Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my special order, I would like to address the remarks of one of my colleagues just previously on a 5-minute. He made a statement that Governor Bush would replace Medicare with insurance companies. I have never heard something so laughable. Are the Democrats so desperate that they have got to spin something that is absolutely not true? Mr. Speaker, I have never heard something so ridiculous. The gentleman may speak of his own opinion, but I would say that the gentleman is factually challenged. First, 70 percent of Americans have insurance, both for healthcare or for prescription drugs, and they want to keep that. Unfortunately, there is a large portion of the American population that has neither healthcare nor prescription drugs. Governor Bush wants to make sure that those people are taken care of. But if the Democrats can demagog insurance companies or biotech companies, then what is left to pick up the void? Only big government, Hillary Clinton-type of healthcare and prescription drugs, and that is exactly what Al Gore does. He has a one-size-fits-all, big government solution. Now, I have traveled all over the country with Governor Bush, and I know not only what he says, but I know what is in his heart. While the Democrats increased veterans healthcare by zero in the last budget, Republicans put in a $1.7 billion increase. Governor Bush not only wants to keep the promises to our veterans for healthcare that has been given for many, many years, but he wants to also make sure that that percentage of Americans who do not have healthcare have supplement to their Medicare. What does the Federal employee have? And that is FEHBP, the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan, which is a supplement to Medicare. That is what he has said, that is what he talks about in every speech, nothing about replacing Medicare with insurance companies, at least do not demagog, at least do not make up stories that are absolutely not true. If my colleagues want to talk about facts in the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare trust fund, do we remember the Clinton-Gore budget, they said well, we want to take 100 percent of the Social Security trust fund and put it for Social Security and all of the surplus. Mr. Speaker, weeks later, they came back and said oh, not so fast we want to take 62 percent and put it into Social Security, we want to take 15 percent of the surplus and put it into Medicare. What they did not tell us is that the Clinton-Gore budget took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund, put it up here for new spending. They increased taxes $241 billion for new spending, to justify their budget and their balanced budget. We said no, Mr. President, no, Mr. Vice President, that we are going to put the Social Security trust fund into a lockbox so that politicians cannot touch it, that you cannot keep increasing the debt and you cannot keep spending it. So if my colleagues want to talk about facts, that is a fact. Another fact is that Republicans brought that budget to the floor to show what a sham it was. Mr. Speaker, do we know how many Democrats voted for that budget, because we wanted them to vote for it, to show that they supported increase in taxes, to show that they supported raiding the Social Security trust fund, to show what a sham that the budget was. Do we know how many Democrats supported it? Only four. Yet, Al Gore uses that budget as the basis, and I quote Al Gore, I use this budget as the basis for my plan, which spends every cent and more of the surplus. It dips in and raids the Social Security trust fund. It increases the taxes on the American people. And when my colleagues want to talk about facts, that is a fact. The reason that I stepped up from my special order was that I was in Los Angeles for the Democrat convention. I was on television. I was on radio to see the spin, and it is probably the reason why there is an article in the Washington Post, which is not exactly a conservative paper, about, it is still the economy stupid, by David Broder. And it says that during the past 8 years Lieberman said in the convention, we have created more than 4 million new businesses, 22 million new jobs, the lowest inflation in a generation, the lowest African American, Hispanic unemployment rate in history, the strongest economy in a 224- year history of the United States of America. He could have added that real incomes for even the poorest Americans began to improve and poverty rate declined. But what David Broder goes on to say is, ``But it wasn't until the Republicans took over Congress in 1995 that the goal of a balanced budget came into view, that the economy increased at a much higher rate than under the 1993 tax increase.'' The Democrats in their convention said, well, if you loved the last 8 years of the economy, you need to put us back. That is what I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), went to see the Vice President and the President last night. They asked if the President would set aside 90 percent of the surplus to reduce the debt. We pay nearly $1 billion a day on the national debt, Mr. Speaker. The President agreed. They walked away saying, hey, we will take the other 10 percent, we will debate in Congress, we will work back and forth as to how the 10 percent of the surplus is spent, whether it is for tax relief or increased spending in other areas, like prescription drugs. But when he got away, and I will quote here, now when Republicans say we want to lock away 90 percent of the next year's surplus, according to today's edition of the New York Times, ``Mr. Clinton told Republicans he viewed paying down the debt as a priority, but said he was not sure it could be done in the 2001 fiscal year.'' Does that sound like the balanced budget? It could be done in 12 years, it could be done in 2 years, it could be done in 4 years, it could be done in 8 years, and now already the White House is reneging on putting the money in to pay off the national debt. I think it is ridiculous. The point is, when the Democrats claim that economic prosperity is due to their efforts, I reject that, Mr. Speaker; and I set out to show the reasons why from fact, from budget legislation, and the lack of budget legislation. First of all, not a single White House or Democrat budget since the Republicans took over the majority in 1994 has ever passed either the House or the Senate. As a matter of fact, we brought the Democratic White House budgets to the floor just to embarrass the Democrats, to show what a sham the Clinton-Gore budget was. In 1993, they did pass their budget, because they had control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and I will address that in just a minute. In 1994, the House voted 223 to 175 and the Senate 57 to 40 to pass their budget. But in 1995, Republicans took over and talked about balancing the budget for the first time. In 1996, the budget from the White House failed 117 to 304. In 1997, in the Senate it failed 45 to 53. In 1998 there was no vote. There was a vote on the Democrat budget; and the Blue Dogs, and, by the way, I would say that the Blue Dogs, against the liberal leadership of the House, had some pretty good ideas and some ideas that we could accept unanimously; but the President would veto it, and the Democrat leadership would fight against it. In 1999 we brought the budget forward from the White House, and only two Democrats supported it, because, again, it raided the Social Security trust fund, it increased taxes, it broke the budget, and it increased the national debt. I would say that when the Democrats claim that they are responsible for the economy, and not a single one of their economic plans or budgets ever passed, I would say that that is a sham, Mr. Speaker. Yet the Democrats will go back and say, well, it was the 1993 tax increase. They refer to it as their 1993 economic package. But after I go through this, I will also show in this newspaper article and every newspaper article within the country, liberal and conservative, it says the Al Gore economic plan would spend all of the projected Federal surplus of more than $4 trillion and run up a deficit of $900 billion over 10 years, no cushion at all, $900 billion in the hole. Does that sound familiar? It sounds familiar to 40 years of Democrat control of the House, in which in 1993 the President's budget projected deficits of $200 billion every year throughout and beyond, and also increased taxes every single year and raided the Social Security trust fund every single year. I would say that the 1993 package that they claim, they say, well, Republicans, not a single Republican voted for the Democrat tax package. Again, they say ``economic plan.'' Why did we not, Mr. Speaker? I think the American people need to know. First of all, the 1993 Democrat tax increase was the largest tax increase in history, across the board. The first tax they promised a targeted tax relief plan, and does this not sound familiar with what they are doing today on the liberal leadership of the Democrats? They said, we want a targeted tax relief plan for middle-class Americans. First of all, this body should never use the term ``middle class,'' because there are no low class, there are no middle class, and there are no upper-class citizens in this country. There are low-income citizens, there are middle-income citizens, and high-income citizens; but the other side continually uses the term ``class warfare'' to get their point across. I think that is wrong. But they promised a middle-income tax cut, and they could not help themselves. In 1993 they increased the taxes on the middle class. Why? Because it means power, Mr. Speaker. It means power to rain down more and more money to their districts so they can come back here and get reelected and maintain the majority like they did for 40 years. But finally the American people had enough, and in 1994-1995 they said we are going to let the Republicans try and let them for the first time in 40 years control the House. Now we control the Senate as well. The tax increase in 1993, why did we not support it? Because it took every cent out of the Social Security trust fund, just like they had for 40 years prior, to use up here for additional spending. In all the budgets, even after Republicans took the majority, the Clinton-Gore budget raided the Social Security trust fund, put it up here for new spending, increased taxes for new spending, and then put a little bit back into the Social Security trust fund or put in an IOU. What did that do, Mr. Speaker? It increased the national debt, at the same time making the Social Security-Medicare trust fund insolvent. Republicans said, No, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President. We are going to put the Social Security trust fund into a lockbox, to where it accrues interest. Instead of increasing the debt, it is going to pay down the national debt by the year 2013. Now, Al Gore in his budget tries to take claim for this. They did in the Democrat convention. It is not true. They fought it tooth, hook and nail, every single part of the way, because they wanted to use that extra money for spending. I think that is wrong. Why did we not vote for the 1993 tax increase from Clinton-Gore? Because it cut the veterans' COLAs. You want to talk about priorities? Our veterans that served this country, in many cases departed from their families, not knowing if they are coming back, their families are penalized. They have to move several times during their career, they cannot invest, their children are ripped out of schools. But yet to balance the budget, or to put their budget plan into effect, they even cut the COLAs, which is a tax increase on our veterans. If that was not enough, they cut the military COLAs for our active duty military, the people that need it the most, that are getting shifted around all over this country. Then they cut defense, $127 billion, after Colin Powell and Dick Cheney told the President that a $50 billion cut would put our military into a hollow force. Why did we not support the Clinton-Gore 1993 tax increase? Remember that it increased the gas tax? They even had a retroactive tax. Most people forget about that. Remember the First Lady changed their income tax form so she could benefit from the retroactive tax? Remember the gas tax went to a general fund? Why, instead of a transportation fund? So that they could take the Social Security trust fund, they could take the increase in taxes, including the 18 cents Federal tax into a general fund and use it for new spending. And we said, No, Mr. President, Mr. Vice President. We are going to take that gas tax, and we are going to put it into a transportation trust; and many Republicans and Democrats and States have benefited from that, because the money, instead of going to new social spending, failed social spending, has gone to improve our roads and highways in this country, including my own California, which is a donor State when it comes to taxes, and not the general fund. But remember in 1993 also the Clinton-Gore team tried to pass government controlled health care. It was rejected by all Americans. Remember the $16 billion pork-barrel package? I do. I was here. It had payback for people that had voted for the Clinton-Gore team. It put parking garages in Puerto Rico, swimming pools in Florida. I mean, it was ridiculous. In that, the deficits were projected at $200 billion and beyond forever. Did we vote for it? No. First of all, the Social Security tax increase, we rescinded that and did away with it. The tax for the middle class, we have given education IRAs, we have given education savings accounts, we have given R&D tax credits, we have given capital gains tax credits, which the Democrats said were all for the rich. They fought tooth, hook and nail. Yet at the convention I see the Vice President claiming credit for education IRAs, when they fought against them tooth, hook and nail. They said it was a tax only for the rich. The $500 deduction per child, remember that side, it is only a deduction for the rich, just like the death tax and the marriage penalty. It is only a tax break for the rich. Tax breaks they cannot stand. Why, Mr. Speaker? A tax break is a sense of power, money in the Federal Government. A surplus that is not given back to the American people is power to spend, power to spend for constituents, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, down to your district, so you can get reelected; and they will resist tax breaks in any single way. Even the promise of middle-class or middle-income tax workers and Americans, they rejected it. They increased the tax. They just cannot help themselves in that. The Social Security trust fund, we said no. Lockbox. Veterans' COLAs, we restored that, on a bipartisan basis, by the way, against Clinton's and Gore's wishes. The military COLAs, we reinstated that. We have replaced somewhat of the defense. The increase in taxes at the highest level in history, we have done away with much of that. The gas tax, as I mentioned, we put into a trust fund. We took the health care plan and we benefited many Americans, but we have still got a long ways to go. So, for the Democrats to say that they are responsible for the economy, first of all, when not a single one of their budgets or economic plans have ever cleared the House or the Senate, outside when they controlled this body, and the 1993 tax increase that most of it has been rescinded, it is a little bit ridiculous for them to claim credit for the economy. It is impossible. It is illogical. Economic principles. We say well, what has not and what has, in my opinion, and 99 percent of the economists contributed to a better economy for all Americans. First of all, when we took the majority, in our 1995 budget, even before that, with the Contract With America, we said we are going to balance the budget. Do not listen to me or to the Democrats, or to any of the leadership; listen to what Alan Greenspan said. He said, and I quote, just by speaking about balancing the budget and the potential for the Congress of the United States to balance the budget will reduce interest rates across the board. And what do interest rates mean to the American people? I have a family, a young man that just got married. He is looking into homes. Here is a chart I pulled out of the Washington Post, and it is on home-buying, Mr. Speaker. Take a $140,000 house, and most people would like to find a $140,000 house today. But at 5 percent interest, one's payments are about $1,000. If one has 8.5 percent, which is about what the prime is today, one is paying $1,400 a month for one's payment. If it is 10 percent, one is paying almost $1,600 a month. That is real savings to the American people, when one is buying a home. I just sent my daughter off to Yale. I cannot tell my colleagues how expensive that is. She scored a perfect 1600 on her SAT, and she wants to be a doctor. But if interest rates are important to the American people, and the balanced budget is the primary cause of interest rates going lower, according to Alan Greenspan, the head of the Fed, then that is an economic principle that we want to adopt. Who fought against it, Mr. Speaker? The Clinton-Gore administration was here in this House fighting day by day to fight against the balanced budget because it limited the amount that they could spend and to regain a majority, and that is just wrong. But in 1997, after 2 years of demagoguery, the President finally came to the table with Republicans, against the wishes of the liberal Democrat leadership on this side. They still fought it tooth, hook and nail, fought a balanced budget, because their leadership saw that, well, that will take away their ability to retake a majority, and that was more important to them than a balanced budget and the economy of this country. The President signed a budget agreement. I give him credit for that. A second principle is that the government should keep its books in order and cut wasteful spending. In the Washington Times today, it listed 4 government agencies responsible for $21 billion, actually $20.7, close enough, of fraud, and one-half of that fraud was in Medicare. I would say, whether it is the Education Department that only gets about 48 cents less than half of the dollars down to the classroom because of the bureaucracy, and that the IRS and GAO have been unable to audit; as a matter of fact, it is unauditable, that there is fraud, waste and abuse there. We look at food stamps or HUD, and yes, Mr. Speaker, Defense. I can go through and point out fraudulent and wasteful spending in Defense, which I am a hawk; well, maybe a dove that is fully armed. But there is wasteful spending, and that should be part of the principles of reducing and helping this country to economic prosperity. Tax relief for working people. Mr. Speaker, if someone has a $500 deduction per child or they can have an IRA in which they can set aside $2,000 a year, which the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) set forth so that working families could set aside money. If one has a child, when he is born, by the year he is 10 years old, at $2,000 a year, well, we would say that would be $20,000, but with compound interest, it is almost $40,000 a year by the time that child is 10 years old. One can use it for special education, for special needs, one can use it for books, for tutoring, or one can leave it in the trust fund for higher education. But yet, that was rejected by the Clinton-Gore administration, and now the Vice President is trying to say it was his idea, when they rejected it, and that is wrong. But tax relief for working families, they get a little more money in their pockets, and maybe they can go out and buy a car, and car dealers like that. Maybe they go out and buy a double cheeseburger, double fries, to spread the money around a little bit. It is called micro and macroeconomics, that one has more money and they will spend it or at least set it aside and save it. Yet, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side have never seen a tax increase they do not like, or will they ever support a tax decrease? No. At least some of my colleagues will, but the liberal Democrat leadership on that side fights it tooth, hook and nail every single day. Less government spending. If we have less bureaucracy; for example, about 4,000 workers in the Department of Education, and we only get less than half of that money down to the classroom because of the bureaucracy, Federal education spending. I used to be the chairman on the authorization committee. Only about 7 percent of funding from the Federal government gets down to the States for Federal education programs. But yet, in most States, it takes more than half of the States' administrative body to manage that 7 percent of Federal education dollars. And the other paperwork, by the time we go back and forth with all of the different requirements, then we have even less than that to spend on the classroom, whether it is for construction, whether it is for teacher pay, whether it is for technology, or whatever it is. So another principle should be not just to cut wasteful spending, but those items in which we have priorities for, Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs, education, that the maximum amount of dollars should go to those groups that we are trying to help, not a bureaucracy in Washington. But the era of big government is not over. In Al Gore's budget plan we see government with 48 new government agencies in the Clinton-Gore budget last time. In the one prior to that, it was 115 new government agencies. They cannot bring themselves to cut the budget. When they say, look at the number of government officials that have been reduced, we know that 90 percent of those Federal employees are defense and defense-related industries, not the civilian workforce. Another principle should be to pay down the debt. Paying $1 billion a day, nearly $1 billion a day is robbing our children of their future and putting a debt burden on their backs that we as adults and Members of Congress should not do. We have paid down, in every single year, the debt when again, the Clinton-Gore budgets have increased the deficit by over $200 billion, including the present Gore plan. Just read all of the papers, look at all of the economists. He spends every bit of the Social Security trust; he spends every bit of the surplus and increases taxes at the same time, and guess what? The debt goes up again. Budgets for education. People say, look across the land. My wife was a teacher, a principal, and now she is a district administrator for the school district. My sister-in-law, Carolyn Nunes, is the district administrator for all of San Diego city schools for special education. Allen Buerson, who was a Clinton employee before, is now the superintendent of San Diego city schools. Guess what? He is in the real world and now he is fighting for Republican principles of getting the dollars down to him so that he can make the decisions, so that the teachers, the parents and the administrators can make a decision on what happens to their dollars. We passed a bill on the House Floor called Ed Flex. The liberals over here fought against it, because again, they want government control of health care, they want government control of education, they want government control of private property; they want the highest taxes possible so that they can keep that power and have bigger bureaucracies. But yet, Allen Buerson says, we need the money more down to the classroom, and I support Allen Buerson who is a Democrat and also the superintendent of schools for San Diego city schools, and I think he is doing a good job. But let me give my colleagues an idea, Mr. Speaker, of the sham that the Democrats run and why it is so difficult for the American people to see the differences. First of all, we have talked about the President's budget. Democrats did not vote for it. But yet, they will use the President's budget number of $1.1 billion for special education. When the Democrats had control of the House, the most money ever spent on the authorized amount was 6 percent for special education. If one includes the money for Medicaid, that has gone up to about 18 percent for special education. In this budget, the Republican budget, we increase special education by $550 million. But yet, the budget that none of the Democrats voted for because it increased taxes, stole Social Security trust, and the only way they got up to the $1.1 figure was to use that, those gimmicks, and say that Republicans are cutting special education, when we have actually increased it more than they ever did and increased it by $550 million over the amount. I think that is wrong, to use that kind of smoke and mirrors. In education, for many, many years they put trillions of dollars into education programs. When I was subcommittee chairman on the authorization committee, I had 16 groups come in before me and testify. Every one of the 16 had the absolute best program that could be envisioned for their district. It worked. It was helping children to learn or it was helping special needs children or even at-risk children. Even Bishop McKinney, who has a Catholic school for abused children and at-risk children, came in and testified. After the hearing, I asked each of them which one of the other 15 had any one of the other programs in their district. They looked at each other, and not a single one. We said, that is the whole idea. We are trying to get in a block grant the money to you so that you, if you live in Wisconsin, this program may work best for you, but yet, the teachers, the parents, the principals and the community can make the decision of how that money is spent. We believe that with all of our hearts, that those dollars are best served by not a bureaucrat here, not a union boss telling them how they have to spend those dollars, but that it gets to them in the classroom. The second thing was the education flex bill, the President wanted 100,000 teachers. We said 100,000 teachers, but the first half of that, there was not the quality, because many of those teachers were not even certified. As a matter of fact, in the State of California, many of them, after they were hired, have to be fired, because they could not teach in the subject that they were supposed to be trained in. We said no. To hire new teachers, first of all, with Federal dollars, there has to be quality associated with it. We think that is right too. That decision again should be made at a local level in how to do that. Mr. Speaker, the principles of a balanced budget, lower interest rates, lower inflation, making sure that the Federal government puts its house in order and its books in order, making sure that if a government is wasteful, that it is eliminated, or at least fixed, they are important. A good example is Head Start. Just like those 16 programs, many of my liberal friends would say, let us do all 16 programs, let us do them; not mean, not malicious. But in doing that, they would put all of those programs under the Department of Education. Each one would have a bureaucracy. Like Head Start and Easy Start and many of the programs, there was underfunding. They were doomed to fail. We think that the best decisions should be made at the local level. We think that is right, too. Under a balanced budget, if Alan Greenspan says that interest rates are largely the reason for economic advancements in this country, that low inflation is important, that capital gains reductions have stimulated the economy and created jobs, then I think that is good. But if we have liberal leadership on the other side that fights those issues in both their budgets and in the 1993 tax bill, then I think that we need to make the analysis of who is responsible for the economy. Again, I would say that the Blue Dogs, and my colleague here on the budget has worked. I want to go through this. I have fought for 2 weeks on this. But I would say, my colleague on the other side has some real good ideas, and ones that I personally accepted. The overall budget I thought was bad, but I would say that many of those issues that the gentleman brought forward were very valuable.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, in talking about the liberal leadership, many of my colleagues support some of the same things we want to do, including defense. But the leadership along with Clinton-Gore has fought welfare reform, they fought a balanced budget, they fought a lot of the initiatives we think are responsible for the economy.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as the former Chairman of the Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education Subcommittee, I was one of the original supporters of the Even Start program at its inception. I rise in strong support of H.R. 3222 The Literacy Involves Families Together Act, and commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his hard work and dedication to our children and their literacy. It is because of his efforts that we have been able to reduce the number of illiterate individuals in our communities, and I find it a fitting tribute that this program will be named after him. We all realize that to succeed in today's society every person must be able to read and write. It is unacceptable that in a country as advanced as ours that we have millions of people who cannot read or write. H.R. 3222 helps to address this issue in several ways. First, it would improve the quality of Even start and other family literacy programs in several areas. It would provide training and technical assistance to local providers while at the same time assuring that the level of assistance does not decrease. It also requires that instructional programs are based on scientifically researched methods of teaching reading, and provides funding for research on teaching of reading to adults in family literacy programs. Finally, it establishes qualifications for instructional staff in Even Start programs whose salaries are paid with Even Start dollars. Additionally, H.R. 3222 provides for charitable choice by allowing government to consider religious organizations, as part of eligible partnerships on the same basis as other groups receiving funding. Our churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and other religious organizations have a long tradition of helping those in need in our country including helping those who cannot read. This legislation helps them to carry on with that tradition in ensuring every American can read. Finally, this legislation will help communities implement the inexpensive book distribution program which helps local communities provide books for disadvantaged children. Once again I urge passage of H.R. 3222, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, regardless of what both sides are talking about in terms of numbers and fixes, there should be certain principles. The American people are taxed too high, both on the high end and on the low end of the spectrum. In 1993, when my colleagues on that side controlled the White House, the House and the Senate, they increased the tax on Social Security in their tax bill. They also spent every single dime of the Social Security Trust Fund, and now they argue that they want to save it. They also spent every dime out of the Medicare trust fund for great socialized spending, which drove this Nation deeper and deeper in debt. In 1994, when we took the majority and said, we are going to save Medicare, and we did, some joined us, but most, including the Democrat leadership, fought everything against a balanced budget and welfare reform and Social Security lockbox, because it eliminated their spending. The principle is that the American people are taxed too much; we want to give some of their money back. It is not our money.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the promise for veterans health care has been 58 years, 58 years. The subvention bill was not written by Duke Cunningham; it was written by my constituents in San Diego, California. I was the originator of this subvention bill. Why? Because nothing was being done for our veterans. TRICARE, if you live in a rural area, is a Band-aid and does not serve. Subvention, if you live in a rural area, my bill is a Band-aid if it is not controlled. I am going to support this. Even though it was in my bill, I have concern. Subvention, TRICARE, FEHBP, like civilians have, if you take a civilian secretary that works alongside a major or lieutenant commander, when they retire they get a government health care plan that supplements their Medicare. The military worker does not. There is a board already formed looking at what is the most universal way that we can provide this health care; and whatever that is, I would hope that this House and the other body will come together to provide whatever is needed, whether it is a combination of TRICARE, a combination of subvention, or FEHBP. I do not feel that subvention is an end-all for our veterans, and I would hope that we come together on that. I would also tell my colleagues there was another promise. My colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner), is working on it, as I am. A promise was made to our Filipinos in World War II on that health care. It has not been completed, and I would hope that this body and the other body would act on that as well. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the gentleman for what he has done. I still have concern that it may in some way, down the line, if we do not come together, negate what we could do in totality for our veterans. I would like to work with the gentleman to make sure that that comes to fruition.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for arranging this special order tonight, to focus on the importance of doubling America's investment in health research over the next five years. I am honored to be a cosponsor of his resolution, H. Res. 437, expressing the sense of Congress on how to accomplish our goal of doubling our national investment in health research. This research is the gift of America's hard-working taxpayers to this generation and the next--not just to Americans, but to the world. Furthermore, for us to take fullest advantage of this investment, we must take care to invest it wisely. So in addition to increasing our work in basic health research at the National Institutes of Health, we should treat in a similar fashion our investment in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in the programs of the Health Resources Service Administration, which are vital to putting in practice the things we learn through basic health research. As a strong fiscal conservative, and as a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, I am committed to working with my colleagues to achieve these goals within a limited federal budget. Rather than to address this issue myself, I have asked several of my constituents and leaders in the field of health research to address this issue themselves. With the consent of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), I would like to insert in the Record at this point several letters, e-mails, and notes that describe in further detail the importance of doubling our investment in health research. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following letters for the Record. Chiron Corporation, Emeryville, CA, June 14, 2000. Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Cunningham: On behalf of Chiron Corporation's Blood Testing Division, I appreciate this opportunity to convey our support for increased funding for biomedical research. Chiron Corporation, headquartered in Emeryville, California, is a leading biotechnology company with innovative products in three global healthcare markets: biopharmaceuticals, vaccines and blood testing. Chiron, and its partner, Gen-Probe Incorporated of San Diego, formed a strategic alliance in 1998 to develop, manufacture and market genomic nucleic acid testing (NAT) for detection of blood transfusion associated viruses such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) and Hepatitis C Virus (HCV). Genomic NAT is the next technological advance in ensuring the safety of the nation's blood supply. It detects small amounts of virus in donated blood before antibodies or viral proteins are detectable by current blood screening technologies. Today's blood testing methods depend solely on the detection of these antibodies or viral proteins, so newly infected donors may escape detection during the ``window period'' between infection and appearance of these serologic markers. Since April of 1999, the Chiron-Gen-Probe partnership has been supplying NAT reagents, instrumentation, training, and technical support to U.S. blood centers performing NAT under FDA approved clinical protocols. The Chiron Procleix HIV-1/ HCV Assay is currently utilized to screen approximately 75% of all volunteer blood donations in the U.S. In addition, the Armed Services Blood Program now routinely screens blood donations with the Chiron assay. Genomic NAT testing has already increased the safety of the U.S. blood supply. In less than one year, testing by Chiron's system alone has detected 28 infected HCV donors and 4 HIV-1 infected donors. Identification of these infected donors prevented the potential transfusion of over 100 HCV and/or HIV-1 infected units of blood components. Scientific studies estimate that genomic NAT may reduce the window period of potential HCV infection by 70% and by nearly 50% for HIV. Recent studies also indicate that genomic NAT, when used on individual donor samples, may close the Hepatitis B Virus (HBV) window by 50% (as much as four weeks) compared to currently available tests. Implementation of NAT has required the utilization of many new scientific inventions and innovations. One historic discovery in this effort was the genomic mapping of the HIV and HCV viruses by Chiron scientists. Gen-Probe Incorporated developed new high throughput genomic amplification and detection technologies known as TMA, that are required to detect very low levels of viruses in blood donations. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health contracted with Chiron's partner, Gen-Probe Incorporated, to develop genomic NAT testing assays and automation. All of these factors in combination have led to the development of genomic NAT as the new world standard in blood screening technology, and offers the promise of providing Americans a blood supply that is safer from risk of HIV, HCV and HBV transmission. HCV is becoming a significant public health concern, both here in California and elsewhere. Despite these remarkable advances in blood testing and safety, our work is not complete. There are new viral strains that may contaminate our blood supply. The immensely important genomic amplification technologies are at the beginning of their technological life cycle. It is vitally important that the U.S. Government continues, and increases where possible, its investment in these areas of biomedical research. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide Chiron's comments on this important public policy issue. Sincerely, Rajen Dalal, President, Chiron Blood Testing Division.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the ranking minority Member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran). He and I have become very close friends in this body. It does not mean like two Irishmen we do not disagree on occasion passionately, but I want to thank him. We disagree on some issues in this particular bill. I do not agree with everything in the bill; but like everything that comes forward in this House, it is a good bill overall. The Constitution of the United States of America, and we were all sworn and held up our hand to support the Constitution, which says that all legislation, all legislation, for the D.C. area, is from this body. We were all sworn to uphold that. If we uphold the Constitution of the United States, we will support this bill because we are legislating in the best interests. I would say to my friends on the other side that for 30 years you controlled this House, and if you take a look what happened to Washington, D.C., in those 30 years of neglect, look at the systems that are typical of the United States, you look at education. Members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, all send their children to private schools. Why? Because the D.C. system has been so terrible. But I want to tell you, I have been in some of those schools; and I have seen some wonderful dedicated teachers and schools. But where you have roofs that are caving in, that the fire department has to shut down those schools, that we do not have the support over that 30 years for education systems, something is wrong. We came in and appointed boards. Another bright light is Mayor Williams. He has got a monumental task at hand to get through that bureaucracy that he has; but if you look at education and what we have done, we fully funded charter schools. When my own party in the last Congress wanted to reduce the amount of funds for the public schools, we fought, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and I, and said we reward schools for going in the right direction. We do not penalize them. Together we were able to come up with full funding for the public school systems and charter schools. I think that is a positive, and that is in this bill as well. I look at the economy. When you have month-to-month leases because you have got some members in this bureaucracy taking money under the table on a month-to-month lease, we fought together to have those leases extended so we could get business to invest in Washington, D.C. We can make this waterfront the best waterfront in the whole country, like San Diego or San Francisco or the others. But you cannot when you have got drugs going down there; and we have worked together, not only there but to clean up the Anacostia River, the worst river in the United States for pollution. The fecal count is the highest in any river in the United States. We are working together on a bipartisan fashion with the Mayor and on both sides to fix that. These are very positive things that we are working on. But I would say to my friend that there are things in this bill that I disagree with, and that my colleagues disagree with; but overall it is a good bill, and it moves not only the legislation forward, but in the long run it is the best for the D.C. residents. I would ask for full support of this. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Chairman Istook) for his work with the ranking minority Member.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I live in D.C. and have for some time. I have sat and I have talked to residents, many of them minorities, and many saying to me we need help for years and years and years. When we look at the school systems, we look at the economy, we look at the Anacostia River, the sewage systems, the crime, the drugs and the lack of response, they would say, I know you are a Republican, we are Democrat, but would you help us? I think this committee has done a lot in the last few years. I say to my colleagues that for 30 years my D.C. was kind of an anachronism, that there was not that help and we let the D.C. rule, but then we had a mayor that ended up putting more cocaine up his nose than worrying about the economy of his own city. The good news is that Mayor Williams is trying to work with us and do many of the things that we are trying to do for this city. I lived by the train station and in one year, my car was broken into twice. I heard a gunshot out my driveway, a young man was caught and said he just wanted to know what it felt like to kill somebody. Two of the women in my complex were mugged going into a locked gate. There is a grocery store, the little mom and pop store, across the street was robbed six times in one year. The residents were saying, we have to live in this, can you do something, Mr. Congressman. Our children, the roofs on their schools are falling apart. And my colleagues will remember they had to cancel schools. We fully funded schools. We established charter schools. My own party wanted to cut funds from our public funds, and we were able to work in a bipartisan way saying that our schools are moving in the right direction, let us fully fund them. And I think we have seen some movement. We have a long way to go in this Nation's Capital, but there are good teachers. There are good schools, but many of those schools are still failing and we need help. That is the direction we are working in. When I first arrived here, there was a woman on the board that was appointed by Marion Barry that could not read. She was on the committee on the budget, but she had never had an accounting course. She was a functioning illiterate, but yet she was a political appointee. We appointed a board to try and help that. And we have done a lot of very positive things in that. We wanted to work on something for D.C. We need a long-term sewage problem. Every time it rains in Washington, D.C., and it is raining right now, that raw sewage goes into the Anacostia River every time it rains. It has the highest fecal count in any river in the United States, and we need to address that. The mayor is trying to take that up as well, the cleanup of the Anacostia River. But I look at the economy. When I first came here, the city was left up to its own devices, they had month-to-month leases. Now no business is going to come into the city and make an investment, because people were getting money under the table. They had governmental control over those businesses to make them do what they wanted, and no one would invest. And we looked at the businesses. We could not even get a Safeway here because of the practices of the city councils and the government, and we have changed that, in a bipartisan way. We are starting to get investment. We have increased those leases. We are starting to get jobs into D.C., and I think that is positive change. I would say one thing about the Tiahrt amendment, if we look at his amendment on drug exchange, none of my colleagues would want one of these outside their door, because it attracts drug dealers, it attracts drug users. Needles are discarded. What his amendment says, where we have schools, where we have parks and swimming pools, where children play barefooted and fall, that we do not want to have our children to have the risk of the contracting AIDS or other diseases like hepatitis. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a support of the bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Hunter resolution expressing the sense of Congress that U.S. citizens who are injured while traveling in Mexico should have immediate access to medical treatment in the United States. We drafted this resolution in response to several instances where Americans were prevented by Mexican authorities from accessing U.S. hospitals after being injured while traveling in Mexico. Specifically, this resolution calls upon President Clinton to continue negotiations with the Mexican government to establish a humanitarian exemption to bond requirements that prevent the release of American citizens involved in accidents. One tragic example of this problem happened on August 24, 1999. Donald Kraft of Southern California was involved in an automobile accident in Baja California, Mexico, in which he suffered a broken neck and other injuries. Despite needing quality medical care that was unavailable in Mexico, Mr. Kraft was forced to wait over 18 hours before authorities approved his return to the United States pending his family posting a bond to cover damages for the collision. Mr. Kraft died a few days later in San Diego. This experience was repeated again in November 1999 when three men from Orange County were involved in an accident that killed the driver and left the two others injured. Family members were required to post an $11,000 bond before one of the victims was allowed to be transferred to San Diego where he was treated for multiple fractures, a ruptured spleen and a punctured lung. The remaining victim was required to stay in jail until family members convinced authorities that he should be transported to a Tijuana hospital. Mr. Speaker, when Americans travel abroad, they must not be denied access to medical treatment. The United States and Mexico need to agree on procedures to ensure that the horrible situations of the past never happen again. Our citizens need these protections. The Mexican government can and should make these concessions to our tourists in order to protect Americans in Mexico, and the Mexican tourism industry. My colleagues, we need to pass this resolution, I urge you to vote yes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think a better dialogue would be as to how both sides on this issue could come together. I do not support the amendment. I wish we had a White House that would not walk softly and carry a big stick of candy, and that is either a Republican or a Democrat; that would force the policies that we want. I do not believe a stick of candy to Cuba is the right thing, without a State Department that will stand up for an agreement. And I think the same thing is true with China, and I supported PNTR. We need an Intel apparatus that will let us know, because there is a national security threat with Cuba. I disagree with the gentleman that said there was not. They are a current threat, even to Guantanamo. We need to take a look at the food and medicine distribution; make sure that someone like a Red Cross or an international group would distribute that instead of giving it to Castro and letting him sell it for money and power. Those are the kind of things that could draw us together instead of just blasting each other on each side of this issue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today, on the 26th anniversary of Turkey's invasion of Cyprus, I rise to voice my concerns regarding that state's current efforts to gain entrance into the European Union. On Friday, the British Broadcasting Company reported that, ``Foreign Minister Ismail Cem and Guenter Verheugen, member of the EU commission responsible for enlargement, have said that relations between Turkey and the EU are `developing rapidly' . . . and that a compromise could be reached'' regarding Turkey's entrance into the European Union. Yet, as the EU discusses Turkey's entrance into the European union, I feel that it is necessary to discuss the human rights violations and violations of the Vienna III agreement that are currently taking place in the occupied area of northern Cyprus. Turkey still occupies 37% of the Cyprus territory, which was illegally annexed in the 1974 Turkish invasion. Currently, Turkey maintains 35,000 troops in this territory and there are still 1,400 Greek Cypriots, including four Americans of Cypriot decent, who are unaccounted for. Turkey is the only state in the world that recognizes the northern Turkish Cypriot state. In an attempt to alter the demographic make-up of the northern Cyprus region, Turkey has transplanted over 80,000 Turkish settlers to the area and has illegally distributed land belonging to evicted Cypriots-- actions prohibited by articles 9 and 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set forth in the Geneva Convention of 1949. Turkish soldiers are also responsible for destroying Byzantine churches and other places of worship. These violations have not gone unnoticed by the European commission of Human Rights, which issued a report in June of 1999 that found Turkey in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in regards to the issues of missing persons, the living conditions of the enclaved, and the properties of displaced persons. But these violations of international treaties are not new. In 1983, Turkey established unilateral independence in the area of military occupation--a direct violation of international Treaties establishing the Republic of Cyprus. Since 1974, the UN has adopted numerous resolutions calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Cyprus, the return of refugees to their homes in safety, and respect for the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity of the Republic of Cyprus. If Turkey is going to press ahead with its effort to gain acceptance into the EU and demand legitimacy in international markets, it must commit to drastic change and become more aligned with the goals and ideals central to the European Union. Eligibility for EU admittance should hinge on Turkey's willingness to abide by these treaties and withdrawal from its current position in Cyprus.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I congratulate my constituent, Gail Naughton. Today, the Intellectual Property Owner's Association will name Dr. Naughton Inventor of the Year. As the first individual woman to win this award, Dr. Naughton is being honored for the process she invented to produce human tissues and organs outside the human body. Traditionally, growing cells in a laboratory consisted of placing cells on a flat surface with a growth medium. In this process, cells behaved differently than their natural counterparts. Dr. Naughton's invention utilizes stroma cells, which are the cells that form the surrounding matrix of the tissue. Using a three-dimensional scaffolding, which is placed in a specially designed ``bioreactor'', Dr. Naughton was able to simulate the body making it possible for cells to form a tissue matrix that was virtually undistinguishable from those found in nature. Dr. Naughton's pioneering work in tissue engineering has defined a new industry dedicated to helping the millions of people who suffer tissue loss or end-stage organ failure. In addition, cartilage, heart tissue and other organs can be bioengineed with this unique human-based technology, which has the potential of addressing the significant shortage of world wide donor organs. Dr. Naughton is the co-founder and President and Chief Operating Officer of Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc. in La Jolla, California were she has developed product technology to help patients and to respond to the growing need for transplant tissues and organs. A mother of three, she received her MS in histology in 1978 and Ph.D. in 1981, both from NYU. She has been published extensively in the field of tissue engineering and is the holder or 26 U.S. patents. Through the Advanced Tissue Sciences, Dr. Naughton has produced various therapeutic products such as TranscyteTM, which is used to treat second and third degree burns, and Dermagraft\, which is used for the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers. These products represent advancements in bioengineering, manufacturing, and cytopreservation in an emerging industry. Dr. Naughton is also on the advisory boards of the Department of Bioengineering at Johns Hopkins University and Georgia Institute of Technology, and is a member of the industrial liaison board at the University of California, San Diego, the Georgia Institute of Technology, MIT, and the University of Washington. She is also a member of the board of Directors of Scripps Bank in La Jolla, California, the San Diego Burn Institute and the Charles H. and Anna S. Stern Foundation. In 1999, she received a ``Woman Who Mean Business'' award from the San Diego Business Journal. Gail Naughton deserves our congratulations for this tremendous achievement. I know that she is proud of her accomplishments, and I am proud to have her as my constituent.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, there is probably not two times in a year that I agree with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) but I do on this bill, and with the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell). I was in Hanoi and we had Americans incarcerated in their jails, and not even Pete Peterson or one of his representatives were allowed to be present during the trial. We think that is terrible. In China, they can go before a tribunal, an American, and not even have an English interpreter to let them know what they are charged for. My colleagues can imagine what it was like with Saddam Hussein or those kinds of things. And most of the American people repel those kinds of ideas. This is the United States of America. Now, I would tell people, if they are illegals coming into this country, if they are Irish coming into this country, I just want to give them a ticket back home. But I want to tell my colleagues we have those illegals dying in our deserts, in our mountains, and in our rivers. That is wrong, and we ought to stop that. But I would give them a ticket out of here. Whether they are legal or illegal, they have a right if they are brought and tried in this country or held in jail, it ought to be an inalienable right to at least know what they are charged for. I mean, I cannot even comprehend the United States of America putting somebody in jail and not letting them know what the evidence against them is. It is inconceivable. I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not take more than 30 seconds. My friend on the other side has worked diligently. As a matter of fact, this is one of the most bipartisan issues that we have, with the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) and the ranking minority on this committee. But I would say to my friends, the veterans have served this country, the United States of America, and all the citizens made a promise to keep health care. Subvention is a pilot program and a Band-Aid. TRICARE, FEHBP, we are all working on those in a bipartisan way. But that promise was made by all Americans, not just a few families.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that the other side will try and do as far as smoke and mirrors is they will talk about the President's request. Republicans brought forward the President's budget, even his tax increase. The President made false assumptions. He increased taxes, he took Social Security money to balance his budget, and he used false assumptions such as the gas prices would stay the same, and guess what? We know what happened to them. They did not vote for it, but yet they use his numbers. An example is special education. The most the Democrats when they were in power ever increased special education was 6 percent. With Medicaid, in 5 years, we put it up to 18 percent. We increased special education by $500 million this year, but yet the President's budget, which none of them voted for, wanted over $1 billion, so Republicans are now cutting special education. That is the logic, and that and tax breaks for the rich is to fool the uninformed. It is a sham.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to yield in a minute. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues will continually bash Ronald Reagan; they will continually say tax breaks for the rich, but it just is not so. They can spend, they can try and rewrite history, but it just will not work. The fact is that the left cannot stand tax relief, even if it is for the middle class. They increased the middle- class tax in 1993, they increased the tax on Social Security, they increased the gas tax, they cut the military, they even gave us a retroactive tax, if my colleagues remember that. Not many people remember that one. We have tried to go back, and we have reduced the Social Security tax; we have given working families and their children a $500 deduction. Capital gains paid for itself; ask Alan Greenspan. It gives us lower interest rates, putting Social Security into a lock box; it helps us pay down the debt, the national debt, which will take away from our children the burden that is on our backs. Yet my colleagues on the other side, in every single one of these bills, you watch, line item by line item, they want to spend more money, spend more money for this; and we could spend this if it was not for the tax break for the rich. I can see my colleagues do not like that, but it is the truth. Over and over and over again, they cannot stand tax relief. That is why they fought us on the balanced budget; that is why they fought us on welfare reform, because it takes their ability to spend away. When they spend and spend and spend more than we have coming in, that builds up the debt, and over a long period of time, it has taken its toll. Mr. Chairman, our vision is different. We pay down the national debt, keep the balanced budget going, and then we will be able to really help the people of this country by having a smaller, more efficient government, and again, which the left cannot stand.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to tell the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) that many of us on this side of the aisle, reaching way back in history to Jack Kemp, when Jack Kemp talked about Enterprise Zones and reducing the burden, what we found in the inner cities is that a lot of the businesses left, crime erupted because the businesses left because of crime; and then it became a vicious cycle of welfare and drugs and the rest of the things. People had no place to work. In Los Angeles, during the riots, the Enterprise Zone worked very good because many of those small businesses, already depressed, produced no revenue. It put people out of work. They were then drawing welfare or unemployment. Instead, then Governor Pete Wilson set up Enterprise Zones to reduce the taxes on those particular areas so that they would have a chance to start. Guess what, those small businesses came back with reduced tax rates. They hired people. So instead of drawing welfare or unemployment, it put working people to work. The Enterprise Zone, or I am not sure of the Empowerment Zone, but I would imagine it is very simple, and it worked very, very well. I do not know, but I would think that that would be under the Committee on Ways and Means. I am not sure if it is under the jurisdiction of this committee or not since it deals with taxes, but maybe the gentlewoman from Florida is talking about something different. But the concept of going in and helping people to help themselves is a good one. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, those are the gentleman's actual votes.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will not. The Contract with America the gentleman supported; the gentleman supported impeachment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, in the case of Ronald Reagan, it is the Congress that controlled spending, not the President. The President talks about the economy and how good it is. He has not passed a single budget since we took over the majority, except in 1993 when the Democrats controlled the House, the White House, and the Senate. The only mistake that I think that Ronald Reagan made was that he did not veto enough bills, but at that time the Democrats had such a large majority, it would have been difficult to override a veto. Mr. Chairman, it is the Congress that spends, not the President. The President worked with the Congress, a Democrat majority, to reduce taxes, just like President Kennedy did, because both President Kennedy and Ronald Reagan knew that if we reduce taxes, we are going to increase revenue into the Treasury, and that is a fact. You can try to dispute it, but it is a fact.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will not yield.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I understand that this amendment may be struck on a point of order. Many of us have been trying for many, many years to get this through, both under Democrat and Republican administrations. I served in the United States military, and a large portion of that was in Southeast Asia, eight different deployments on carriers all going through the Philippines, and based there for training. I was also stationed there at San Miguel for some 18 months. I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment, and I would hope that the conference chairman, in some way, even though this may be struck with a point of order, see that the gentleman is correct, there was a promise made by the United States Government, if these individuals fought on the side of the allies, that we would give them certain benefits. The gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is not asking even for the full-blown benefits that were promised, but even a neck-down version so that the cost is not too high. This does not affect the health care of American veterans; this will actually enhance it. I hope there is some way that in the conference when additional monies from revenues come into the coffers that we can find some way in the conference to support the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). The Negridos were like the Native Americans to the United States; they were native to the Philippines. They are infamous on their ability to disrupt the enemy's lines during World War II in the Philippines. The Filipino people, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) mentioned, actually walked in the Bataan death march with us; and many of those people died right alongside of Americans. Many of them died trying to free Americans in hiding and protecting them. They were executed. I mean, there is movie after movie depicting their heroism. I also want my colleagues to take a look at the involvement of the Filipino Americans in this country and what they have done for the United States of America. Every university we see is filled with Filipinos. Why? Because they believe in education. They believe in patriotism. They believe in the family unit. There has been no better group to immigrate to this country. Secondly, the United States Navy for many, many years used the Filipinos. They would give up their lives, in some cases actually give up their lives, to serve in the military. During Desert Storm, they would volunteer to serve in the military, even though they were killed, their spouses may have been shipped back to the Philippines, giving their life. We thought that that was wrong also. But I rise in support, and I would say to the Filipino community-- (the gentleman from California spoke in Tagolog)--which means I will love the Philippines forever. I was stationed there, so I speak a little Tagolog. But in this case, the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is absolutely correct. I hope we can work in a bipartisan way to bring about this amendment. It is a very small measure of what we have been trying to do for a long time. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner). Mr. Filner. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. The gentleman from California is adjacent to me in San Diego. He is a powerful voice for our Filipino American citizens. I thank him. There are no two people I would prefer to have talking on this from the other side of the aisle than the gentleman from New York (Chairman Gilman) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I appreciate the support. This is a bipartisan effort. It is a matter of historical and moral righteousness and truth. I so appreciate the statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming the balance of my time, I would say that this is a promise made by the United States Government. Most of us were not here when that promise was made, much like our friends from Guam. But there is a promise, and that promise was taken away after the war. They fulfilled their contract, and this government reneged on that particular contract. I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the chairman to give this consideration in the conference even though it will probably be struck with a point of order.