Buck McKeon

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 88) urging the Congress and the President to increase funding for the Pell Grant Program and existing Campus-Based Aid Programs.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary Miller), one of our great Members. (Mr. GARY MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), subcommittee chair of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for his support of our intent. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Barrett), a member of the committee.

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his support of the resolution. For the record, the President's budget for the year 2000 for education is $65.28 billion. Our budget for the year is $66.35 billion, $1.1 billion more than the President's. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), chairman of the full committee. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker I would like to join my colleagues in support of H. Con. Res. 84 which calls on the President and Congress to fulfill our obligation to our Nation's neediest children, those with disabilities. In my home State of California, the cost of educating an estimated 600,000 children with disabilities is a staggering $3.4 billion, but the Federal Government contributes only $400 million, which translates to only 11.7 percent of the total cost. I believe before we look at creating new programs with new Washington mandates we need to ensure that the Federal Government lives up to the promises it made to the students, parents and schools over 2 decades ago. Mr. Speaker, I am not the only one who thinks so. I recently met with all of the superintendents in my district. Each and every one of them stated that we must increase funding for IDEA before we create a new Federal program. If the President would first fund a special education mandate, our States and local school districts would have the funds to do the things the President proposes. This Congress will continue to work to provide fair Federal funding for special education so in the end we can improve education for all our children, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Concurrent Resolution 88.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I join many of my colleagues today in remembering and acknowledging the atrocities endured by the people of Armenia earlier this century. Eighty-four years ago, on the night of April 24, 1915, the Turkish government placed hundreds of the most prominent public figures in the Armenian community under arrest. They were apprehended and sent to prison. In the end, most of these cultural leaders and scholars were executed. The most disturbing part is that these deaths were only the beginning as an attempted extinction of an entire civilization was to shortly follow. For this reason, April 24 is commemorated as the date of the beginning of the Armenian Genocide. The atrocities committed against the Armenian people during this time can be categorized as a genocide because such an organized killing of a people would require the central planning and resources only a government is capable of implementing. The Armenian Genocide was centrally planned and administered by the Ottoman Empire against the entire Armenian population under its rule. It was carried out during World War I between the years 1915 and 1918. The Armenian people were subjected to deportation, torture, massacre, and starvation. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were forcibly moved from Armenia and sent to the desert to die of thirst and starvation. Others were methodically massacred throughout the region. Most estimates illustrate that one and a half million Armenians perished between 1915 and 1923. There were an estimated two million Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire prior to World War I, and more than one million Armenians were deported in 1915. Hundreds of thousands more were either killed or died of hunger or exhaustion. Even after the systematic and deliberate actions of the Ottoman empire and the millions of Armenian lives that were taken, there still remains a denial on the part of the Turkish government that this genocide actually occurred. This is a mistake. This is wrong. Our world today is filled with nations fighting against one another. The lives of thousands of men, women, and children are taken every day from these conflicts. If we hope to ever stop these merciless killings and ensure that lives can be saved, it is imperative that we acknowledge the perilous acts of our past. We can learn from our history and make sure that it never repeats itself. Today, I join my colleagues in condemning the atrocities committed against the Armenians and continue to emphasize our need to prevent similar tragedies from developing. We must recognize and openly acknowledge the atrocities committed against humanity before we are able to prevent them from happening again in the future. I am proud to have been able to participate in this special tribute to the Armenian community.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference report accompanying the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, otherwise known as Ed-Flex. I am pleased to see that the House and Senate conferees were able to quickly reach an agreement on this very important legislation. Already, our states and school districts are implementing reform plans that would be aided by providing them with Ed-Flex waiver authority. Our states want it. Recently, all of our governors--Republican and Democrat alike--recently came to Washington and asked for quick passage of this legislation. Additionally, when I was home over Easter recess, I met with my local school superintendents. Every one of them expressed support for this legislation, because it provides them with the latitude they desire in order to ensure our children go to the best and safest schools possible. Through the passage of this conference agreement, this Congress furthers its efforts to return dollars and control to the classroom. The states currently participating under this program have shown remarkable achievement. Now, with this legislation, all of our States will be able to have more flexibility to cut redtape so that they can implement the effective programs and reform efforts that are being held back by Federal requirements and regulations. It is too important for this Congress to ignore the successes of the Ed-Flex program. Even more important, we must not ignore the needs of our state and local education leaders to pass this bill. Our children are just too important. Again, I rise in support of the conference report and urge all my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a House Concurrent Resolution calling on the Congress and the President to significantly increase funding for the Pell Grant and Campus-Based Aid programs. Every year since we gained the majority, Republicans have worked to increase the maximum Pell Grant, and we've worked hard to strengthen higher education programs with a proven track record of success. We have also enacted tax incentives which help working families save for the education of their children, and ease student loan repayment for those who must borrow. Most importantly, just over 6 months ago, we enacted the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. This vitally important legislation saved the student loan program and cut borrower interest rates; dramatically increased the maximum authorized Pell Grant; and strengthened the Campus-Based Aid programs which provide needy students with grants, work study opportunities, and low-interest loans. This legislation went a long way to achieving our goals of: Making college more affordable; Simplifying the student aid system; and Ensuring academic quality. In short, we have truly made higher education a priority, and we will continue to do so. However, I was shocked when the administration sent us a budget proposal along with the proclamation that the doors to college were now open to all Americans. I was surprised to learn that the administration actually believes that it has opened the doors to college for all. I was disappointed with the details of that budget, which cut overall funding for Pell Grants by 3 percent, allowed for only modest growth in the Campus-Based programs, and proposed student loan cuts which Congress had rejected on a bipartisan basis only months before. Instead of supporting these core programs which are proven to work, the administration pursued funding for four new ``designer'' programs, which have not, and probably will never, help one student graduate. In talking to students and educators alike, I know they share my disappointment. Let's look at the priorities we are setting forth today in this resolution. First, it calls for a $400 increase to the maximum Pell Grant award. The Pell Grant program is the largest and most important Federal need-based higher education grant program. It is a voucher for higher education, which students can take to an institution of their choosing and use to pursue the type of education that will most benefit them. Every dollar that a student receives from the Pell program is a dollar that won't have to be borrowed. With average student indebtedness now at $9,700, this is more important than ever before. The Pell Grant program was created in 1972, and currently serves 3.8 million students. In the late 1970's, Pell Grants covered 75 percent of the cost of attending a 4-year public college or university. Today, it covers only 36 percent of that cost. Restoring some of this lost buying power is probably the single most important thing we can do to reassure students from low-income families that college is possible. Funding Pell Grants at the level set forth in the resolution would have the added benefit of making an additional 215,000 students eligible, including 21,000 in my home State of California. Second, this resolution makes funding for the Campus-Based Aid programs a priority. These programs provide institutions with Federal support for grant, loan, and work study programs. They are need based. However, they do provide financial aid professionals with more flexibility to tailor the aid package to the student's needs. Most importantly, these programs require schools that participate to provide matching funds, which allows us to leverage our investment with private dollars. Finally, this resolution sets priorities. It says to the President and to the American people that we are serious about funding the financial aid programs we know work, and that we shouldn't create new programs until we meet these commitments. Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a choice. We can blindly buy the ``program du jour'' on the President's education menu, cooked up by the bureaucrats at the Department of Education, or we can wisely fund the ``meat and potato'' scholarship programs that have put America's students through college for more than a generation. I urge my colleagues to show their support for America's students, and cosponsor this resolution.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Sixth Annual Cowboy Poetry and Music Festival that took place at the historic Melody Ranch in Santa Clarita, CA. For 4 days, cowboy enthusiasts such as myself, were entertained by local residents, as well as individuals from 22 different states and 2 foreign nations. This ranch has a significant historical background, Mr. Speaker. Once owned by Gene Autry, the Melody Ranch was used for some of the greatest western movies featuring legendary stars such as Tom Mix, Hopalong Cassidy, Gary Cooper, John Wayne, and Ronald Reagan. In celebration of our Western Heritage, this festival brought together communities from around the nation and around the world to my hometown to enjoy in a bygone era of cowboys, campfires, and country music. Cowboy music, poetry, and food provided everyone with what Santa Claritans know to be true, that country and western tradition are among the very best that our nation has to offer. Whether it was the special performances at the Autry Museum of Western Heritage, the mansion of silent film star William S. Hart, or the Heritage Junction Historic Park this festival can be called nothing less than an overwhelming success. I would like to applaud the organizers, the participants, and the community as a whole for their participation in this event. Mr. Speaker, as I end these remarks and I reflect back on the Cowboy Poetry and Music Festival, I am reminded of the end of so many of the western movies that show the cowboy riding off into the sunset. We sure hope that he returns next year to make certain that future generations never forget this indispensable history.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, due to District Business, I missed rollcall No. 58. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4, and I want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for their leadership in getting this bill to the floor. As my colleagues know, I grew up at a time when we had a worldwide threat. I can remember when I was going to school and our teachers would call drop drills, and we had to dive under our desk and turn away from the windows. We lived in constant threat of nuclear attack. Lately that threat has seemed to have disappeared, and the President said in the State of the Union that we were safe, that we were not under any threat of nuclear attack, and polls say that 70 percent of the people of our country feel that we are safe from nuclear attack. But I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for making the truth known and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for joining him in a bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, we do not live in a safe world. The defense of our Nation, which is one of our fundamental responsibilities in the Constitution, is an issue that should unite all Americans regardless of ideology. Less than 1 percent of our defense budget is spent on research to develop a national missile defense capability, yet the threat we are facing is growing. Russia and China are selling missile technologies to nations such as Iran and North Korea bringing these last two countries closer to producing their own missiles. The threat to our national security and the security of our citizens is real. We do not have drop drills now, but perhaps we should until we get this missile defense system deployed. H.R. 4, which was passed overwhelmingly by the House Committee on Armed Services, is an appropriate response to this threat. I urge a yes vote on H.R. 4.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 24, which opposes the unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood. While the goal of achieving peace in the Middle East has long been elusive, we have in recent years seen progress where Israelis and Palestinians have come to the negotiating table to discuss their differences. This negotiating process should continue to be respected as the best means for Israelis and Palestinians to maintain a constructive dialogue on fundamental issues of concern. Unilateral actions that circumvent this process will only prolong potential solutions to the conflicts which have caused great harm to Arabs and Jews in Israel. Approving the resolution before use today will convey an important message that the United States support continued negotiations as the best means to create lasting peace in a region where so much blood has been shed.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, for bringing this bill to the floor at this time, and for his strong leadership. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999. I am a proud cosponsor of this bill. The so- called Ed-Flex legislation, or H.R. 800, will provide our local school districts with the lattitude they demand to ensure our children go to the best and safest schools. Before coming to Congress, I served for 9 years on my local school board, so I am well aware of the burdens placed on our local educators by the Federal Government. Even as Republicans work to return more dollars directly to the classroom, I hear constantly from witnesses testifying before the Committee on Education and the Workforce that they feel besieged by the Federal bureaucrats, rules, and requirements. Furthermore, the committee recently heard from State and local education leaders about the reform efforts in their school districts. I was pleased to hear about the success that they have experienced, but I believe they could do more if their States and all States had the opportunity to participate in this Ed-Flex program. Additionally, I have received many letters endorsing the bill, from the Democrat and Republican Governors Associations to the National School Board Association and to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. So today we have an opportunity to do something those witnesses and others throughout the country have asked for, to provide more flexibility and less red tape so they can implement the effective programs and reform efforts that are being asked for by parents at home but are being held back by Federal requirements and regulations. I support Ed-Flex because it is a good first step of giving more freedom back to the local school districts. Through this program, we can place our children's education in the hands of those who know our young people best, our local schoolteachers. So I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 800, and I reject any amendment that places additional burdens on States looking for maximum flexibility.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the House on a subject that is very important to me and our Nation. This subject is funding for our national defense. When the Clinton administration's budget was released, we heard a lot of talk that the President had finally been convinced about the need to increase defense spending. This was significant because his previous six budgets have fallen short of meeting our defense requirements despite the fact that the military deployments and operations tempo were increasing under this administration. However, as we examine the President's budget request more closely, we find once again that the increase which he had promised is failing to materialize. While the President is proposing a slight increase in procurement accounts, research and development accounts are being cut. Furthermore, military construction spending is being slashed by over 35 percent. This is particularly disturbing for two reasons: One, because we are still paying money to finish the base closure process; two, our armed services are having difficulties retaining men and women who are currently serving. As the military- civilian pay gap increases, we cannot expect to retain military personnel while at the same time expecting them to live in 1940 and 1950 era housing while working in outdated facilities. Two weeks ago in the Committee on Armed Services the four service chiefs testified about an $8.7 billion shortfall that they are facing in the next fiscal year. The actual shortfall is greater because the President is relying on favorable economic assumptions and changes in budget rules to make his defense numbers look better than they really are. For example, the Secretary of Defense testified last month before the Committee on Armed Services that low inflation and fuel costs were being factored into the fiscal year 2000 budget. Now, we know that gasoline costs are down. But I was reading in the paper yesterday that they are projecting a 25 percent increase this year. What happens if in the President's budget where he is proposing that we pick up $8 billion because gasoline and oil prices are dropping that in reality they turn around and increase? Apart from the obvious problems of relying on economic assumptions, it was revealed last week that the Senate is planning on using the projected economic savings as an offset for the fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations bill. If these assumptions are used to offset the supplemental bill, then the fiscal year 2000 defense budget will be stretched even thinner. This will make it even more difficult to address shortfalls in research and development, military construction and readiness accounts and will further delay congressional initiatives to improve pay and retirement benefits for active duty military personnel as well as for our veterans. Mr. Speaker, as a member of both the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, I look forward to working with other Members to truly address the needs of those who are providing for the defense of this country.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), for yielding me this time; and I thank him and the subcommittee chairman, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler), for their leadership in getting this bill to the floor. I rise in strong support of H.R. 707. Every time disaster strikes, local governments are faced with the critical task of dealing with the recovery efforts. California is no stranger to natural disasters. In my district alone, we have had a severe earthquake and floods and fires in my time here in Congress. Local governments have been forced to bear a tremendous fiscal burden resulting from these unfortunate events. It is bad enough that homes, buildings and lives are destroyed at the hands of nature, but our local government are the means through which we can most effectively prepare for and respond to disasters. It is imperative that we ease their financial burden and do all we can to help them respond to the needs of those people whose lives are destroyed after a disaster strikes. H.R. 707 does exactly that. Specifically, it authorizes grants to help communities mitigate natural disasters and streamlines existing disaster relief programs. Additionally, it includes a number of provisions that make current disaster programs more efficient. More importantly, the bill will now include measures to ensure local governments are protected against increased financial burdens. The manager's amendment includes my amendment that provides a public comment period when new or modified policies are issued. In addition, the amendment also prohibits any policy from being applied retroactively. So I want to extend my deepest thanks to the gentlewoman from Florida for allowing this language to be included in her manager's amendment. I would also like to acknowledge Marcus Peacock, on the chairman's staff, for his dedication to this issue. Finally, I want to thank my colleagues on the California delegation for their support on this issue, especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Jerry Lewis), the gentleman from California (Mr. David Dreier), the gentleman from California (Mr. Steve Horn), the gentleman from California (Mr. Duke Cunningham) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Juanita Millender- McDonald. For these reasons, I strongly support H.R. 707 and urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation that focuses on the need to restore our Social Security program in a fair manner for all Americans. With the looming prospect that its funds will be depleted by 2032, the issue of ensuring the solvency of Social Security needs to be addressed. But there are a number of priorities we must keep in mind as the debate on reforming Social Security begins to take form. First, it is important that any reform to Social Security guarantees equal benefits to all Americans, including women and minorities. We also need to ensure that cost-of-living adjustments and a continuous benefit safety net are provided for all Social Security recipients. Most importantly, we want to do all we can to save Social Security without raising taxes. Americans are already over-burdened by high taxes, and it is our duty to ensure that more of their money stays in their pockets. We owe it to the American people to provide them with a fair plan that saves Social Security for generations to come without increasing their tax burden. I am proud to support this initiative and want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for introducing this important piece of legislation.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentleman for the leadership that he has shown in bringing this issue to the fore. I think people are now starting to hear, and hopefully we will be able to improve the Federal government's action on this issue. I would like to join with you and my other colleagues in calling for the President to fulfill our obligation to our Nation's neediest children, those with disabilities. Mr. Speaker, for too long Washington has shirked its responsibility to provide our local school districts with the funds necessary to carry out the expensive Federal mandate created with the enactment of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act more than two decades ago. Time and again we hear that our States and our schools must sacrifice other educational programs and services in order to serve students with special education needs. Nationally, on average, local school districts spend 20 percent of their budgets on special education. In my home State of California, the cost of educating an estimated 610,000 children with disabilities is a staggering $3.3 billion. But the Federal Government contributes only $413 million, which translates to only 12\1/2\ percent of the total cost. Even more alarming is the impact of this Federal mandate on our local school districts. For example, the Federal Government picks up only 3 percent of the estimated $7.6 million price tag for educating the nearly 1,200 children with disabilities in the William S. Hart High School District, the district I served on as a member of the school board for 9 years. If they picked up the other 37 percent that they said they would do when they created this mandate, that would mean $2.8 million to that school district. I guarantee you that would go a long ways toward building schools and hiring teachers and doing the other things that are now going lacking because of this Federal mandate. And in the Los Angeles Unified School District, which covers part of my district, if the Federal Government fully funded its IDEA obligation, L.A. Unified would receive about $95 million more. Let me repeat that. They would receive $95 million more. Since 1995, this Republican Congress has worked hard to fulfill our duty to our schools and our children to provide the 40 percent of the average per pupil expenditure that was promised by the Congress. Prior to the 104th Congress, the Federal Government was only paying 7 percent of the cost. Today, we are paying approximately 12 percent. This represents an 85 percent increase over all in the IDEA funding, but we still have a long way to go. Last Congress, Mr. Speaker, I cosponsored H. Res. 399 which expressed the sense of the House that fully funding IDEA programs should be given the highest priority when doling out Federal education dollars. I was very pleased when the House unanimously adopted this resolution last summer. The passage of this resolution was important because it symbolized the Houses's commitment to fund existing education programs at levels the law requires. In contrast, the President has level funded, which is a cut, and remember how we got beat up on school lunches when we increased the funding over 4 percent? We were accused of killing the school lunch program, and here the President has come up with just level funding, and we know what that refers to in the way of a cut. I believe before we look at creating new programs with new Washington mandates, we need to ensure that the Federal Government lives up to the promise it made to the students, parents and schools over two decades ago, and I am not the only one who thinks so. In fact, during the recent National Governors' Association Conference here in Washington, Maryland's Democrat Governor, Parris Glendening, stated, and I quote: Several of the Governors were urging, I think with great merit, that before we start these new programs, let's make sure that the ones that are on the board, such as special education, are fully funded. If the President would first fund the special education mandate, our States and local school districts would have the funds to do the things the President proposes such as building new schools, building more computers, ensuring accountability. All of these things could be done without new Federal mandates if we just would live up to the mandates that we have already made. This Congress will continue to provide fair Federal funding for special education so in the end we can improve education for all of our children.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for yielding the time and I appreciate him doing this special order and I appreciate him telling those stories about Bob. I am not as senior as many here today who will be speaking and have not known Bob for as long, so I appreciate the opportunity of learning a little bit more about him on a personal nature from some of these stories. I also, like the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), have mixed emotions. I hate to see Bob leave. He will leave a hole here in the House, but I appreciate his desire to leave, and after giving over 20 years of service to his country I think he deserves the opportunity to pursue new ventures, new paths. I have been here now for just a little over 6 years. In my first term here, I remember Bob coming up to me one day and saying that he would probably be approaching me and talking about getting some support for a leadership position he was considering running for. I did not know him really at all, and I thought I was probably going to support somebody else at that time, but I started watching Bob. When you are new here, you have certain heroes that you kind of build up around you and after awhile Bob became one of my heroes. I appreciated his humanity. He did not seem to get caught up in himself. There are people around here that sometimes egos are hard to overcome. People give us a lot of adoration, and it did not seem to go to Bob's head. He kept his humanity. He kept his humility. I saw how people would talk to him and he gave them his attention, and he was a great listener. I appreciate the integrity that he has shown through his service here, especially the last one he made with giving up the opportunity of being speaker because he felt that that was the thing to do based on his love for his family, his love for his wife, and I think that showed us a great deal. I appreciated his leadership style. He listens, he builds consensus, and then he moves forward with determination to get things accomplished. I appreciate the opportunity he gave me to work with him briefly in moving forward in his planning to be the Speaker of this Congress. I had a chance to look at him a little closer. And all of the feelings that I had for him grew because I saw he was a real, genuine person. And we really will miss him here, but I understand he is going to be around in town and we will have a chance still to enjoy our friendship. I look forward to that. Mr. Speaker, I wish him all the best in time spent with his family and in pursuing new ventures in life, and feel that it is a privilege and honor to be able to call him a friend.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today, Mr. Barrett of Nebraska, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Clay, Chairman Goodling and I are introducing the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1999. Our hope is that this bill will be the first step in an ongoing bipartisan effort to reauthorize the Older Americans Act. Nonetheless, it is important to remember that there is much work to be done when it comes to reforming and streamlining the provisions of the Older Americans Act. Today's version of the Older Americans Act Amendments of 1999 represents a good-faith effort on the part of both parties to work together in this important venture. Over the course of the next several months, we are committed to having an open dialogue with all those who are involved in administering the Act's many programs. However, it is absolutely imperative that we keep those who we are trying to help--the frail and elderly--foremost in our minds.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to bring to the attention of this House a serious problem that is facing our veterans. While the Clinton administration is discussing, if not formalizing, the decision to send our men and women into Kosovo, they are not planning or formalizing plans on what will occur when they return home. For the third consecutive year, the Clinton administration has produced a budget that cuts veterans' funding. The administration is adding new programs and placing new burdens on the Veterans Administration while decreasing their budget. The Veterans Administration budget has tremendous shortfalls in general health benefits, research grants for problems unique to our military veterans, and finally in burial benefits. Our veterans today are fortunate to even have a flag at their funeral let alone an honor guard. Over 50 percent of our national cemeteries are full or open only for cremation. Furthermore, only three new cemeteries are planned and with a 10-year window to open one, the problem of where our veterans are buried will only escalate in importance. How does the Clinton administration plan to solve these problems? By cutting funding for our veterans, by taking researchers out of the lab and into patient care, by refusing to offer a credible short-term, midterm, or even long-term solution to burial issues. As the Clinton administration continues to consider sending our men and women into harm's way, I call upon them to think about what they will do when they return home. Let's show some appreciation for their dedication and hard work by never again disgracing them with a budget like this.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the impeachment of the President. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to echo the words of our forefathers who once held the highest office in our land. The advise that they have provided is among the best that our nation has ever received. I would like to share with you two phrases from our first two Presidents. I think they ring true today more than ever. In his farewell address, President George Washington underscored the importance of having leaders tell the truth. He said, ``Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in the courts of justice?'' On his second night in the White House, John Adams wrote the following, ``I pray Heaven to Bestow the Best of Blessings on this House and on All that shall hereafter Inhabit it. May none but honest and Wise Men ever rule under this roof.'' In my opinion the issue of impeachment is simple: should we have two systems of justice, one for the President and one for everybody else? where is the fairness for the people who are convicted of perjury every year and sentenced to detention? What a shame that today this Congress must revisit these issues because President Clinton failed to follow the advice of these very wise men. As I will be casting my vote to impeach on all four articles today, I will keep in mind these words. I will also keep in mind that the impact of my vote today will ring true to generations for years to come that perjury has no place in the highest office of the land.

Mr. McKEON

Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, this morning I was at the White House on official business and was not present for rollcall votes 486 and 487. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 486 and ``yes'' on rollcall 487.