed jointly, that you have a tax incentive. We encourage that. For too many years we have penalized for people becoming families and filing that way. In the Clinton tax-and-spend package in the early 1990's, he increased the Social Security tax on senior citizens. We have done away with that Social Security tax. Capital gains reduction, Jack Kemp in the Wall Street Journal and the Union Tribune talks about retirement accounts, and that each American, whether you have a car or sell a home or what, that is real income and that is called capital gains. We took the fees and the items in which someone retires, $60,000 to $750,000, and everything that you own that you can pass on to your children, and yet the Clinton Democrats wanted to take that from 600 to 200,000 and then tax you at a very high rate. That is a redistribution of the wealth, Mr. Speaker. The leadership's reply, the liberal leadership's reply, is an attempt to ignite an ugly class warfare system, and I repeat the facts, a $500 child break an IRA in which you can save for the future tax free, an IRA for a spouse at home tax free, savings, marriage penalty, reduction of Social Security tax. Those are not taxes for the rich. Seventy-eight percent of the Contract With America's tax package goes to those that earn $75,000 or less. That is not the rich, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, only 33 House Republicans voted for the George Bush tax increase. Not a single Republican, voted for the Clinton tax-and-spend package. As a matter of fact, it was so bad that they had to twist arms for 45 minutes and pass it by one vote when they were in the majority, and we only had 218 Members. I look at what they have left us. Look at where each child today will owe $187,000 in tax liability. That is not a future that I want to leave to my children. We used to build a farm and pass it on to our children. Today, we are selling that farm and giving our children a mortgage. I look at what the President said when he was going to have a $500 billion deficit reduction package. It was rhetoric. If you read in the recent Wall Street Journal, there was none, and President Clinton and the promise that he would reduce the deficit each year, in the budget that he just gave us before Congress, that budget increases the deficit by $300 billion a year. That is wrong, and that is for each of the next 5 years. We take a look at the status of this country, Medicare is starting to go bankrupt this year. His own trustees' report of the Medicare account, Alice Rivlin, special adviser in the budget to the President, has started that Medicare will go bankrupt, and yet the other side of the aisle and the President are not engaging that issue, because there is a 1996 election. The American people, Mr. Speaker, expect leadership. They want the President to take on and save Medicare. They want him to balance the budget, and they want welfare reform. But yet because of the 1996 election, there is no leadership. America is looking for that leadership, Mr. Speaker. Look at each child born in 1995 again; $187,000? Do you want to leave that? We are spending nearly $1 billion a day on just the interest of the debt. What could we do in this country with $365 billion a year? Think about the other side of the aisle when they said we are hurting children. We can do a lot in education and law enforcement and the real things that we need to do with $365 billion a year. That again is just the interest, just the interest, and that interest is not going into U.S. banks, Mr. Speaker. It is going into foreign countries that hold those notes and receive American interest. That is wrong Mr. Speaker. I look in just a few years ago, take a person that earns $20,000 a year. Let us say during the year they intend $25,000, and they have only made $20,000. Well, if they do not pay off the $5,000, they will have to pay the interest on that $5,000, and if they do not pay it the following year and they also increase sending to maybe $30,000 or $35,000 or $40,000, then they have to pay the interest on that. In just a few short years, they will owe $100,000, and they only make $25,000. That is the status of our Government, and that is the status quo of the liberal leadership and class warfare, and that is why our contract and the tax package is important, Mr. Speaker. They talk about cruelty to education. Today because of the Federal Washington Bureaucracy, we only get 23 cents out of every dollar into the classroom. We had the superintendent of schools for DC schools clamoring because he has got 40-year-old classrooms. They want fiber-optics. They want computers in the classrooms. But where are the dollars going? What is cruel is this organization, this bureaucracy, is eating up all of the dollars. We want to block grant it and focus the money down to where we need it in the classroom. We need fiber-optics in classrooms. We need those televisions. But they are going to the Washington bureaucrats. Mr. Speaker, the American people told me first when I was elected reduce $277 billion. They said give the taxes back, and again, only 33 Republicans voted for the George Bush package; zero voted for Clinton's tax package. But yet we gave $189 billion back to the American people instead of letting the Government have it and keep it. We think the people can spend it better than the Government and less wasteful. And at the same time, the third thing, Mr. Speaker, they said to do, was we want to reduce the deficit. We reduced the deficit by $91 billion, and that was only in 93 days. It is our Contract With America that the figure that we will arrive at in 2002 is a zero budget, balanced budget, and that is important. The fourth thing they asked us to do, Mr. Speaker, is work together. I have heard the President and Al Gore and Panetta and even Members on the other side of the aisle say this was a mean contract. It was ill- spirited. If you look again, the only way to defeat rhetoric is with actual facts. I would like to submit for the Record the actual votes day by day, day by day on every item in the contract. The average vote on each item was 300 votes, Mr. Speaker, the most bipartisan Congress in the history of over 200 years of Congress. Let me read just a couple: Balanced budget, January 26, passed 300 to 132 votes, 72 Democrats; unfunded mandates passed 360 to 74, 130 Democrats voted with us; line-item veto passed 294 to 134, 74 Democrats; victims restitution, 201 Democrats voted with us; criminal alien deportation, 163; regulatory reform and relief, 186 Democrats voted with the contract. And here is an item; I will read just those few. I would like to submit it, Mr. Speaker, for the Record, the most bipartisan Congress in over 200 years, and that is important, I think, to the American people. Mr. Speaker, I would like to also submit for the Record, I have an article here written by former Member, former Secretary of HUD, Jack Kemp, and the ex-Secretary wrote, More than 100 million Americans are investing often through mutual funds and pension and retirement accounts. Every time you hear the phrase ``institutional investor'' on the news, think of the pension fund of the Detroit or Buffalo auto worker of the retirement account of an older couple in Florida and a member of the American Association of Retired Persons, or the Fidelity Mutual Fund holding a young Californian in entrepreneur savings, managing the hopes and dreams and savings of pensions of America's huge middle class. It is entitled ``Capital Gains Fable and Fact.'' It goes through step by step, and Alan Greenspan in his testimony stated that capital gains would be one of the most significant indicators and founders of jobs in this country, and that is important. Mr. Speaker, I include the article for the Record at this point. Capital Gains Fable and Fact (By Jack Kemp) Forget the rich for a moment (I'll return to them later), a capital gains tax cut is the best thing Congress could do right now to help the middle class, the poor, and indeed, our nation's economy. Let's examine the ways: The Financial Markets aren't a ``playground of the rich.'' In the last 20 to 25 years the financial markets have become strong middle-class institutions. Well more than 100 million Americans are invested, most often through mutual funds and pension and retirement accounts. Every time you hear the phrase ``institutional investor'' on the news, think of the pension fund of a Detroit or Buffalo autoworker, the retirement account of an older couple in Florida and a member of the American Association of Retired Persons or the Fidelity mutual fund holding of a young California entrepreneur. These ``institutional investors'' that so dominate the markets these days are managing the hopes, dreams, savings and pensions of America's huge middle class. They may not be directly subject to capital gains taxes, but the value of their assets is determined by the health of the markets. A cut in capital gains taxes would be a boon for our financial markets and for the middle class institutional funds, not to mention for the family or retiree cashing in a retirement account to purchase a home, pay for college or for family retirement needs. Jobs. We live, as we are so often told, in a competitive world economy. American workers can only compete with low- wage foreign workers by being more productive, making it beneficial for employers to hire them, even at a higher wage. As any economist will tell you, the most important element in increasing worker productivity is capital investment (economists call it the capital-to-labor ratio). It was America's huge investment in new plant and equipment--and particularly new technologies--during the 1980s that gave American workers the productivity edge still held over both Asian and European workers. Yes, American workers are today the most productive in the world, but the world keeps changing, and our international competitors, particularly in East Asia, have zero or very low capital gains taxes. A capital gains tax cut would enable huge new investments in American capital formation and ensure the productivity edge of the American work force for decades to come. Jobs. Through the 1980s, the American economy added almost 20 million net new jobs (since the tax increases of the early 1990s that rate has slowed significantly). Almost all that job increase came from small and medium-size companies. In other words, the Fortune 500 haven't added one net new job to the economy in the last 15 years. Often these small, growing employers were start-ups, perhaps a new high tech operation in Silicon Valley, but even more likely a ``Mom and Pop'' operation providing a service to a local or regional market. Where did these new, small companies get the capital to open? Not from bank loans, but, often, from the realization of capital gains--by selling a house, or a previous small business, or mutual fund shares, and reinvesting it. Reinvesting, I would say in America's economic future. Jobs. You only create new jobs in a growing economy, and perhaps the most vital elements to growth, the kind of quantum growth America saw in the 1980s, is entrepreneurial enterprise and development of technologies in the productive economy. Unless you believe government invents and applies technology better than the private sector (if you do, I suggest a trip to the former Soviet Union), what sense does it make for governments to be confiscating as much as 30 percent to 40 percent of an entrepreneur's capital, which he or she could otherwise reinvest in a business? (That's the 28 percent federal level plus the high local capital gains tax in states such as New York and California. If you count you inflation, as we must, capital gains taxes can often exceed 100 percent of net profits.) How many businesses have not been started, or have foundered, because they couldn't clear that capital gains hurdle? How many jobs have not been created? Better jobs. According to the Herman Cain of the National Restaurant Association, 60 percent of all restaurant owners and managers today started as entry-level waiters and ``hamburger flippers.'' At some point, they needed capital to invest in that new restaurant, or to buy that new franchise. Upward mobility is what America is all about, and the ability to access and accumulate capital--an ability undermined by the capital gains tax--is the stairway by which people move up. This brings us to beyond the issue of the middle class and to the concerns of the low-income people of our nation. Everything said about jobs here goes more than double for them. To escape the trap of poverty, the poor need many things--better education and a resurrection of family structures among them. But essential to the mix are jobs, lots of well-paying jobs in a growing economy that provides opportunity up and down the scale, particularly in urban America, for minority men and women to get access to capital and entrepreneurial opportunity. A dramatic capital gains tax cut has now passed the House and will come before the Senate, and the rhetoric of class warfare has never been so heated. But what may appear as good politics for the ``soak the rich'' crowd, is bad economics for America. As a nation, we must reject the notion of a divided America, with mutually antagonistic classes in a zero-sum game, and see our nation as a whole, rising together and leaving no one behind. Will a capital gains tax cut be good for the rich. Of course. But a capital gains cut is even more important for the middle class and for the poor. To the U.S. Senate, I say: Put aside the rhetoric of class warfare, pass the capital gains tax cut now, and give all of America a well-deserved boost. Soon after, we can look forward to a debate about a real flat, fair and simple postcard tax system for our nation as we prepare to enter the exciting world of the 21st century. I also heard the rhetoric that we will be taking away the money from education. Mr. Speaker, when I went through college, I grew up in a little town of 2,113 people back in Shelbina, MO. We went to the Shelbina Bank. It was not a big bank, and my parents cosigned a loan for me to go to college, and they both worked, Mr. Speaker. We paid back, my parents paid back most of it so I could go to school. You know something, the Government did not pay the interest on that. It was a loan between the bank and myself so that I could go to college. I had to work. I had to work in restaurants, and my parents both worked to pay it off. Today, the Government subsidizes the students' interest while they are going to school, either 1, 2, 3, 4, or however many years. They pay that interest; they did not mind, but they are doing it now. What we are asking students to do is we will provide a loan for you do not have to pay it while you are a student. But when you get a job, you will pay off that loan. The most that it will cost is about a buck, the size, the price, of a Big Gulp amount at 7-Eleven. All of those 1 dollars per day extra that a person would have to save and spend amounts to $12.5 billion, Mr. Speaker, $12.5 billion, and all we are asking the student to do is take the responsibility, a world that you do not hear much around this place, and pay off their loan. Let us look at a case, very high borrowing, 9-year graduate student, worst case, student with 9 years of graduation, that borrowed a maximum amount of loan for all 4 years of undergraduate enrollment. The above loan shows that there is a savings to the Government of $16,015. That will be about $194 extra per month that that student will pay. That is at a rate of 2 percent. Alan Greenspan has also said that if we balance the budget, interest rates will go down as low as 2 to 4 percent. Now, take 2 percent on a home, take 2 percent on a farm, I think, and I cannot remember the exact figures. I have got it in my notes. But a $75,000 mortgage, I believe, at an 8\1/2\ percent over a 30-year period, you will save about $56,000 with a 2-percent reduction, and Alan Greenspan said it could be even more. $56,000 will go a long way to pay for college students, for a house, for a car, and whatever. And so the myth about that we are destroying college loans is just not true, Mr. Speaker. We spent in this Government over the last 7 years $9.5 trillion. In balancing the budget, the Republicans are going to spend $11.5 trillion. Let me repeat that, 9.5 to 11.5, but what we are going to do is reduce the rate of growth of Federal spending, because if we do not, Mr. Speaker, America will become a second-class economic country. The soundness of the dollar abroad will keep going down. Medicare will fail. We will not balance the budget. It will go out of control, and welfare reform and all the other reforms that we have put together will go down the tubes. The coming debate is not just about the budget. It is about the American future, Mr. Speaker. It is about doing the right thing. It is about an opportunity to create the potential for prosperity, for safety, for a better life for virtually every American. It will take hard, systematic work, and real change. But it can be done, and it will improve the lives of our children, of our senior citizens, and every American. What does it mean? People say, well, that is just rhetoric. How do you do the right thing? Mr. Speaker, let me go through what those items are. First, you have got to be truly compassionate by replacing the welfare state with an opportunity society. The Republican Governors came to us and said there are 366 welfare programs. They all have people that work in them. They all have facilities that have to be paid for. They all have overhead. They have rules and they have regulations. Different people qualify for those welfare programs. They are all so intermeshed that none of us, the Governors told us, we cannot track on who is getting what, and in many cases people are qualifying and receiving and abusing the system. So they asked us to block grant it. Let them use the programs individual to their State. Look at what Governor Weld has done. Look at what Christie Frittman has done. Look at what in Wisconsin they have done with Tommy Thompson. Those are successes, Mr. Speaker, and we want to give the States and untie their lands to run the programs where they can actually help people. Governor Weld actually reduced taxes, reduced the welfare system, and he has got the majority of his people working. They are happier, they have responsibility, and they love it, and that is what we ought to free up the people to do. Second, restoring freedom by ending the centralized bureaucratic micromanagement from Washington, DC. We need to return the power back to the States. A tax increase and government control is the one most powerful measure in which this body operates. I say to my colleagues, If you have the power and the control, you control votes. We do not want Washington to have that kind of power. We want to give it back to the States. We want to give that power back to the people, Mr. Speaker, because we feel that government does work best closest to the people. I say to my colleagues, Ask anybody in your particular area. Ask them if they know where the dollars should go specifically better than the individuals that are servicing that program. They cannot. Third, promoting prosperity, economic growth, take-home pay, by reducing taxes, reducing litigation and regulations. Go to any city, ask any Governor, ask any major, ask any official or any business person what they would like to do better business and be able to hire people. One is get rid of the liability and the litigation problems, the rules, and the regulations. We are going through the Clean Water Act, as we are right now, and reducing the tax burden and the overhead. Next, creating an opportunity for every American by leading a transformation of an information age society. We double our knowledge, Mr. Speaker, every year. It used to take only 10 years ago 50 years to double that knowledge. Look at the schools, at what they need with the fiber optics and the computers we talk about, the libraries of high technology. We are putting out in an information age an enormous amount of information, but there is no one out there to receive it. We are understaffed. We are undermanned. That is where the government has got real investment that it can make in helping our students to make sure they are up to speed. If we do not prepare them for that, then Mr. Speaker, the age gap and the gap between those that have good jobs and those that do not will go. I have a school in my district at Scripp Ranch. That school has got fiber optics. It has got a computer system. It has got a system to where the children, boys and girls, are swinging hammers in a trade, learning a vocational trade. They are building modular units, and they are designing those modular units on computers. On the other side of the aisle, those students that are college bound, the architecture and architecture design students are using those computers. They are designing those modular units. The students then sell those modular units and buy new equipment for the school, and guess what, Mr. Speaker? In the summer the unions in participation with public and private are participating with small business and private enterprise, and they are hiring those students in the summer, they are teaching them a vocational trade, and they are preparing them for college, and we think that is the way to go for our students in decreasing the bureaucratic rhetoric and the bureaucrats here in Washington, DC. Next, create a safe financial future for our children, our retirement years, by balancing the budget, solving the crisis of Medicare and Social Security. And we have already talked about what the options would be. It is our moral responsibility. Look what happens if we do not save Medicare. I ask my colleagues, ``Can you imagine--I do not use the term senior citizen, our chronologically gifted people can you imagine our chronologically gifted folks--having to pay 300 percent more premiums on Medicare?'' That is cruelty. ``Can you imagine that in a welfare system, having the system that we have today that is cruelty, can you imagine not balancing the budget and having our children owe $187,000 in taxes the day they're born in 1995?'' That is cruelty, Mr. Speaker. We have a moral responsibility, and we need the President to take the leadership in doing that. I say, ``Don't turn away from it just because they're 1996. Go down in history as a leader not being AWOL.'' As a majority party, we must lead a new dialog, not through just dialog, but through change and public opinion. A great man, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in 1936 said, ``Our generation has got a rendezvous with destiny.'' Mr. Speaker, we have a rendezvous with destiny. It can be one of a second rate power, of an economic power where our children are not safe in the streets, where the current welfare system exists, or we cannot. here, his name is Ronald Reagan, and he said, ``We have every right to dream heroic dreams. The crisis we are facing today requires our best effort and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds, to believe that together with God's help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us. After all, why shouldn't we believe that we are Americans?'' President Ronald Reagan had a good thought. It is our opportunity right now, by creating an opportunity society, by decentralizing American government, by creating economic growth and reestablishing American competitiveness and the American dream by leading the transformation of the information age, and balancing the budget, reducing the financial crisis in Medicare and in Social Security. To embrace change on this historic scale we must use an appropriate planning model, a vision, the strategies, the projects and the tactics, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the gentleman from the other side of the aisle and there are many, Mr. Speaker. There are many of the Democrats on the other side of the aisle that embrace this. But I would ask, I would beg on my knees, that the Democratic leadership would get away from the 1996 election and help us achieve that vision. What is our vision of the American future, and what does it mean? Every American is safe from violence and drugs. That is a novel item. Every willing person will be integrated into a world of work, prosperity and achievement, a healthy environment, and, trust me, Medicare is not standing alone by itself. If we are going to solve that problem, we need health care reform. The President is correct about that. We need the tort liability reform. We need the paperwork reduction. We need insurance grouping so more people can afford insurance. Most everyone has health care, Mr. Speaker. Not everyone has insurance, and we can do that and save the Medicare problem. New technologies and approaches to create the fullest possible participation of every American with disabilities. I have a father in my district, Mr. Speaker. His son was paralyzed from the neck down. He went to the Medicare system, and he has got a whole garage full of equipment that he cannot use. He was so distraught that he started his own business on how to handle disabled children, what equipment do you use with sound activated doors, with computer systems, where someone cannot type, it can be sound activated, and, Mr. Speaker, I would advise you to use it because it is also spell-checked. As you verbalize into the computer, something all of us could use, not just someone that cannot type. A pro-entrepreneur, pro-science technology. Our biotech industry, our medical industries, are the future. We are debating a wetlands and a Clean Water Act. We have biotech companies that are growing antipesticides out of DNA, and guess what? When the rains come and the DNA washes off the plant, it does not violate our rivers, or lakes and our oceans. We need to invest in that, Mr. Speaker. Job opportunities for every American, but, yes, with low taxes and a balanced budget amendment. All around U.S. corporations are rethinking and engineering. They are doing; they are downsizing. But, as industry is downsizing and reorganizing, Government is growing bigger, and bigger, and bigger. That is why we have the current welfare state. That is why we are only getting 23 cents out of every buck down into the classroom, and we have to have a vision, but, yes, we have to listen, we have to learn, we have to help, and we have to lead. I will not go through the improvements again, but they are important, and we have got to do that. The welfare state has failed, Mr. Speaker. It has failed the model of delivering goods, services to help the American people. It actually hurts the poor. I ask you, and I would ask every American, ``Look at the current welfare system, the child abuse, the brutality, the drugs, the crime ridden Federal projects.'' The culture of violence is increasing. It permeates our inner souls in our inner cities. It denigrates our civilization. In our committee we heard case after case of a welfare mother that has gotten off of welfare because she said, ``Duke,'' she actually said Mr. Chairman, ``the welfare system is addictive. It's easier to stay off welfare.'' But our own laws prevent us from helping that person. We take away her welfare check if she goes to work or a portion of it. She has to provide transportation and clothes. She has to provide babysitting for her child and child care. And then she says, ``Well, I could actually lose my health care also, so I'm going to stay at home. A, I'm with my child, I make more money, so why should I get off?'' Well, in the contract what we do is, first of all, we go after the 34 billion, the deadbeat dads, in some cases deadbeat mothers, to bring that balance to those families. We also have where parents get together. We do not penalize them for the first 2 years. We let them get together. We do not take away that welfare check. But, yes, one of them has to work 30 hours a week, but yet we are encouraging families to get together. That is more compassionate, Mr. Speaker, than letting parents split up and children go without fathers and without mothers. The culture of violence. The nonworking, nonproductive part of our society is a big factor in the deficit that we face each year. The human cost of the welfare state; poor Americans are trapped in unsafe housing, they are saddled with the rules that are antiwork, antifamily, and antiproperty. They are forced to have their children attend some public school monopolies, and I would ask any American to visit the D.C. schools. They are trying their best. I listened to the superintendent, but yet they need that investment into education, and the gentleman was right. We need to invest in education, but we also need to let the States have the power to wield their wealth and give the money to them in the block grants so that they can direct the money, not have Washington. In the name of compassion we have funded a system that is cruel and destroys families. We need to change that. Welfare spending now exceeds, and listen to this, Mr. Speaker, welfare spending exceeds $305 billion per year, a total of $5 trillion since 1965, $305 billion a year in welfare, and look at what it has got us today, a failed state. But yet many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would just have us dump more money into those 366 programs to say, well, we need it for the children. Well, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is cruel to keep the current welfare system. The $305 billion is three times the amount needed to raise all poor Americans above the poverty line, and that is in 1 year. We can just give the poor Americans money, and it would do more, except it would keep them on the welfare state and not encourage them to work. Since 1965, the juvenile arrest rate for violent crimes has tripled, Mr. Speaker, and I think most Americans would agree it is the condition of what we gave them the welfare state as it exists today. Look at the Federal housing projects. You have heard the Speaker of the House state that no civilization can survive with 12-year-olds having babies, 15- year-olds killing each other, 17-year-olds dying of AIDS and 18-year- olds receiving diplomas that they cannot read. In this information age we are looking at taking right in the Library of Congress and putting it on CD Rom for about $45 million, and it would be expediential to reprint all of those books. And we are going to do that. But that also requires that American children can read and soak in some of that information. Furthermore, no civilization can survive with parents and grandparents cheating their children by refusing to balance the budget and live within their means. The welfare state cheats the poor. The unbalanced budget cheats every child. The legacy we are leaving our children is moral and physically bankrupt, Mr. Speaker. But yet there are some on the other side of the aisle that would have us say, we are cutting, we are cutting. Again I would like to state, in the last 7 years we spent $9.5 trillion. In the next 7 years we are going to plan to spend $11.5 trillion. That is a reduction to plan to spend $11.5 trillion. That is a reduction in the growth. society for the poor requires a shift from caretaking to caring; welfare reform that emphasizes work, family and opportunity, volunteerism and spiritual renewal; renewing the basic values of American civilization, tax incentives for work, not to stay on welfare; investment and entrepreneurship. Look at what enterpreneurship--I watched a movie on TV late last night. It was called A Woman, I believe, A Woman of Means. I cannot remember the name of the movie, but it was basically about a woman that started off very, very poor. She had a child out of wedlock. She worked in the mills. She worked hour after hour and saved. She saved every penny, and finally she went up and bought a little store. She even made jellies. She made linens. She bought and opened up a little bigger store, and pretty soon she bought the store next to her. She worked night and day, and pretty soon that gentlewoman became a multimillionaire. Many of which on the other side of the aisle would call the rich. But yet this woman had taken her life and worked and scraped and saved and done everything, employed thousands of people; but yet the Clinton administration would tax her. They would put OSHA on her back, put rules and regulations which would cause her to lay off people. We cannot continue to do that, Mr. Speaker, because growth is a very important factor in balancing the budget. Reestablishing property ownership and full citizenship for the poor, look at Jack Kemp's original HOPE and HOME programs that many on both sides of the aisle embrace. Learning to focus on education, government protection of the poor against violence and drugs. The second strategic improvement is restoring freedom by ending the centralized bureaucratic micromanagement by the Government in Washington. We only get 25 or 23 cents out of every buck into education. That is the wrong way to go. The general rule for decisionmaking for local problems, local government is generally better than the national government, and the private sector is generally better than local government. Limit the State bureaucracies, and we should be trying to attempt to get as much money as we can down to the local level. Mr. Speaker, the third strategic improvement is promoting economic growth and jobs and prosperity. Alan Greenspan said, if we balance the budget, and I quote, ``you cannot imagine the wonderful things that will happen.'' The soundness of the dollar in America and abroad will be enhanced. Interest rates will go down by 2 percent. We will create millions of jobs. So there is an important factor in growth, but yet those that would tell you to balance the budget, capital gains are only for the rich. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, look at it logically and I think you will find another axiom. The American economy needs to grow within increasingly competitive world markets, to increase revenues so that the Federal Government budget can be balanced without raising the taxes. The more people you have working, the less taxes you have to pay from everybody, and the less taxes you have to put on business, and the more people they can hire, and the more people that can pay taxes. It is called macroeconomics, Mr. Speaker. To pay for the Social Security and Medicare in the 21st century, that is important also, Mr. Speaker. At 1 percent less rate of growth, the current projection, what does it mean? Social Security goes into a deficit 13 years sooner by just a 1 percent less growth. At a 1 percent more growth, the Federal tax revenues are $716 billion greater, by just 1 percent. That is a great amount of money, Mr. Speaker, by any means. In 7 years the difference between the high and the low economic growth productions means a $1.2 billion swing in the size of the Federal budget and the deficit. Let me give you a classic example. High growth rates can be achieved and sustained on following the right policies, just as good health comes from good nutrition and exercise. Example: Japan, through the years of 1975 and 1993, 18 years without a recession, a 4.2 percent annual growth rate. And remember what we said, just a 1 percent interest growth rate would mean billions of dollars for the budget. Yet we take a look at the United States, compared from 1973 through 1993, three recessions we have gone through in the United States during that period, a 2.6 percent instead of over a 4 percent annual growth rate, and it only gave us a 1 percent annual personal income increase. Imagine if America had matched the Japanese in economic growth rate over that period of time. The real GDP would have been 1.8 trillion greater. Per capita income would have been, listen to this, Mr. Speaker, $8,955 per worker greater for just matching what the Japanese did. Greater American competitiveness and increased economic growth requires a tax code that favors work, not Big Government, savings on investment, less litigation, less regulation and redtape, lean and effective bureaucracies, lifetime learning, entrepreneurial culture, sensible government investments in infrastructure, government research and development leading to corporate product development and marketing. The fourth strategic improvement is leading the transformation to an information age. The speaker holds up a tube, a vacuum tube, a tube that you will fly home with if you are flying this weekend with the FAA. The United States is the largest producer of the vacuum tube. But yet government, by buying a computer chip, is worth a million vacuum tubes. And yet we need to step into the future and do that. But we are not. We have not been able to do that. Just think about the hundreds of thousands of dollars by switching to a computer chip instead of a vacuum tube in our government. Over the last 15 years, the Ford Motor Co. has transformed itself through new technologies and new culture to qualify and through productivity. Today Ford produces the same number of cars, two and one half times the quality, with one half the work force. Consider what government could do if it could match that same standard. We could send half of us home, half of the staff home. I think many of the American people would support that, Mr. Speaker. New breakthroughs do not fit into the traditional role of government. It is too hard to change, too long. Let me tell you about a program and a change. We plan on merging or doing away with the Department of Education, eliminating HUD, eliminating the Department of Energy and eliminating the Department of Commerce. Eliminating the Department of Education is $4 billion every year that we could save. Eliminating HUD is $15 billion. Eliminating the Department of Energy is $20 billion. They say, how can you give a tax break and give the money back to the American people? I heard Russia mentioned today and that we are spending too much money on defense. We gave the former Soviet Union a billion dollars to dismantle nuclear weapons. We gave them another $4 to $5 billion in nation building, Mr. Speaker. Last year Russia built five Typhoon nuclear class submarines, the Red October type class submarines. They built a Mig-35 which is superior to our F-15 and F-14 fighters. They have an AA-10 missile which is superior to our AMRAAM. They have a torpedo, an underweter torpedo that will go over 100 miles per hour. Yet we are giving them money so that they can fight a war in another country. We need to invest at home, Mr. Speaker, and not send the money abroad. We need to increase our own economic model in this country, create the jobs, balance the budget, solve the Medicare system, and work so that the babyboomers will have a retirement to look to. Debt consumes America. Again, we are paying nearing nearly a billion dollars a day on just the interest. The Clinton administration knows the crisis is coming. Social Security will face a cash deficit by the year 2013. The unified deficit will increase unless taxes are raised or benefits reduced, and it comes even earlier in 1999: Clinton's OMB Director Alice Rivlin on 10/94. But yet the President fails to provide a solution. I ask the President to engage. Give us your plan to balance the budget, put away the 1996 elections. Give us your plan to save Medicare instead of the 1996 elections. problem because they fail to account for four additional powerful factors, Mr. Speaker. The taxpayers' burden is paying interest on the debt, the cost of higher interest rates caused by the Federal Government's borrowing, the imminent financial crisis in Medicare, if it is not saved, and the soon-retiring babyboomers and their effect on the Social Security trust fund. Every citizen will have to pay a lot more in taxes and interest on the debt unless we solve the problem. Over the next 11 years, we will pay as much in taxes just to pay the interest on the debt as the entire debt that has ever existed. The following Americans will pay a lot on interest to the debt which builds up over a time in their lives. Let us take Sally, in 1995, $187,150. Our spending today saddles our children with debt tomorrow. That is not a legacy that I wish to leave my children. In 1997 we will pay more for the interest on the debt than we will pay for all of national defense. That is sad, Mr. Speaker, and that is on the interest. That is not on the principal. It does not go into our banks. It goes to foreign interests and foreign subsidies used against us in economic warfare such as Japan, such as China, such as Russia. Budget deficits raise interest rates and cost everyone additional money. What a balanced budget will mean, I quote Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan; I think real incomes and purchasing power of the real incomes will significantly improve what they look for in their children and they are doing better, and they will do better. Alan Greenspan stated that most Americans feel that their children will do worse than they have in their present lifetimes. That is a sad commentary, Mr. Speaker. I feel that we are doing the most important things that we have ever done in our lives. When we are only getting small amounts of dollars to the problems that we have, when this nation is headed for economic ruin and a second rate country economically and we are going to lose our health care systems, we have got to do something about it. I feel proud to be able to take part in that. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, put away the rhetoric, put away the information that is coming out and join us and embrace it. We want to save this country for our children, because, again, if we do not, they are going to owe far more than we could ever pay: not a legacy that we want to leave for our children. Mr. Speaker, I am going to close in just a second. I am going to basically state that in the future of this House and working with the Senate, with both sides of the aisle, whether we receive a balanced budget amendment or not, we are going to balance the budget in 2002. The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] of the Committee on the Budget has taken every single Member's information into account in our conference. The COLA's for retirements are back in. The items, the common goal and the common thread when it comes down to it, in the year 2002 we will have a balanced budget in this country, and what a great thing that will mean, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, most of the Members know that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Largent] is not only an NFL Hall of Famer, but he is a very caring Hall of Famer here in this body. But I would like the people that are thinking about supporting the amendment, and I reluctantly rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I have a couple of concerns, but, first of all, yesterday we had a bill that would have placed on DOD an unfunded mandate that would have cost billions of dollars when it was proven that those DOD facilities, both the surface and the shore based, complied better, all put together, than individual ones, and that was an unfunded mandate, and I did not support that as well. I also believe in the authorization level in the committee mark that is thoughtful in the process. And I know that the mention of the Clinton budget. I do not imagine the President realized at the time of that budget that we were going to take a look and reauthorize the Clean Water Act as much as we are today. I also made a statement earlier that Members on both sides of the aisle have reacted in ways that, because of extremes on both sides, those that want to concrete the world and pollute, and yet those on the other side from the environmental groups that have used it as a weapon, and somewhere in between we have got to lie, but if we give this to the States, we have got to give them the right and the power to do what we are asking them to do, and I think the committee mark is adequate. I look in San Diego. If we treat secondary water in our sewage problem, it would cost us between $8 to $12 billion just for the city of San Diego in a waiver process. If we look at the Tijuana River that comes out of Mexico, that is why our beaches are fouled, and we need support in that, and the State cannot do it by itself. So reluctantly I rise in opposition to my friend's amendment, and I ask my colleagues to think twice before they degrade the amount in the level.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all it was not the only item mentioned. It is a series of things in which the liberals in this House have supported their social agenda. Second, do I support homosexuals in the military? The answer is no. I personally believe that it affects readiness; yes, I do. Does the majority of the military, men and women in the military, want homosexuals in the military? The answer is no, and, as long as the military leaders and those people feel that way, and if the gentleman could ever prove to me that that does not have an effect, then I will change that position, but that is the position currently, that it affects the national security and readiness of this country, and that is what I support.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am talking about the military. People in the military do not support this.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Absolutely, putting homosexuals in the military.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The ludicrousness of this, even to appeal this. It is the lunacy of this, the EPA and other organizations have continually stated you take the shore-based and the surface-based, have less problems than any of your public bases, less than all of them put together. I have operated off these carriers. I have operated out of these. You want to take a Geiger counter, go ahead. I have scuba dived underneath the docks. I am not going to do that if it is polluting. And the same people that would control with big Government the rules and the regulations and try and diminish national security, look at them, just look at them right here. And the same people. The team never changes, and you want to put these burdens, and the problems is that you fail to see the solutions to very simple problems. You state your own opinion as fact when it is not. that there is no discharge, that it is not regulated, but yet you would cost the American taxpayers and lay on rules and regulations and have bigger Government, more facilities, more control over the regulatory factors, and that is wrong.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, I will not. Sit down, you socialist.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am shocked, I am absolutely penetratively shocked. I do not think the gentlewoman from Colorado has even been shocked about anything in her life, especially this. Second, I look at the individuals that are offering this. Is there any shocking doubt, the same people that would vote to cut defense $177 billion, the same ones that would put homos in the military, the same ones that would not fund BRAC, the same ones that would not clean up.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I used the shorthand term, and it should have been homosexuals instead of homos. We do misspeak sometimes.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. First of all, it is not a bigoted statement. Many times the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has told me that people have differences of opinion. It is this Member's opinion that homosexuals in the military do not do service to the national security of this country, and in that vein making a statement that those that support that are supporting the nonreadiness of defense is--and I will be happy to yield in just a second. The second thing is that there is a tendency by the Members that support that kind of activity, support all the rest of it, and it is meant that we need to support national security in this country. I say to my colleagues, ``A bigoted statement, if I was directing it to you or anybody else in this thing, in other contexts, yes, would be bigoted, but a personal opinion, that it degrades the national readiness of this country, is not a bigoted statement.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think the gentleman would be correct if that is the only issue. I meant it. I said it as a policy of the people in general that support the issues that degrade national security of this country, and that is one of those many issues which the gentleman supports, and in a case of amendment that is absolutely ridiculous, it was meant to formulate those same people that do not support defense are trying to tie the hands of defense even in the future.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] talked about the Academy of Sciences and good science. We agree. First of all, San Diego has had a problem with effluent sewage. The sewage treatment is actually treated, and then we want to put it 4 miles out to sea, but the EPA, which a rule was written for the Clean Water Act, was written, ``If you dump that sewage into a river or a lake.'' The Academy of Sciences and Scripps Oceanographic said it actually enhances the ocean, but yet the EPA is unwilling to bend, and what we are trying to do is, when we talk about risk assessment and fairness, is to look because what it would do is cost the city of San Diego between $8 to $12 billion. That is $12 billion we do not have for law enforcement, or housing, or education and those kinds of things, but yet science says that we do not have to double-treat the sewage. It is treated in the first place, but we do not have to do secondary sewage. That is reasonable. When we take a look at it, when we need to move ahead, a company near my district named Micogen has a chemical. It is not actually a chemical, but it is an insecticide type that is created out of DNA, and, when they use that, the actual farmers would grow their material or spray it over their crops, and it is not a toxic pesticide that run off into our lakes, and rivers and oceans. That is what we need to support as far as good science. But yet the administration has put a burden on our biotech industry in California. Those are the things we need to move ahead with. The EPA, Endangered Species, Clean Water, Clean Air were all written with good intentions, but there are special interests on both sides of this area, those that do want to pollute and those that want to use it as a weapon for no growth at all. What the legislation that the Republican Party is coming up with is a commonsense application and suits neither one. Take a look at the issues that burden us every day. Look at the EPA and Endangered Species. I think we can work on a more bipartisan area.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the chairman for the earlier recognition. At this time I would have been swimming out of the mouth of the Red River over North Vietnam, and I want to tell the Members, it was not a river of pollution that you would want to swim in, or your children to swim in. Would a Clean Water Act help clean up that river? Absolutely. Would the current Clean Water Act of today be supported by members? I think with clearer definitions. however, the last gentleman from New Jersey, according to him, a mud puddle that would replenish the aquifer would be considered a wetland. That is the lunacy of the bill. That is why, exactly why we are fighting. There is probably not a Member in here that would not support the current Clean Water Act. There is not a Member that would not support the bill offered by the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton]. The clean water and clean air and endangered species, and yes, even the EPA, the organization, would be supported, but they have gone too far. There have been extreme cases. However, there are honest attempts, and I appreciate, first of all, the dialogue. I do not think there has been a lot of mudslinging on either side of the issue. We have been talking about the issues, and they have been honest. I think they have been honest attempts to achieve elemental environmental security. However, we have in this body fundamentalists, fundamentalist leftists, that have violated the interests and used the well-meaning legislation to the extremes. I am not talking about the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] or the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] but there is an element in this organization that are extremist, and they have used these bills, aforementioned, as weapons against people. Why are we even having a substitute, or a bill in the first place? To me it is not the Clean Water Act, it is to come somewhere within logic of what reasonable men and women would have us to save the environment. However, that has not been the case. That is why I think both the substitute and the bill is to try and bring us somewhere back to the center. If we take a look, I had 3 Russian generals come into my office a few months ago. I asked one of them what was the most treasured right that they had gained since they had their freedom. They said ``Congressman, it is the right to own property.'' The problem is, for every item that I read here, there are going to be items on the other side that are violated. I recognize that. However, for example, in private property rights, I personally believe it is wrong from environmentalists, often extreme groups, to go in and take on somebody's property, devalue that property, and then say that is fair market value. That is wrong. However, that has existed. I think that is why these laws and why these substitutes and bills have been changed, they are trying to change the current act, because there have been those violations. Mr. Chairman, I look at Mexico. We discussed here once about a boy that was lost for three days, and the helicopter could not land because he went into a wilderness area. Fish and Game would not allow the helicopter to land. That is ludicrous. That is stupid. However, those kinds of things are allowed to exist. In California, we had homes where the people had asked if they could disk around there homes because of the fire. We have a lot of fires and earthquakes They said ``No, because it is an endangered species area.'' We lost 34 homes. The people that went ahead and did it and violated the law saved their homes. That is wrong, Mr. Chairman. For each of those issues that I could talk about, about the violations, we look at the Colorado slag, we look at the pollution in the Great Lakes. Talk about the Chesapeake Bay, look how the Great Lakes have been cleaned up. There are advantages to the current Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and endangered species. However, something has to bring the legislation to where logical decisions can be made, not by regulators. Government officials run amok, whether it is an RTC or whether it is an environmental group, they run amok. We have to change that. California, the No. 1 economic product in California is agriculture. Yet, agriculture in the past, pesticides go into the lakes and into the rivers and into our oceans, where the gentleman from California [Mr. Filner] is from. Down there in the district, we need to clear that up. It is not so much our outfall in sewage, it is the Tijuana raw sewage that is coming out of Mexico that is polluting our beaches. We need to attend to that. I think there is an honest attempt for the Members in favor of the substitute and the Members in favor of the bill to resolve not the Clean Air Act, but to resolve logical decisions. That has not existed in the past.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to salute the heroism of one of my younger constituents, Zach Nussbaum, of Fairbanks Ranch, CA. As the article below details, Zach saved his mother's life several weeks ago. When Susan Nussbaum collapsed from dehydration on February 23, young Zach went to the phone and dialed 911, summoning an ambulance to his home. Zach remained on the line for 15 minutes and helped to direct the emergency crew to his house. All of this happened on Zach's fifth birthday, which points out the importance of teaching our kids at an early age about 911 and how to get help in an emergency. I'm pleased to report that Susan Nussbaum has fully recovered and that Zach has returned to his normal routine. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in saluting the courage and heroism of Zach Nussbauum. [From the Sun, Mar. 9, 1995] 5-Year-old Saves Mom's Life--Fairbanks Ranch boy knew how to dial 911 (By John P. Lyons) As Zach Nussbaum cuddles his two favorite stuffed animals, Sonic and Tails, it's hard to believe that not too long ago he saved his mother's life. But that's exactly what he did. On Feb. 23, Zach's fifth birthday, his mother succumbed to dehydration and collapsed on the floor of the family's Fairbanks Ranch home. Unfazed, Zach went to the phone and dialed 911, ultimately remaining on the phone for more than 15 minutes, and leading medical workers to his unconscious mother. ``It was his birthday present to his mother,'' said Susan Nussbaum, who has since recovered. But Zach, who said he learned how to dial 911 practicing on his mother's car phone, was characteristically nonchalant about the entire incident. ``We practiced 911 in the car and didn't press the send button,'' he said. ``I take care of my mom.'' According to his mother Zach was calm throughout the incident, and showed no signs of trauma later. But the authorities were impressed. Most children Zach's age are not as helpful or competent when confronted with a real 911 situation, according to Sheriff's Deputy Roy Casteneda. Zach, however, is no ordinary kid, and is already an avid workbook reader. On the 911 tape, Zach could be heard giving medics directions to the Nussbaum house and then attempting to wake his mother, according to Susan Nussbaum. ``And when the ambulance arrived he simply said `I'm done here' and went back to playing with his tops,'' She said. Since saving his mom, Zach has returned to his full time occupation: playing pogs and video games with his three older brothers--Gabe, 7, Josh, 9, and Benji 10.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] and the last speakers, that many of us on this side of the aisle agree that when he talked about Jordan, King Hussein, we all witnessed the King up here with good intentions, but he, in fact, does not have control of Jordan and with the Palestinians, this Member personally feels that we are dumping money down a rat hole. I think we have also taken a look and many Members on this side of the aisle want an up-or-down vote on Mexico, the bailout. I think that it is going to be a problem. I do not know what the deal is with the support of President Clinton on the issue, but many of us would like to halt the money going to Mexico, because I think again it is money going down a rat hole. I also agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] that when we are Mexico, we are sending money to Jordan and we have domestic problems here in this country and we also have military readiness problems, that we have got to change our modus operandi on both sides of the aisle and the administration as well. But why is this particular issue that we are talking about today important? Military readiness, and I quote from testimony in the Committee on National Security, that we are near buffet condition when it comes to national security, and near buffet is the condition in which an airplane goes into an out-of-control spin. That condition has been created much because of the operations of this body. Our op tempo today, operation tempo, is higher than it was during Desert Storm or Vietnam. But yet our military has had dollars cut out of it not only in a $177 billion defense cut but from not funding BRAC, from all the operations that were in Somalia, Haiti, and so on. In Somalia, we testified, when there was an extension of Somalia that it was going to cost billions of dollars, and that was going to come out of military readiness, time and training. This is an attempt to get a little portion of that money back. In the meantime, we have gone a year and a half without allotting the training in the military. I just got through with a briefing of the military. Our F-18's, C-10's, our F-15's, our AWACS in Bosnia and these other expenditures are killing the flight time left on those airframes. At the same time, we have air wings back in the States that are not flying. Top Gun did not fly against its class because it did not have enough fuel or parts because of the Somalia, the Haiti, the Bosnia expeditions. This is critical. If we take a look at the extension of Somalia, we said it was going to cost billions of dollars. Then if we take a look at the retreat from Somalia that we just went through, General Aideed is still there, and it cost us over 100 Rangers that were killed in Somalia at great cost to this country. When we talk about domestic programs, when we talk about military readiness, it was not Members on this side of the aisle that made the decision to extend Somalia that cost lives and billions of dollars. Haiti is another case. We put into position a madman in Haiti. I ask the Speaker, if we pulled out of Haiti today, what would be the condition? Do Members remember Papa Doc and Baby Doc? It would be a total turmoil there. That has cost us billions of dollars. We are paying for those military forces, military, the United States is. That is wrong, against our own military defense. Again, when we pull out of there, it is going to go back just like it has, and we could have left it there for another 100 years and it would not have been a national security. The President is saying, what a great victory. Pull out of there and see what kind of victory we have. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to take a look at the different costs. There are many on the other side of the aisle that would depreciate our readiness and our capability in national defense and our military. But we are asking our men and women to put their lives on the line. Readiness is not just machines. Readiness is not just going out and turning and burning in a jet or in the ground on a tank. It is the families that are involved. We ask these high up-tempo operations at a cost of family separation, and the No. 1 indicator of our men and women leaving the service is family separation. That is part of readiness as well. We need to get a grip on this. I ask Members on both sides of the aisle to support this supplemental, because if we do not get it, and I quote, our military will shut down at the end of this fiscal year.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 660, the Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, Congress passes laws which have unintended consequences. The Fair Housing Act of 1988 is one of those instances. This landmark legislation has laudable goals of eliminating discrimination in housing. Unfortunately the bill also contains provisions which have had a damaging and harming effect to our chronologically gifted seniors. This has been particularly apparent in San Diego. Let me tell my colleagues the problems. When the law was enacted, first of all, that in one specific area, and that is the mobile home residents, we had a law enacted that changed the tax rate from going from DMV for mobile homes to property taxes. When that happened, it caused many of the mobile home parks to shut down. There was nowhere else to go, unlimited access to it, and then with the Fair Housing Act, it mandated that they get certain special facilities, medical facilities and others, to the chronologically gifted. In some cases those costs were passed on to our seniors, and in some cases the owners actually made a profit on those services. Now most of these chronologically gifted folks in the mobile home parks are on a fixed income, and they could not pay the additional costs. It seemed like every time their Social Security increased, they would also get a rent raise. They could not move, and then these extra facilities were put on, and they could not meet it. The mobile home owners would say, ``Okay, move,'' and of course there was no other parks to move to because of the previous law also, so catch-22. Mayor Thibadow of San Marcos, a city councilman, Corby Smith, and Jerry Linhart who worked with the mobile home people came to me 4 years ago with this, and that is why I laud the gentleman for bringing this bill up. Even Secretary of HUD Jack Kemp wrote letters and tried to establish the policies. We have not been able to do that before this time. So I would like to thank the gentleman on the other side of the aisle as well as the Members on this side for finally being able to correct a provision that is harmful to chronologically gifted folks. This is a good bill. It is a bill that protects, as I never use the term senior citizens, the chronologically gifted of our society, and it was one that, and it was not the intent of an original bill, hurt those folks, and we can ill afford to do it. This is government at its best. From senior citizens going to a city council and a mayor, to coming to the Federal Government for resolutions, it has taken a long time. But again I would like to thank the chairman and Clay Shaw for bringing this up and the Committee on the Judiciary for acting on it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act. This landmark legislation increases the take-home pay of American families with a $500-per-child tax credit. It removes the barriers that discourage seniors from work, and repeals the unfair Clinton taxes on seniors' Social Security. It grows the economy by reducing the job- killing tax on capital gains. And it reduces Federal government spending, reduces the size of the Federal government and actually lowers the Federal deficit by $90 billion . For these reasons, this important legislation has been called the ``crown jewel'' of our Contract With America. Contrast this tax cut legislation with the Clinton tax increase of 1993. Bill Clinton campaigned on a promise to cut taxes. Instead, he rammed through a Democrat-controlled Congress the largest tax increase in American history. The Clinton plan added $1 trillion to the huge Federal debt. It was enacted into law without a single Republican vote. The President failed to keep his promise. The American people replied last November by electing a new Republican Congress. Our Contract With America included tax relief for American families. We're keeping our promise. We're keeping our promise to allow American families to keep more of their pay. We're keeping our promise to encourage families to save for retirement, home ownership, college education or long-term health care, through new America Dream Savings Accounts. We're prefer to call our ``chronologically gifted'' citizens, by repealing the Clinton taxes on seniors, and rolling back the unfair Social Security Earnings Test. We're keeping our promise to create jobs, by adopting a cut in the capital gains tax and other provisions to spur investment. And we're keeping our promise to reduce the growth of Federal spending. This legislation cuts the deficit $30 billion more than President Clinton's budget. This matter of keeping promises is common sense in America, but radical change for Washington, D.C. I am confident this legislation will have bipartisan support. But for all the promise-keeping, this legislation would not be worthwhile unless it was in best interest of our children. For the first time in history. American families feel their children will grow up to have a lower, not a higher, standard of living. They see government taking more of their money, and controlling more of their lives. The know Federal spending is spiralling out of control. Thus, families lose hope for the real American dream, a better life for their kids. The Tax Fairness and Deficit Reduction Act represents real hope for American families. It reduces government's appetite for their money. It grows the economy and jobs. Most importantly, it leaves cash in the hands of American families that they can use in their best interests. After all, whose money is it anyway? The Federal government does not have one dime that hasn't been taken from an American family, today or tomorrow. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Let's keep our promises. And let's trust American families to make the best decisions about the money they have earned.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Citizen Legislature Act, the constitutional amendment to provide term limits for Members of Congress. This important plank of our Contract With America demonstrates that we are serious about keeping our word with the American people: to hold a first-ever vote on term limits on the House floor. Despite the tremendous changes in last November's elections, many Americans are still mistrustful of Congress. Many Americans believe that career legislators have too much power and too much at stake to make the tough decisions facing the Nation. I believe our Founding Fathers never intended for Member of Congress to be a career choice. Rather, they envisioned a system where people from all walks of life would become involved in public service for a few years, and then return to their profession or trade. Since coming to Congress in 1991, I have always known that I would return to the private sector, sooner rather than later. On the first day of the 104th Congress, I cosponsored both House Joint Resolution 2, the McCollum resolution, and House Joint Resolution 3, the Inglis resolution. I did so because both of these resolutions were part of our Contract With America and I believed that it was part of my contract with California's 51st District to bring the term limits issue to the floor of the House. After a great deal of reflection, I have decided that the best alternative before the House is the McCollum amendment. Since. I began my public service, I have consistently stated that I believe a 12 year term limit is the most appropriate manner to address this question. The McCollum amendment, as embodied in House Joint Resolution 2, would mean a sweeping change in our political system, limiting House members to six terms and Senators to two terms. The McCollum amendment is fair and tough. It is fair in that it preserves the balance of power between the House and the Senate. It is fair because it treats all States equally. And make no mistake, it is tough. Under McCollum, those of my colleagues who have viewed Congress as a career are in for a surprise. I urge my colleagues to support the McCollum amendment and support term limits. We know that is what the American people demand. We should heed their call.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to recognize that the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Deal] has worked in a bipartisan manner in the past, but to gain support from the liberal members of his party, he had to increase the spending and raise taxes, the liberal answers to meet all problems. He referred to Cinderella. The Mink bill, and the gentlewoman, I want to make clear I am talking about the bill because the gentlewoman is a friend, but the bill is the ugly sister of all sisters. This bill increases the deficit by even billions of dollars and also increases taxes. The question has been should we give to the States the power. The States have proven that they have been able to manage the welfare programs much better than the Federal Government. We happen to believe that the Government works best the closest to people. The Karl Marx Democrats want the bureaucracy to control everybody's life. Why? Because that gives them the power to dole out the money to get reelected. That is what the real answer is here. They are fighting to keep their precious bureaucracy. We are increasing the amount for kids for food, we are increasing the responsibility, we are bringing deadbeat dads together, we are bringing families together. What they cannot stand is that we are taking their power of big bureaucracy away.

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