Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, during the last Congress when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were in the majority, many of us testified that the extension of Somalia was, first of all, going to cost American lives; second, that it was going to cost billions and billions of dollars, and at the same time it was going to eliminate readiness, because the amount of training that our military was able to do during the extension of Somalia in peacekeeping would be diminished. We also recognized that a policy change from humanitarian to go after General Aideed would be disastrous, and during that time those decisions aisle, in a partisanship vote, passed the extension of Somalia. We take a look at us going into Haiti. It is costing us billions and billions of dollars in nation building. We look at the money we have given to the former Soviet Union, Russia. We gave Russia over a billion dollars to dismantle nuclear weapons. We gave them billions of dollars in nation building. But last year they built and are steaming five nuclear class Typhoon submarines and three other submarines that are developed just to tap into our communications cables in the Atlantic and the Pacific. They are building MiG-35's, which are superior to our F-14 and F-15. They are building AA-10 missiles, which are superior to our AMRAAM, but yet, many say the cold war is over. And we look at the billions of dollars we are spending in Bosnia and across the, the Members on the other side of the aisle, they are decrying we are cutting, we are cutting, we need to apply the money to the deficit. Well, I say, Mr. Speaker, we would have billions of dollars to apply to the deficit and we would also not have a military with its readiness and national security forces so low. I sit on the former Committee on Armed Services which is now called the Committee on National Security, and we have had the Joint Chiefs testify that we are on the razor's edge, or another term was buffet, which means the position just before you stall an airplane, on our national security. And just a minute ago, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] objected to a motion that would allow us to bring an appropriations bill forward to help the readiness. Our men and women, many agree, need better equipment, less troops and high technology. But we must help and support the appropriations bill on Tuesday. We would have hoped that we could have filed it today because we are risking the men and women's lives. Kara Hultgreen, a young lady, highly trained and motivated, and the first F-14 driver in the U.S. Navy, she came around the corner just a few weeks ago on an F-14 aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. She had an engine failure. On our side of the aisle. Republicans tried to get additional money to replace those engines because the compressor stalls. But many of the liberals on that side said, ``Let's cut defense.'' They cut it $177 billion. What we are seeing--we lost five Navy airplanes in the last 2 months, the Air Force has lost four to faulty parts and engines and poor training. I would say, Mr. Speaker, if we really care about our men and women that we expect to fight and, in some cases, die for this country, that we need to support them. I beg Members from the other side of the aisle to consider, take a look at what we have done in the past. We need to stay out of countries like Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia. Let us support things back home.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, because of the importance of the act, the gentlewoman is correct.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It is on the next amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield back, he and I would like to enter in a colloquy with the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith], the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, and I would ask if the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Smith] would agree to work with the gentleman from resolve the problem,to make an amendment in order so that we can deal with this issue? And it is bipartisan. We have the task force which is made up of Republicans and Democrats, and we will be happy to work with the gentleman on this issue [Mr. Kim] and myself, if the gentleman would make that in order.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I spoke to the Republican Governors of this Nation this morning, and they asked me to express their strongest opposition to the Deal substitute. I quote: ``The Deal substitute undermines all our efforts to reform the welfare systems in our States.'' Governor Allen, Governor Wilson, Governor Whitman, and Governors Engel, Weld, Thompson, and a host of others oppose the Deal substitute. It is the big- government solution, to the Clinton deal, the bad deal.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to offer the next amendment, I would say to the gentleman, and I want to explain I had an amendment in the subcommittee. The illegal immigration, we cut out all 23 programs. This deals with legal immigration. I felt that a person, once they sign up to become an American citizen, should have the rights of American citizens, because the process is often delayed. I have been told by the other side if I make a unanimous consent to have that improved it would be objected to. So I am not going to offer the amendment. It would go down. But the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim] and myself have some concerns and I would like to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think this is one issue I think we can work very well with the leadership on the Democratic side as well as ours, and I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I would like to advise the gentlewoman from Colorado, it is the Republican bill that is passing it. The democrats would not bring it up.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree with this approach, and I think Mr. Kim does, too. I yield back to the gentleman from California [Mr. Kim].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, for 4 years I sat in this body. In 30 years only one Republican motion to recommit passed. No Republican king-of-the-hill rule ever passed on this House floor under the Democratic rules. I watched here on a tax bill where the clock stayed open for 45 minutes until you twisted arms and passed a bad tax bill by one vote. So do not complain about rules and closed rules. But first of all I would like to speak about what is cruel. Let us take a look at the children's nutrition program. Who are we trying to feed? We are trying to feed the kids that their parents are in poverty. For my friends on the other side of the aisle, I would say it is cruel to support the current system. You say that you all think well, it can be fixed. You had 40 years to fix it. The gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] will stand up and talk about oh, the lady in the red dress and the poor children. Well, what is really sad and what is discriminatory is the children that we are not allowing out of the poverty level with their families. Let us encourage the deadbeat dads by legislation to support those kids; $34 billion. Let us encourage fathers to come live with a welfare mother, that we do not take that check away, and have one of them work, so that we can empower that family to support those children so they do not have to qualify economically. What is really cruel? Look at the Federal housing projects that we just keep dumping money into. They are crime ridden. We have drug addiction. We have in the black community two out of every three children are illegitimate. In some of our inner cities, up to six or eight of the children are illegitimate. That is what is cruel, is to perpetuate that sadistic system. And what you are really upset at is we are killing your controlled big bureaucracy. We have provided for the nutrition programs and added, but we have cut you bureaucracy and you cannot stand it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have a book for my colleagues on the other side. I have gone to town hall meetings. They understand the lie about whether we are adding or cutting nutrition programs. That book is called basic mathematics, or the Dick Armey syndrome that says ``If you add more money the following year than you have this year, that is an add. If you have less, that is a cut.'' I have also prepared a book in here and it is called ``How to tell the truth.'' I think our colleagues need to take a look at both of those books. The real reason for why are we doing welfare reform, Mr. Chairman, why would we tackle this after the other side of the aisle has the rhetoric that they want to reform the system, they want to reform it, and they have done nothing for 40 years but create the system that we are under today. The current welfare system, Mr. Chairman, is not compassionate. Look at the problems that we have across the country. Nothing could be more cruel to welfare recipients and children than the system we have today. We as a policy have created that system. That is an effort to change that particular system. Look at the children's nutrition program. Who are we trying to feed with those programs? We are trying to make sure that our poorest children are fed, but yet we continue the policies that would create those poverty children living in poverty. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for my colleagues, and many of them on the other side in the Black Caucus; the gentleman from Georgia, John Lewis, who walked in Alabama. However, the Members are wrong in this. When we look at the welfare systems in the communities with Federal housing that persist, with crime-ridden, with drug-ridden, with black children, two out of three, being single parents, and to perpetuate that system, when they talk about cruel and unusual punishment, to foster that kind of a program, Mr. Chairman, is more than comprehension. The real reason why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the socialists, the Clinton liberals, we have added money in the nutrition programs, but the real reason they are fighting this, and I went to great efforts, and the one thing that we cut is the big Federal bureaucracies. They cannot stand it. That is what they are fighting, over and over and over again. Mr. Chairman, the system traps recipients in an unending cycle. It hurts those, the children, and those that we are really trying to help. This brings deadbeat dads for responsibility, a system that encourages fathers that have run away from their responsibility to get back together with the family. The gentleman says there is no creation of jobs. If I can bring a family together by not penalizing the father that comes with that welfare recipient mother and child, and have one of them work, that is better. That is compassionate. What is incompassionate is the current system, where we have disincentives to bring those families together. We have disincentives to break out of the Federal housing programs. The personal responsibility, illegitimacy, we have to attack it, because it also ties in with child abuse and it ties in with the nutrition programs. We have increased the nutrition programs by 4.5 percent. President Clinton in his first budget increased it by 3.1 percent. In this budget just a few weeks ago, the President stood up here and only allowed for a 3.6-percent increase in the nutrition program. We increased it by 4.5 percent. Why? There was a movement on our side to cut it, not to zero, but to cut it 5 percent, to actually go in and cut the program. I went to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and said ``If you do that, I will resign my chairmanship of the committee,'' because at that point we will hurt those nutrition programs. Let me read what is really wrong with the system: ``Cash benefits going for drugs, generations of dependency, children having children, killing children.'' Nothing could be more cruel to the kids that exists than the welfare systems that we have today. I look in Chicago, and police found 19 children living in squalor in a cold, dark apartment. Two children in diapers were sharing a bone with the family dog. Why? Because the parents were living on cocaine and drugs. Child abuse services need to be brought in, and yes, we need to provide services for those kids, but we also need to eliminate the systems in which those people are not held accountable. Karen Henderson of Bakersfield, CA, was charged for murder after breast-feeding her baby while she was on crack cocaine. In August 1994, a couple was sentenced to 6 years in prison for neglecting their 4-month-old son. He bled to death after being bitten 100 times by rats because they took the money and stuck it up their noses in cocaine. That was in a Federal housing project, which breeds that kind of contempt. While an 8-year-old brother screamed in vain for help, 5-year-old Eric Morris was dropped to his death from a 14-story public housing project by two older boys, aged 10 and 11. That is what is cruel, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, let us embrace personal responsibility. Let us embrace where we take deadbeat dads. I applaud the President for what he has done in following suit. I embrace you, to take care and make sure that we have the responsibility of parents, so that we can draw less and less for those programs, because we have less people that need it because their economics are better. We can do that by encouraging families and increasing the nutrition program for those children that need it. That is what we have done, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree, and I do not disagree totally with what the gentleman is doing. My only intent was the gentleman was sounding like he helped create the bill. He, nor I, was there, and that is the only issue I brought.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we did this in 1986. Was the gentleman here in 1986?

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, you will not hear of a Republican or at least even very many Democrats that will say that the chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], has ever attempted to hurt kids. He has spent his life protecting them, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the honorable chairman, how many children can we feed on a bankrupt country? And today we are looking, where every child over their life, lifelong interest and account on the national debt, will be saddled with a $180,000 debt. Yes, it will be indexed. You will have to pay the increases with inflation. That is before you buy a car or a home or everything else. We are also looking at a Medicare system that is going bankrupt and will be in the near future. If we do not attack waste in government by bigger bureaucracies, then it is going to affect that. I would just like to make two quick statements and I have a lot of my colleagues that want to speak, and I would yield back to the gentleman. One, when the other side of the aisle talks about cuts, I have been here for 4 years. The rhetoric was confusing to the American people, where Democrats were saying, Well, look what we have done, we have cut this budget, but yet the American people could not figure out how we keep spending more. I have an example, Mr. Speaker, that if my mom in San Diego, California, Escondido, said, ``Son, we have a turkey this Thanksgiving and next Thanksgiving, your brother and family is coming over. I am going to project that I need 10 turkeys for next year.'' Well, a few months before Thanksgiving, Mom calls up and says, ``Son, your brother can't come, he's got to work, but the family's coming. I'm only going to need 7 turkeys instead of 10 turkeys.'' Under the Democratic accounting principles, I have just cut 30 percent of the turkeys, when in essence I have increased it by 60 percent. I have gone from 1 to 7. I have not cut 30 percent. That is what they are trying to confuse the issue with, with the other chart. The second point is that I would like to finish a statement on what the committee did on illegal immigration. the answer is yes. If you asked them the question, Would they like to do it on the backs of our children, the answer would be most definitely no. We have eliminated illegal immigrants from all 23 programs that they previously held. We have 400,000 illegal children in California, just in California schools, K through 12, at over $1.33 a meal. That is over $1 million a day, 800,000 meals a day, just for illegals.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, I am trying to do it on a conservative basis. Then if you look at an average in California, it takes a kindergartner through high school, 12th grade, $5,000 a year to educate that child. That is $2 billion a year. Yet we are decrying that we do not have enough money for nutrition. We have added money for nutrition. We have cut the bureaucracies. But what we also did is said, our priority in this country with limited resources, with the national debt getting out of shape, with the national deficit, and the President's budget increasing the national deficit by $300 billion, our priorities are American children, and we want to feed those children. We want to make sure that no child under any circumstances goes hungry. Should a high-income parent be subsidized by the Federal Government? Absolutely not. But the chairman has provided for those children 185 percent below the poverty level that we are going to make sure that they are fed. Again, the priority of disestablishing big government and who should receive the support are the kids that most need it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] has got a Ph.D. in economics, and the Dick Armey formula for basic math says, ``If you increase spending by more dollars the following year than you have spent on it in the current year, that's an increase. If you spend less dollars the next year, that's a decrease.'' That is Dick Armey basic math. I would offer a book called ``Basic Mathematics'' for my colleagues on the other side because I am the subcommittee chairman that went through the process, and we sat and figured out what is the best way to improve programs that work good, but yet we can still improve them. Mr. Speaker, I had a Democratic page come up to me and say, ``Mr. Cunningham, we see the rhetoric on this issue. I'm a Democrat, but why are my own Representatives lying about the facts over and over again?'' We are adding dollars to the children's nutrition programs. What we are cutting is Federal bureaucracy, and the Clinton Democrats will do anything they can to protect those bureaucracies. Is the school based program, the children based program and family based program; are they fairly effective? Yes, they have been worked on with bipartisanship by my chairman, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling] and Mr. Ford who was his predecessor. And have they worked in the past? and do they work presently? Yes, but, if we can remove the mounds and mounds of paperwork, the Federal reporting that we have to go through every day. And back here in Washington we have got those Federal bureaucrats that have got to receive all those reports and justify their existence with those reports. Mr. Speaker, that is what the Democrats will fight to do, anything they can in their power to spend and be reelected. Let us take a look at what President Clinton projected in the 1995 budget. He projected a 3.1 percent increase. We are increasing it by 4.5. If I was a Democrat, I would say, ``Well, President Clinton is cutting children's nutrition.'' He did not cut it; he increased it by 3.1 percent, and in the budget that he just spoke right up here, Mr. Speaker, in your chair, and pronounced to the American public, he justified a 3.6 percent increase, not a 4.5 like we did, but a 3.6 percent increase. And again we could say, ``Well, the President is cutting children's nutrition.'' He did not. But what we are doing is taking a look at how we can make it more effective. Republicans believe that government works best that is closest to the people. I spoke yesterday to seven of probably the most liberal school superintendents in existence from Los Angeles, from San Francisco, from San Diego, and Oakland, and Fresno, and do my colleagues know what they said? ``Duke, we not only want you to block grant it, we want you to get the money to us directly in the LEAs so we can use it in the local school district, so we can disburse it and cut out the State bureaucracies, let alone the Federal rules and regulations. We want to get it to our kids, and, when we've got only 23 cents out of every buck that gets down to the local school district, something is wrong. There is too many bureaucracies, too many regulations, too many reports.'' Mr. Speaker, that is what my colleagues on the other side will protest, and let me tell you something we did do in this committee. In California we have 400,000 illegal immigrants, children, K through 12, 400,000. That is 800,000 meals per day to illegal kids. That is over a billion dollars a day. At $5,000 each to educate those children, that is $2 billion a year, and they want to feed kids. Do we want to feed all the kids of the world? Yes. But do we want to do it at the expense of American citizens and American kids? The answer is no on our side of the aisle. We cannot afford to feed the world. We want to feed American kids and make sure that the dollars get down to the people, and we are increasing those funds, not decreasing those funds. We are eliminating bureaucracies, not increasing bureaucracies and making it much more effective to do that. Now in practicality are schools going to go in and eliminate those kids? No, they are not.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No. If I get behind him and he turns at 19 to 20 degrees a second and I turn at 11, he is going to come around and shoot me.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. A MiG-21, depending on the speed, but at his best turn rate turns in excess of 20 degrees a second.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Early Childhood, Youth and Families.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. He also has more power to go vertical.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Swimming and football coach at Hinsdale High School.