Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. It turns at about 19 degrees a second.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Turns at about 20 degrees a second. A Phantom turns at about 11 degrees a second.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Willie Driscoll and we were both Irish.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Willie sells real estate for Coldwell Banker and that is not a 1-800 number.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. About 11, 11\1/2\ degrees a second at 420 knots.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Twenty degrees a second.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Children's Nutrition Program.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I really appreciate my friend from California, Bob Dornan, yielding the time. I tried to make it over for the 5 minutes and he has been gracious enough to extend me the privilege to interrupt his special order. And I first would like to say it is always good to be back with Tiger Flight. As always Bob Dornan has more knowledge on military history than the Smithsonian Museum has. And if you notice, he does not do it from paperwork; he does it from memory. And, Bob, I would like to especially thank you. You know, I do not know how to counter untruths that are spoken on this House floor, and I think one of the most frustrating thing for Members is to hear the daily rhetoric that goes on on this House floor that are untruths, that are not the truth. And I think who we hurt the most and how many Members on the other side hurt the most are our pages and our youngsters and the people that watch. and also to the Republican pages and some of them came back to me and said, Congressman Cunningham, we know that they are saying children's nutrition, cutting children's nutrition programs is not right. We are Democrats but we were brought up not to tell untruths. And I do not know why our side of the aisle is doing it, but what can you do to show them the actual facts and that is why I have come today. I am the chairman of the subcommittee that went over and looked at children's nutrition programs. I met with the Speaker, with the Republican Governors, and they said there are 366 welfare programs in existence. All 366 of those welfare programs have personnel, they have facilities, they have paperwork requirements. They have reporting data that school teachers and principals and superintendents have to deal with every day, a stack this high. And they all intertwine and they cover different folks. But yet we have many people applying for various ones of the 366 and we cannot track who they are. The system has gone amuck. And just take a look at our welfare system today. It is a disaster and it needs to be fixed. And this is a choice of allowing our children in the future to maintain in their lifetime and have a debt ceiling on their lives of $180,000 that they would pay in taxes just for the interest on the debt. Now, the question is, are we doing that on the backs of the children? Are we taking food out of children's mouths? The answer is, of course not. In the program what I did is took a look, and under H.R. 4, the plan was to take all of the block grants and put them in the welfare block grant. After consultations with my own school districts in San Diego, consultation with different groups that came in and talked to me in the food services, I determined, as well as Chairman Goodling, that if we did that we would actually hurt children's nutrition programs. So being the chairman of the committee, I personally removed the child breakfast and the child lunch programs from the overall welfare block grant. I separated them. There is another program that works very, very well to help, and you can tie an economic model on both of these programs. And that is the Women, Infants, and Children's Program, called WIC. They work very well. And in this body, both Republicans and Democrats, on a bipartisan basis, have supported both the school-based and the family-based program of WIC. And if we would have put them into that block grant, it would have damaged both of them. I hear time after time after time again from the other side of the aisle that we are cutting those programs. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to that very issue. Because instead of cutting the program, I protected them. I separated them in a block grant instead of cutting them. There were many people that came back to this Congress, especially our freshmen, and said, We came back to cut, we want to cut down and we want to work on the deficit, and we want to cut the program. And they wanted not to go to zero growth, but to actually cut into it by 5 percent. I went to Chairman Goodling, and I said, Mr. Chairman, if that feeling prevails, I will resign my chairmanship of early childhood education. Because if we do that, again, we will damage children's nutrition programs. It meant that much to protect programs that work. Are we cutting? Take a look at the WIC Program itself. This is what we, Mr. Speaker, in 1995, this year, we spent $3.47 billion on the Women, Infants, and Children's Program. In the year 2000, we spend $4.246 billion. And if you look at next year, from $3.4 we go to $3.7 billion. That is the Women, Infants, and Children's Program. If you take a look at the school-based program, this year we spent $4.5 billion on our children and our School Lunch Programs. Next year, we spend $4.7 billion. And every year we increase it by more than $200 million a year. Instead of cutting it, I arranged to add dollars in that every single year and protect those programs. What about the protection of them? Each State is different. What Tommy Thomson's requirements are in Wisconsin may be different from what Governor Wilson's requirements are in California or Christy Whitman's requirements are in New Jersey. So we gave the Governors the remaining 20 percent. I mandated that 80 percent of the money in this block grant goes to WIC. That 80 percent is represented in this figure. It is more than we currently spend every year in WIC. In the lunch program, I mandated that 80 percent of the funds go to those children that need it most, those below 185 percent poverty level, the kids that cannot get a school meal because their parents or their economic situation would keep that child from eating. That child, if they don't eat, they are not going to learn, and those are the children we found are going to end up on the economy on welfare or in low-paying jobs. So there is an economic model to it. Now, in that 80 percent, there is 20 percent left over. It doesn't take a mathematical genius to figure that out. The Governor in each of those States has the authority to take that remaining 20 percent and if, in their State, they need it because of maybe a recession, whatever it is, and put more money into the School Breakfast and School Lunch Program, they can. If they need it to go in the WIC, in that separate block grant, they can take the 20 percent out that have block grant and include it there. I yield back.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We are finally getting through to the press. Here is the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Union. I talked to seven of the superintendents in most liberal schools in California, that is Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and they favored the block grant. What they would like us to do even is to take the money and not even go through the State but get it down to the local LEA, or the local school district, so they are in favor of this. It takes out that middle bureaucracy. What we did cut in all of those thousands of reports, we cut those out from the Federal Government, the personnel, the systems that have to operate it, to take away the dollars that we are actually trying to give. So we not only add dollars, we make it more cost effective so that there is more money. They don't have to spend it on those administration fees, on the extra people they have to hire to take care of their reports. They don't have to go through the reports and send them back here to Washington, DC. We happen to believe that Government works best closest to the people. What about the nutrition standards? Well, Duke, you are going to individual States. In the language--I had the language that protected the nutrition standards. Mr. Gunderson and Mrs. Roukema said, Well, Duke, we still latest science would prevail on nutrition standards. In a bipartisan, Republican and Democrat, we passed two amendments to protect the nutritional standards for the States. And the point is, are we cutting children's nutrition programs? Absolutely not. We are adding dollars every single year. And what the Democrats are doing, politically motivated, in our old budget cycle, if the Democrats, when they were in the majority, projected that we would have a million dollars in the future for a program, but when it came time around for the budget, they would say, Well, we are going to cut $500,000 from that. We will reduce the rate of that growth by $500,000. They would come back and tell you that they cut the budget in half, by 50 percent. Did they? No. They increased it by $500 million, and that is what we are doing. GAO projected that they would extend----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. At the end of 5 years, the rate would go up to 5.2 percent. This is at the end of 5 years. We are not even at that yet.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will finish.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That we are not even out here in 5 years at the year 2001. We are here now. This 4.5 percent is more than they even projected for the growth this year and I have added more money than even the GAO baseline, and the political rhetoric, it is an attempt to make us look like we are taking the food out of children's mouths, and we are not, Mr. Speaker. We are increasing it. We are making it cheaper. We are giving the States the flexibility and at the same time we are going to make it where people that can--my children don't need money to go to school. I should have to pay for my child. I am not at a low poverty level, and neither should other people that cannot afford it. And that way we can bring down over a gradual period of time and balance the budget. Thank you, and I thank my friend.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That was a long time ago.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have heard some of my Democratic colleagues talk about the Contract With America. They say it is detrimental, but if you look at those Members that are saying that, those are the same Members that voted against the balanced budget amendment. If you look at the Contract With America, on the items that we have covered so far, take a look at the history of this House. Have you seen votes as fast and as many Republicans and Democrats supporting those Contract items? Congress falls under the same laws, the balanced budget amendment, the line-item veto, unfunded mandates, 290 votes to 340 votes, Mr. Speaker; bipartisanship. Who voted against that bipartisanship? The liberal and socialist Members of the Democratic party. Even members of their own party have separated themselves from the liberal leadership. If you take a look at those who voted against it, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio], why? Because they support big government, government doing everything for everybody. The only way they can do that is to have a big bureaucracy, and to support that big bureaucracy, they have to increase taxes and increase spending. Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric; the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], years and years and years, I have the documentation, every single tax vote that the minority leader now claims that, It is only for the rich, and we are trying to help the poor, I have the records. That is the same rhetoric since 1970. Each time, the Democratic package, including the Bush package, would resolve that. However, here again, he is saying the same thing. I look at our two California Senators that hid behind the balanced budget amendment and say they were trying to protect Social Security, but yet in the Clinton tax package those same two Senators in the liberal leadership, those same Members of this body that I just mentioned, voted for the Clinton tax package, which increased the tax on Social Security. Yet, our two Senators on the other side are hiding behind that, for the balanced budget amendment. Mr. Speaker, I look at what we have done in the past, and the rhetoric. I look at a Clinton tax package in which there was a promise of a middle-class tax break, a promise not only in the campaign, but before the actual budget came forward, and what happened? Remember the great Btu tax and the Clinton tax package? There was not going to be any middle-class tax in that. I heard liberal Democrat after liberal Democrat come up and say, There is no tax increase in the Btu tax, there is no tax increase for the middle-class in this tax package. America did not buy it, and you passed a bill that was so bad that after 45 minutes of closing the clock and twisting arms, you passed it by 1 vote, when then Speaker Foley shut down the clock, twisted arms until you could pass that bill. The rhetoric? $600 billion in new taxes and fees, a defense cut of $177 billion, and sure, you can apply some of that to the deficit, but in that you increase the tax on Social Security, you cut the veterans' COLA, so who is really playing the rhetoric? The bottomline, Mr. Speaker, is that the middle-class marginal tax rate went up under the Clinton budget. Every Member that is speaking here against the Contract not only voted against the balanced budget amendment, but voted for that Clinton tax, which increased the marginal tax rate of the middle-class from $17,000 and above, yet they say they are the party of the middle-class? A balanced budget, Greenspan has said, will bring interest rates down by 2 percent. That will provide capital. Take a look at the items that we wanted to do: capital gains reduction, that is only for the rich? Malarkey. America sees through that, and they support a capital gains reduction. Where we want to limit the amount of growth, growth is projected by over limit growth to 30 percent. Yet, the tax and spend liberals said, We are cutting these programs, we are limiting the growth. We are not cutting any programs, Mr. Speaker. I take a look at the minority leader, I take a look at the socialist leadership in the Democratic Party, and I am glad they are in the leadership, because even in their own party, from the Black Caucus, from the liberal leadership, those Members have separated themselves from that kind of rhetoric that we can no longer afford, give me more society that will not accept responsibility for their own actions.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States the following brief outlining the work of the San Diego Supercomputer Center. This summary, based largely on a ``Site Report'' article by Mr. Peter Taylor, printed in the fall 1994 issue of the periodical ``Computational Science and Engineering,'' is intended to inform my colleagues and other interested citizens of the work of this center in my community. The San Diego Supercomputer Center (SDSC), one of four supercomputer centers sponsored by the National Science Foundation (NSF), is both a national resource and a tribute to the scientific ingenuity of the people of San Diego County. SDSC's mission is to advance scientific research through computation, serve as a national focal point of development in key enabling high-performance computational technologies, and enhance American economic competitiveness. With a staff of 100 scientists, software developers, and researcher support personnel, the center serves more than 4,850 researchers from 355 institutions and 52 industrial partners. In operation since 1986, SDSC is administered by General Atomics and is closely affiliated with the University of California, San Diego. It receives policy guidance from a consortium of 27 leading universities and institutions. Major funding for the SDSC includes grants from the NSC, the State of California, and the University of California. The center is involved in advanced scientific research, including the fields of macromolecular structure and biomedical computation. It participates in the development of new technologies, such as the simulation of global environmental change, applied computer network research, and operating systems development. Furthermore, it's close ties with the university and the community foster educational and outreach programs, including undergraduate and postgraduate research, curriculum development, and demonstrations for students in grades K-12. The SDSC's new MetaCenter collaboration with other NSF centers also gives scientific researchers access, through a single portal, to the country's best available technologies and intellectual resources.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on taking the full 5 minutes. But the gentlewoman talked about the salmon in Washington. I went all the way through campaigning in Washington and looked at some of the dams and looked at the problems they had on even the impellers of their little edge in there that they were saying were killing salmon, the small ones going down. Part of the problem is recording. You release fingerlings. They go out to sea, and then they come back, and they actually measure how many salmon come back up river, not how many the sharks get or anything else, but the actual number that get back. They also wanted to take and build this big venturi tube because they had a plan for $100 million to circumvent the dams up there that had no scientific basis, and it was going to cost them $100 million. The particular guy that runs the dam said, OK, we are going to save fish. They found out that there is this fish called a squawfish that eat their own body weight each day. Instead of $100 million, he took a group of high school kids for the summer and caught squawfish and saved about 90 percent of the fingerlings that went down and saved, this is big government's answer versus entrepreneurship. They also want to take out a lot of the dams in Washington that have recreational value and storage of water and those kind of programs. But I look at, the President has just said, which I agree with, he wants to take a look, instead of just totally doing away with affirmative action. I think that is a reasonable view. But I think if you look at the reasons we have clean air, clean water, they have good purposes. But in many cases, those purposes have gone run amok. Same thing with the endangered species act and the wetlands. I think that a reevaluation is what we are asking for, an economic impact where we do protect property rights of individual citizens in this country. Those are reasonable requests. But unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, there is many, many on the other side of the aisle, that do not want the reasonableness in any of those particular acts. They want to use it as a weapon, as a tool against our private citizens. I know in the California desert plan, the property rights, and there was a portion of it that said that if you own property, they could take it and the Government would put you on a list because they are in arrears so much of paying for that taking. What happens is you could not build or improve your land over. You may be on there 10 years. The government then comes in and says, hey, now I want to give you fair market value after your land has been depreciated so much. That is not fair, Mr. Chairman. I look in California at a fire that we had and hundreds of homes were burned. And one person said, I am going to grade regardless of what they tell me to save gnatcatchers because the brush, there is going to be a fire. That individual graded. The ones that were not allowed to are stuck with the law, their houses burned down. I look in New Mexico at a young lad that was lost for 3 days in the wilderness and because it was a wilderness area, they would not let the helicopter land to pick up a child. He spent an extra night lost in the wilderness because a helicopter could not land in the wilderness. I would think that Members would agree there are too many of these kinds of happenings, and we are looking for reasonableness, not extreme to where the people that want to concrete over the world or those that want to use the environmental issues as a leverage and as a weapon. I think that is the direction it is going. Your take a look, look at the Colorado slag and what history has left. I mean that is a disaster. When you talk about property rights, miners have taken away our property rights to enjoy much of Colorado by the environmental damage they did. Look at the Great Lakes. They cleaned that up. I look at the striper salmon on the eastern shore. I talked to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds]. I said, a long time ago I probably would have been one of those that fought against it; I would have been wrong, to my former chairman. I told him that in my long quest to become an environmentalist. He stated, ``Well, Duke, you've got a long way to go.'' There are good things that we have done with all of these acts, but on the same measure, I think we need to have a reasonable approach to them. I do not think that is asking too much.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I also mandated that 80 percent of the funds in that block grant must go to the WIC Program. And the 80 percent funding is more money than current law gives to the WIC Program. Why? Because the WIC Program in California and most States across the country is very effective and it is the Women, Infants and Children Program. For example, currently it is 3.5. In 1996, under our block grant, it goes to 3.7, this is from 3.5. That is not a cut, my colleagues. In 1997, it is 3.8; in 1998, it is 4.0; 4.1 in 1999, and in the year 2000, 4.2, nearly 4.3. That is not a cut. I would like to submit this for the Record also, Mr. Speaker. What the other side would have you believe is that we are actually trying to kill and cut children's nutrition programs. It is not true. The Governors came to us and said there was 366 welfare programs, very noneffective, if you look. And the American people understand that those programs have failed. The monumental paperwork, the Government bureaucracy, the reporting documents. I listened to State Senator Hoffer from the State of Colorado and he said they literally in the State have two full computer system programs and computers dedicated to just the reporting data of the children's nutrition program. We have eliminated that. We have made it easier for the States to work. And so that we do not build State bureaucracies, we have limited the administration of States to 2 percent. In the case of WIC because it is more demanding, 5 percent. And what we are doing is getting the dollars to the kids. We are growing kids, not Federal bureaucracies. I think that is important also. I included the language to make sure that the nutrition standards were maintained. But yet, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], and the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema], and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], came and said, can we add language to ensure, even stronger language, that we maintain those nutritional levels? Both those amendments were accepted in the committee. They passed with bipartisan support. But yet they still say we are killing the programs. Let me tell you what we are doing. We limit Federal bureaucracy, paperwork, increase local flexibility. We allow for the expansion of the children's nutrition programs. And that is a fact, Mr. Speaker. It is backed up with facts and figures. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the documents to which I referred. [From the Washington Times, Feb. 28, 1995] Democrats ``Lie'' About Lunch (By Nancy E. Roman) Democrats continued to spin the GOP's proposed ``cuts' to the school-lunch program yesterday as ``mean-spirited'' and ``cruel,'' herding a troop of preschoolers from Cheverly Early Childhood Center into the Capitol to make the point. Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat, said if the Republican plan succeeds, it will ``roll back years of progress.'' Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, M.D., said it is ``despicable'' and accused Republicans of targeting nutrition programs for children because they cannot vote. In fact, under the Republican proposal, the federal school lunch program will grow by 4.5 percent or $203 million. In the current budget year, the federal government spends $4.5 billion. Republicans would spend $4.7 billion. The ``cuts'' that have received so much press attention, refer to a reduction in the 5.2 percent average increase in the school-lunch program, as projected by the Congressional Budget Office. The GOP increase is 4.5 percent. Rep. John Boehner, Ohio Republican and chairman of the Republican Conference, called talk of cuts in the school- lunch program ``the biggest lie in Washington, D.C., this last week.'' ``What we're doing is guaranteeing that states will get more money,'' he said. Republicans propose to spend 4.5 percent more on school lunches in 1996--an average of 4 percent more every year for the next five years. They hope that by eliminating federal paperwork, the states will be able to serve even more free and subsidized lunches. ``If they [the governors] can't take more money and do a better job, they should step down,'' said Rep. Bill Goodling, Pennsylvania Republican and chairman of the committee that crafted the bill. The failure to get that message out foreshadows the trouble Republicans face when they get to real cutting necessary to balance the budget. ``It points out the job we are going to have to do in going over the heads of special-interest groups who want to portray whatever we do as a cut,'' said Brian Cuthbertson, press secretary for Rep. John Kasich, chairman of the House Budget Committee. He said he routinely explains to reporters that even after budget cuts, some programs will grow. ``I had to explain that to a local reporter from Columbus, Ohio, on Friday,'' he said. ``I said, `Would it surprise you to learn that it is not being cut? That we are gong to spend more on school lunches?''' The reporter said ``Oh,'' Mr. Cuthbertson recalled. ``Let's focus on facts,'' Rep. Steven Gunderson, Wisconsin Republican and welfare-reform point man, said when House Economic and Educational Opportunities Committee was marking up its welfare reform last week. The ``toughest accusation'' that can be made about the block-grant approach ``is that it reduces growth.'' Mr. Hoyer said because of an expected increase in children using the school lunch program, a 4 percent increase in overall spending amounts to a cut. The Democrat barrage continued yesterday with Donna E. Shalala, secretary of health and human services, telling members of the American Public Welfare Association conference: ``Cruel is the only way to describe provisions that would abolish nutrition programs for children, deny benefits to children of teen mothers, and reduce assistance to thousands of abused, neglected and abandoned children.'' Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat, said he, too, is appalled. ``How ironic that in the name of reducing the debt on our children, we take their meals instead,'' he said. Ed Gillespie, spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, said it has been difficult to counter the Democratic assault on the Republican bill as stealing food from the mouths of children. ``I don't know what else you can do when the Democrat Party has a concerted strategy to lie to the American people other than to tell the truth,'' he said.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have got an article here from the Washington Times, and it says ``Democrats Lie About Lunch.'' And I would like to submit it for the Record, and I would like to explain what the article means. First of all, there has been a lot of politically motivated criticism and partisan purposeful misrepresentation of the facts. And I think it has gotten to the extreme level, Mr. Speaker. What we have done is kill the big Federal bureaucracy versus putting Government control where it does the most good, and that is at the effective, closest level to the people and taking it out of Washington. And a lot of the Clinton liberals do not like that. Facts: The school-based block grant ensures that increased funding levels for the school breakfast and lunch, that funding level is increased by 4.5 percent. CBO had originally requested or taken a look and said the average [[Page H2377]] growth is about 5.2 percent. There was a large concern and they wanted to put the nutrition programs in with the welfare block grant. As the subcommittee chairman, I determined that if we did that, we would hurt those nutrition programs. So I separated the school breakfast and the school lunch program and guaranteed that 80 percent of it would be spent on the most needy children, those children, 185 percent and below poverty level. That protected those. The States and the Governors also wanted a 20 percent remaining to be flexible, that they could either add, if that particular State needed it, to the school breakfast or school lunch program or other nutritional programs. For example, what may work for Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin may be a little bit different than Governor Wilson of California, but it gives them the flexibility. We increased the spending level by 4.9 percent. I would like to submit this chart also for the Record, Mr. Speaker. It shows incrementally, for example, in 1995, for the school breakfast program, it was $4.59 billion. In 1996, it is $4.7. In 1997, it is 4.9. In 1998, it is 5.1. And in 1999, it is 5.4. And in the year 2000, it is 5.6. As you can see, each year we have increased spending for the school breakfast and lunch program. Also for the Women, Infants and Children Program that we have increased funding and, again, if we would have block granted it with the welfare block grants, it would have been in competition and I protected it. [Chart not reproducible in the Record.]

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am tired of the scare tactics the Democrats are using. I legislated and helped write the school nutrition block grants. We had Governors that came before us and the welfare system has failed. I took and separated the school breakfast and school lunch program out of the welfare grants with our contract. I also separated Women, Infants and Children and increased them by 4\1/2\ percent, increased them a billion and one-half dollars, yet the Democrats are saying we cut the program. What we did is limit the growth to 4\1/2\ percent from 5.2 percent. We did not cut, we increased it a billion and one-half dollars. What we did cut on this side of the aisle is big Government bureaucracy rules and regulations and made it cheaper to support those programs, and what they do not want to happen is to lose their little fiefdoms. That is what they are upset about. We support the children's nutrition program, and separated and increased the program. Even 80 percent of the money that goes to WIC is more than under the old plan.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed the vote on final passage of H.R. 666, the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act. As a strong supporter of H.R. 666, had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, there is probably no one who helped me more than three Democrat Members, especially when I was a freshman and sophomore Member of this House, than the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton], the gentleman from Mississippi, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell Members something: This whole debate is about how we are going to cut readiness in the future. That totally distracts from what the readiness is today. It is lousy. I spent the last 4 years of my life fighting on this side of the aisle the liberal leadership that has been gutting defense and cutting readiness levels, time after time after time again. I take a look at the Bottom-Up Review, and the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. Montgomery] said ``Don't you support the Bottom-Up Review?'' Remember history, my friend. The Bottom-Up Review came up after the President cut defense $177 billion, and was there to justify that $177 billion cut that gutted defense and gutted readiness. I look at Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, and Mandela given billions of dollars and Russia billions of dollars that detracted away from defense. I take a look at the A-6's and F-14's. Kara Holtgreen, the first female naval aviator, I pinned on her wings, was killed, and they are looking at it, because of an F-100 engine that stalled in Desert Storm, and we could not replace them because we did not have the money to replace the engines. The first female F-14 pilot. And you are talking about readiness now? Mr. Chairman, we have air wings that are not flying right now, today. Navy fighter weapons school top gun did not fly against his class because he did not have the fuel to fly against one class. The Navy lost five airplanes in the last 2 weeks, Mr. Chairman. An Air Force general lost his son, who was a good friend of mine. And when I hear that we are fighting to cut readiness, I look at today. I hate it with a passion, the same liberals that culled us in Vietnam. The same type of nonsupport. All we are asking to do is to have the support of the readiness that we want, and in the past we have not been able to do that. This side of the aisle, time after time and time again has prevented us from doing that. And I take a look at operation Proud Deep, in which we lost a lot of good friends. I still bear the scars from it, because we did not have the support of this body, and I still bear the pain of that. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the committee, Mr. Hunter, has stated we are going to plus-up readiness with him as the chairman of procurement. We are going to do that. We are going to do what you and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] have not been able to do with the liberal leadership of this party.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield further, I would like to bring out one other point. When we are talking about quality of life, let us take a look at the broad class, when we cut $177 billion out of the defense budget, that hurts quality of life, and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle passed that Clinton tax package that did that. In that budget was also a COLA for veterans, and you take a look at how many of the billions of dollars it is costing us for Haiti, and then we take a look at quality of life that our soldiers were ripped out, our sailors, after a 6-month cruise, ripped out with a 30-day turnaround and shipped off to Haiti. Then we had two people commit suicide. So when we talk about quality of life, let us really take a look at quality of life across the board.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield further to me, I would also like to point out that Russia today, who is no longer the Soviet Union, just sold to Iran two Kilo-class nuclear submarines. They also sold to Iran and to China rocket-based missiles and long-range missiles. I am not sure if we need to spend all the money that the gentleman is talking about either, but I am saying that at least I would like to give the President and the Secretary of Defense, whoever he is in 1996, the option to take a look and see if that is an option.