Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the dedicated service of McKing Alanis. A native of the Philippines, Mr. Alanis rose through adversity to humbly serve in the United States Navy for 29 years and six months, and has devoted the past 14 years to my staff. McKing rose from a raw recruit in the Navy, to the rank of Senior Chief with a lithographers rating. This was particularly difficult because at the time Filipinos were only allowed to serve in the Navy as stewards or in the kitchen. Mac was the outstanding recruit when he graduated from Navy boot camp. He attended the Army Engineer School, Topography-Lithography-Graphics at Ft. Belvoir in Virginia and graduated 2nd in his class of 47. During his tenure in the Navy, McKing was champion of equal rights and equal opportunities. McKing has received numerous awards for his service in the Navy, including 21 letters of commendation. Prior to joining the Navy, Mac was a disk jockey and radio personality in Naga City, Philippines. In 1965, he used the talent he developed in the Philippines to become a newscaster in his Navy off- time at AFRTS-TV in Kodiak, Alaska. McKing's involvement with the Filipino community in San Diego includes service as the President of the Bicol Club of San Diego County in 1979 and Public Relations Officer for the Council of Filipino American Organizations of San Diego County. He served as a member of the Board of Directors of the Samahan Dance Company from 2000 to 2002, and during that period was also an advisor to the Iriguenos of Southern California. Mac is the founder of the Iriga Guys Jesters, a philanthropic organization that raises funds for the poor in Iriga City. In 1997, Mac was called to Washington, D.C. to be recognized by Fil-Am-Image Magazine as one of the 20 outstanding Filipinos in the United States and Canada. For the past 14 years McKing has served as both Community and Military Liaison in the 50th Congressional District of California. One of the original members of my staff, McKing has proved vital in services helping constituents with the Department of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Immigration and Naturalization. McKing estimates that during his 14 years with the district office, he has helped my constituents resolve more than 4,000 cases. Mac has dedicated his life to what he calls the 3T concept. ``Time we cannot keep, talent is not permanent either, and treasure--please share it.'' He firmly believes that, ``the only things we can really keep are those we give away.'' Mr. Alanis is married to the lovely Susie Gonzaga Salcedo. They have three children, and are the proud grandparents of three grandsons. He has been a strong advocate of family values, equality, and has worked relentlessly to help the disadvantaged. He has been a valuable member of my team and will be missed greatly.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, l want to join my colleagues in support of H. Con. Res. 26, which recognizes the significant contributions of the Tuskegee Airmen to our national security and honors their service to a grateful Nation. As an aviator myself, I have had the honor each year to join some of the Nation's most distinguished military aviators at an event known as ``The Gathering of the Eagles.'' At those events, I have met many of the Tuskegee Airmen, and can personally attest to their character. These men are outstanding military heroes who gave so much to this Nation and set such an outstanding example for future generations of aviators. Several of them are in the pictures produced there each year hanging in my office. These African American men, determined to do their part to serve their Nation during World War II, enlisted to serve their Nation at a time when segregation limited opportunities. But they were given a chance to excel in the military. During World War II, they completed 15,500 missions, destroyed over 260 enemy aircraft, sank one enemy destroyer, and demolished numerous enemy installations. They destroyed more than 100 German aircraft while building an unprecedented record of flying with more than 200 bomber escort missions--all without the loss of a bomber. That is a huge feat. Every bit as important, they set an example for millions of Americans of every color, encouraging others to pursue careers in air and space technology. It is time this Nation give this distinguished group of aviators the credit and honor they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution recognizing these fine men and their achievements.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) talked about, in 1990, when he came to me while I was still in the military asking me about landing mats to put up for the border. He and I have actually been down there welding to get that up. Why? Why would we do that? Take this floor, if this was a farmer's field and you had a single strand of wire that was lying on the ground, that is what separated the United States and Mexico. We had truckloads of drugs coming across in a 100-mile sector that we could not stop. In 1 year, there were a number of rapes and a number of murders by the coyotes and people on the U.S. side of people trying to get across. When my colleague arranged to put up that fence, it stopped all of it. Now, there are all kinds of ways in which you can stop something here in this body. We can have hearings and say we are going to do this or that, but with the fence area, these 7 miles, another way is to waive the environmental things. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) also showed that President Clinton did this. If we do not do this, my colleagues, we will not get it done. And it will help security. Documents that we have captured from al Qaeda show that they consider the border vulnerable, with cells in Mexico itself. And so it is not just sealing off the border for security, but it is other things too. In San Diego, in California, we have about 800,000 illegals in K- through-12 education. Use half of that, use 400,000. That is $2 billion a year out of California. That does not account for the $1.5 million a day for the school lunch. Now, I cannot stop those kids. I have been in those schools. There is no way I would take that lunch away from those critters. But we need to secure our border to stop the flow coming in. If we know, with the bill of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), who is there legally, it is much easier to tell who is there illegally. So I ask my colleagues to give this support because we really need to complete this.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reject the statement made a minute ago that this is an anti-immigration bill. I support the Sensenbrenner bill. I think security is a national issue. But to suggest that this is an anti-immigrant bill is, in my opinion, wrong. We support legal immigration into this country. It is what has made this country so great. But we also need to take care of security. If you want to come in on a visa, you want to come in to be a citizen, support it. But if you are here illegally, it is wrong. Each year I have one family, just last year, the father survived. The wife died. He lost a child to illegal immigrants. I wish that was the only case. Each year we have several of these. Illegal immigrants driving and causing accidents, and people say, well, they are here; they have got to go to work. Well, they will go to work if we can get them to be legal. But not if they are here illegally. If they are in this country illegally, they need to go out and come back legally with a visa or proper method. And that is why I support the Sensenbrenner bill, to make sure we do not have metricula cards, we do not have driver's licenses to illegals, and that the driver's license has a clip to ensure that it is proper by the Federal Government.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), during the last debate I invited him to come down and look at the 7-mile area in that fence, because it is a problem. I am looking forward to working with him, because if you are an environmentalist, it is hard pan. I mean, it has totally destroyed the plants, the animals, the lizards, and it is like a venturi tube. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) first came to me in 1990 and asked where we could get landing mat, and we put that up. Why? Because the number of rapes of Mexicans who were coming across, the number of drugs that were coming across. There is one strand of wire on the ground where you could just drive from one field to another with a loaded truck, and it has stopped a lot of that. Does the fence stop illegal immigration? No. But it sure frees up a lot of the border patrol and makes it easier for them, and that 7 miles is like a venturi tube and it forces our border patrol into that area. I agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), and I am going to work with anybody over there, especially him, because he does have the expertise and he is a good friend. I agree with him that the President's budget does not include the funding. But no Clinton budget ever passed either, and we are going to add that; and with the help of my friend, we are going to add the funding for those new border patrol.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Members on both sides of the aisle. Ossie Davis was more than just an actor. All of us benefited from Ossie Davis as more than just an actor. I once heard him say that in every role that he played it was important to serve as a positive role model, and I think he did that. He held high standards. His family should be proud. He went about his work of activism very quietly, but yet he was very, very effective because when you do that, most people listen. And I think he was effective in more ways than as someone who stood up and beat on his chest. He served at a positive role model. I want to thank Ossie Davis for his role in supporting this country and for being a role model. Earlier today I wanted to also speak on the Tuskegee Airmen because they also served as a role model. I have been honored by being with the Tuskegee Airmen on several occasions. They fought for their country. They never lost a single bomber that they escorted, and they served this country proudly and also served as positive role models. Many of those role models are still alive today. So I would like to thank again Members on both sides of the aisle. Let us honor Ossie Davis for the man that he was, for the activist that he was, for the actor that he was, and the father that he was.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, over the past 20 years Congress has devoted a great deal of time and money addressing the important issues facing women's health. We created an Office of Women's Health at the NIH and we have taken great strides to increase the number of women included in heath studies. We have undoubtedly saved hundreds of thousands of women's lives, improved the quality of many millions more, and we have every reason to be proud. However, we must now begin to focus on the crisis in men's health too. The simple fact is that every year hundreds of men suffer and die needless--and entirely preventable--deaths. In 1994, Congress established National Men's Health Week, the week leading up to and including Father's Day. Unfortunately, men's health is not getting any better. I believe it is time for us to establish an Office of Men's Health. For that reason, I am introducing legislation today that will establish an Office of Men's Health at the Department of Health and Human Services to monitor, coordinate and improve men's health in America. America needs a concerted effort to combat the problems facing men's health. This year, over 230,000 men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and approximately 30,000 of these men will die. Of course, we cannot save all these men. Nevertheless, we could save a lot of them. While mammograms and Pap spears have dramatically reduced the death rate from breast and cervical cancers, the death rate from prostate cancer could be reduced by widespread use of a simple test called the PSA. But many Americans have never heard of it. I am one of the thousands of men who have been saved by a simple PSA test. I was diagnosed with prostate cancer. During my annual examination, my doctor noticed a slight elevation in the readings of a Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) test. However, it was only after a prostate biopsy that it was determined that I had cancer. Following the diagnosis, with my family, we decided that I should go ahead and have surgery. I am fortunate that my cancer was detected early, that I had a doctor who was familiar with PSA test results, and that I had healthcare coverage for my treatments. In my case, and in the cases of thousands of men, early detection and treatment have meant the difference between life and death. However, prostate cancer is only a small component of the men's health crisis: men have a higher death rate than women do for every single one of the ten leading causes of death in this country. Men are twice as likely to die of heart disease--the number one killer--40 percent more likely to die of cancer, and 20 percent more likely to die of a stroke. At the turn of the last century, men and women had equal life expectancies. At the turn of this one, women outlive men by 6 years. Admittedly, the largest part of the problem is that men do not take particularly good care of themselves. Only about half as many men as women have a regular physician. Overall, women are twice as likely as men to visit a doctor for regular check-up factoring out women's prenatal visits. So if we got men to start going to the doctor would men start living longer? Well, it could not hurt. In a study published by the Commonwealth Fund, nearly 70 percent of men over 40 who visited the doctor were not even asked whether they had a family history of prostate cancer. Men making less than $50,000 a year were even less likely to be asked. Forty percent of men over 50--who should be getting a prostate exam every single year--were not even screened by their doctors. Going to the doctor won't do anything about the fact that four times as many men commit suicide as women, that the victims of violent crime are 75 percent male, that 98 percent of the people who work in the most dangerous jobs in this country are men, and that 92 percent of people who die in the workplace are men. What can we do about this? First, we can make men's health a public priority. Just as we support public service announcements aimed at getting women to get regular mammograms and do routine self exams, we must support the same kind of campaign to get men to get regular heath checkups and do routine self exams. Testicular cancer, which is the most common cancer in men under 35, is curable if caught early enough. In addition, one of the best ways to do that is to teach boys and young men to check themselves out at least once a month. As precious as life is, men--just like women--should have the benefit of as much of it as they possibly can. Because they live so much longer, women are in the unenviable position of seeing their husbands, fathers, and even their sons suffer and die prematurely. So this year, let's spend some time figuring out what we can do to help men be better healthcare consumers and what we can do to give men the support and encouragement and resources they need to be the kind of fathers their kids need them to be and that they truly want to be. I also hope that all my colleagues will help me by supporting my legislation to establish an Office of Men's Health.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce legislation which would amend the Constitution to prevent desecration of the American flag. This measure is identical to H.J. Res. 4, which I sponsored in the last session of Congress, and language adopted by the House five times. This amendment is necessary to restore protections for the symbol of our Nation that the Supreme Court wiped away in its 1989 ruling on Texas v. Johnson. In that fateful 5-4 ruling, the Court cast aside longstanding national laws and 48 State laws recognizing the flag's special status and honoring its place in American society--ruling that its desecration is protected under the First Amendment. For those who see our flag as a revered symbol of freedom and the great sacrifices that were made to sustain it at home and abroad, that decision was a horrible affront-- and the call to action was immediate. Inspired to preserve our national trademark and unalloyed symbol of unity, Congress quickly moved to pass a law restoring flag protections. But in its 5-4 ruling on United States v. Eichman in 1990, the Supreme Court once again found that flag protections were inconsistent with free expression rights accorded under the First Amendment. That ruling made it clear that restoration of flag protections would require a Constitutional Amendment. Since that ruling, the House has five times passed a Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment with well over the two-thirds majority required. The Senate has also acted, failing to achieve the two-thirds votes necessary to move the amendment forward to the States for ratification by a mere handful of votes. Since that time, our Nation has endured some of its most difficult challenges and we have been reminded once again how important the flag is in unifying our Nation, demonstrating our resolve and honoring those who have sacrificed to protect the lives and liberties of the American people. Each color on the flag, each star and each stripe evokes emotion in me, and together they stand as a symbol of everything I believed in about this country when I fought to defend it. When I heard that some in my country were opposing my military's involvement in Vietnam, that flag reminded me of our tolerance for differences and our endurance through unity. It was a steady symbol of the liberties we enjoy--a way of life that should be protected for future generations and defended for others who aspire to it. From the soldier deployed or detained abroad to the policemen and firefighters protecting citizens in communities, it has stood as a symbol of the country we love, the reason we serve and most important, the sacrifices that have been made. There have been several major incidents of flag burning since the Court ruling in 1990. These incidents tear at me, and represent a direct attack on all I hold dear about this country. The Constitution was not designed to protect actions which jeopardize others' rights, and the government has long acted to restrict speech and conduct that could cause harm to others. Those who want to express their anger against this country have options that don't involve destroying the sacred symbol that belongs to all citizens. At a time when we are faced with increasing youth violence and cultural breakdown, restoring our most recognized sign of unity would be a positive step in the right direction--providing a steady reminder that living free comes with responsibility to respect others. Since 9- 11, the flag has come to represent even more for all Americans and a reminder of those who were lost protecting us. Allowing its desecration is an insult to all those who perished. Over 75 percent of Americans consistently agree: The time to restore protections for our flag is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this Constitutional Amendment, and to move it back to the American people for speedy ratification.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Filipino Veterans Equity Act, bipartisan legislation which would grant full recognition of the service and sacrifices of a key group of veterans and return to them the benefits promised to them by the U.S. government. On July 26, 1941, President Roosevelt issued a military order, calling members of the Philippine Commonwealth Army into the service of the United States Forces of the Far East, under the command of then Lieutenant General Douglas MacArthur. From 1941 to 1945, over 100,000 Filipinos of the Philippine Commonwealth Army fought alongside the allies to reclaim the Philippine Islands from Japan. A second group of Filipino veterans, the New Philippine Scouts (or ``Special Philippine Scouts'') enlisted under U.S. Armed Forces command after October 6, 1945. Regrettably, instead of fulfilling promises made and providing equal benefits in return for their service, Congress enacted the Rescission Act of 1946. The Rescission Act limited Filipino veterans' eligibility for service- connected disability pensions, death benefits, and other benefits provided to U.S. Armed Forces veterans. Correcting this inequity is long overdue. There are less than 50,000 survivors of the total estimated 300,000 Filipino veterans who served during World War II. Approximately 20,000 of these survivors are not receiving the full benefits they earned. By 2010, the VA estimates there will only be a total of 20,000 World War II Filipino veterans in all categories. I urge my colleagues to join me in moving this legislation forward in the 109th Congress, and working with me to provide these deserving veterans the benefits they deserve.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation to require a moratorium on leasing, exploration, and development on lands of the Outer Continental Shelf off the State of California. It is imperative to the people of California and San Diego County that we continue the Federal ban on offshore gas or oil drilling off of California's coast. The environmental sensitivities along the entire California coastline make the region an inappropriate place to drill for oil or gas using current technology. The 1989 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study confirmed that new exploration and drilling on existing leases and on undeveloped leases in the same area would be detrimental to the environment. While I believe that it is vital to explore additional domestic sources of oil, and to pursue effective energy research and conservation programs, it is clear that immediately drilling off of California's delicate shoreline would be worth far less than the threat that such drilling poses on California's beaches.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Tax Incentives to Encourage Recycling (TIER) Act, legislation to address the problem of electronic waste in this country. E-waste is a growing problem. With continuing advancements in technology, computers, televisions and cell phones are quickly becoming obsolete, and soon after arriving on the market, end up in our landfills. This equipment contains some toxic material that should be recycled or disposed of in a way that does not pose harm to the environment. For this reason, I have introduced the Tax Incentives to Encourage Recycling (TIER) Act. This bill will provide tax incentives to computer, electronic and cell phone manufacturers that implement recycling programs. The benefits are two-fold: the TIER Act will help protect the environment and will keep the costs of computers and electronic equipment low. The biggest burden to recycling is the transportation of the equipment from the residence or business to the recycling center. This legislation will provide the incentive for manufacturers or third parties to transport old equipment to recycling centers. Some state legislatures have already passed laws to impose user fees on the purchase of computer equipment. This drives up the cost of computers and only serves to further widen the digital divide. We should be working to make computer equipment more affordable for all Americans. I would like to thank my colleague, Mr. Cantor, for cosponsoring this important legislation. By providing incentives for recycling, we can keep the costs of computers reasonable and protect our environment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I hear in the Chamber about the 9/11 families. Our hearts go out to them. But our hearts also go out to the men and women we lose every day overseas in the military. Those losses are also felt. We owe the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) our gratitude for making this bill and those people safer. I disagree with my colleague that just spoke. The bill without the immigration provisions puts this country at great risk. Unfortunately, if we do not vote for this bill that has other good provisions, by voting against this bill you put this country at great risk. We have a pledge from the Speaker, and his word is gold to both sides of the aisle, that we will address these issues in January. And for the other body, they better be ready for us to camp out at their front door, because we are coming. And unless they bring this up, you are going to have a mass of people fighting for these immigration issues. It is wrong. We had in the House a 4-mile section of fence that stops illegals from coming across the border. Because of environmental concerns, the chairman on the Senate side took that out. The illegals come through there like a venturi tube. Go there and look. It is all beaten down. It is terrible for the environment. But yet it is an issue for them. And the chairman in the other body disregarded that because of environment and disregarded the security of this country. That person should have never been chairman on the other body to start with and let alone deny the gentleman from Virginia in the military on that conference. We will put these immigration provisions in, and they will be addressed in the next Congress. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) and the chairman for working on this bill and on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), even though he is an Irish kid, is like a brother, and we work very well together. Disagree, but work together. Do any of my colleagues have any idea what it is like to watch friends die? The 9/11 families do. I do not know how many of my colleagues saw Private Ryan. I lost a lot of good friends in combat. Anger, rage, disappointment, knowing that many of them did not have to. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) fixed that in this bill. It is going to save a lot of lives. To say that this bill is a shadow, I do not believe is correct in my opinion. If we look at COSCO, many wanted the China Ocean Shipping Company to take over the Long Beach shipyard. The gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I stopped that, even though we knew there were spies with the China organization taking over Long Beach shipyard, and we were able to work that in a bipartisan issue. The homeland security, our ports, one of the biggest threats that we have is our ports, and that is addressed in this bill. Where my dilemma is, is the 9/11 Recommendation No. 16 that was denied and stripped out of the bill by the other body. To me that is irresponsible, and I would ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the chairman, in a colloquy, is it the gentleman's understanding from our leadership that the immigration issues will be addressed in the 109th Congress?

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And that the President will help us in these efforts?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman; I thank the Members on both sides of the aisle. If my colleagues vote against this bill, they put this Nation at risk. Without the immigration issues, this Nation is at risk.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I wish I was as eloquent as former Member John Kasich when he got up to close a bill, but I want to say a lot of people have worked on this bill. I understand some of my colleagues are going to vote against this bill because it is very close whether many of us would vote against the bill. Many of my own constituents want the immigration provisions in there. I will look them in the eye and I will say would you give up 8,000 Border Patrols on our borders to defend us if this bill goes down? Would you give up the transportation provisions? One of the biggest risks we have is our port security. If a terrorist takes a suitcase bomb and puts it in a cargo container on the east or west coast, that is a real problem. That would go down. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues that if the President has promised us we will bring this up, if our leadership and the 9/11 families will be with us to complete the recommendations that were not brought forth in this bill, I ask my colleagues to vote for this bill, because if they do not, they will put this country at risk.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the conference report on S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act. Included in this legislation are important reforms that will ensure better coordination among national intelligence agencies, and protect our Nation against future threats while preserving the military's access to critical intelligence in the field. While I believe it is essential that we adopt this measure and reduce the risk to our Nation, I do so reluctantly because we could have done much more in that regard. Unfortunately, conferees in the other body insisted on stripping many critical provisions that would crack down on terrorists who enter and remain in this country illegally. I was pleased to join 282 of my colleagues and vote in support of the House version of 9-11 reforms, H.R. 10, in early October. That bill included many critical reforms aimed at addressing intelligence coordination and oversight, and it also included critical tools to close the immigration loopholes that terrorists can use to attack us at home. The 9-11 commissioners specifically cited these loopholes and recommend we close them. These immigration recommendations are also important reforms we should have addressed in the conference report. The House bill included provisions for expedited removal of potential terrorists, asylum restrictions, national drivers licenses standards and improved traveler screening at ports and borders. Despite the absence of these critical provisions, I believe we must move this bill forward because it does take a critical first step toward making America safer. Through the creation of a National Intelligence Director and the National Counter Terrorism Center, this measure will ensure better coordination of intelligence across the government, while protecting the timely flow of intelligence to our troops. Likewise, I am pleased we were able to include measures to strengthen our ongoing efforts to eliminate illegal border crossings. This legislation adds 10,000 new border patrol agents to intercept illegal immigrants and potential terrorists as well as 4,000 new immigration enforcement investigators to track illegal immigrants down within our borders. These agents are badly needed and will immediately improve illegal immigrant interdiction and interception operations. Additionally, this measure authorizes 40,000 more detention beds for suspected terrorists and illegal immigrants. Much better that we enact these improvements now than wait. Despite the positive steps we are taking here today, our job is not done until we address comprehensive immigration reforms. I intend on making immigration reform a priority next Congress. President Bush pledged yesterday to bring up immigration reform early next year; leadership has given me their word that they are committed to doing the same. I remain committed to fighting for passage of these sorely needed immigration reforms with my colleagues early in the next Congress, and I will not rest until we have completed that job.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, but I want to talk about the education section in the bill. I had doubts when John Porter left this committee if we had someone that could do as good a caring job, and that job turned out to be the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) and his chairmanship of this committee. I was talking to the Deputy Director of Intelligence yesterday and had just got here as the gavel went down on the special education vote. I would have voted for that. But I also want to thank the committee. If you take a look at the special education needs in this country, they are growing all the time. The increases in this bill for special education itself are at their highest level, $57 billion, $11.5 billion above last year. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) in that particular committee. The gentleman from Wisconsin is an arm- wrestling opponent, but he does a good job, and I want to thank him for the education portion of this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and was not present for rollcall vote 537, on agreeing to the Conference Report for H.R. 1350 to reauthorize the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and I have been fighting this for the last 20 years. Many of the same people that tried to stop us from putting up the fence when there were rapes and murders, there was a single line of barbed wire and people were coming right and left into the United States with truck loads of marijuana and cocaine. I resent saying this is a made-up issue. I have operated out of that Navy base. Gordon England, Secretary of the Navy, states that it is imperative, that it is dangerous to leave that hole open. Bald Eagles in a 4-mile stretch? Give me a break. We are at war. I sit on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I cannot go into specifics, but do my colleagues know where these guys are coming up? In Mexico. And do my colleagues know what? We are vulnerable. We have a base that has nuclear ships right next door that could blow up the whole waterfront. It is wrong to oppose this. We need to close the hole in the dike.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, who are the men that support our military? It is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), it is the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), it is the men and women on this committee. And who are they? Mr. Hunter's dad, R. O. Hunter, was a Marine. Duncan fought in combat. His son just got back last weekend to greet a wife and his children. I saw mothers march in a protest at the Republican convention that had lost their sons. I was not angry. I felt remorse and hurt for those people that we lost. I rode on an airplane with a young man named Eddie Wright. He is a Marine that lost both his arms. Eddie Wright, when I fastened his seat belt, he would not let me help him eat. He said, Duke, one thing a Marine learns how to do is eat, and he was trying to do that with his prosthetic arm. He felt guilty about not being able to go back to his troops. Supporting defense is more than just this bill. It is people like Ike Skelton, Silvestre Reyes, Duncan Hunter, the men and women in both bodies that care. This is a good bill. It is more than a bill. It means life, and it means death. Thank you to both of you.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I could expound to all of what is in H.R. 10, but I would like to go through a few of the differences and why. I think for anybody to espouse complete acceptance of the 9/11 Commission recommendations is irresponsible, totally irresponsible, and I will be specific. The bill that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) presented is thoughtful, caring and actually has many, many of the H.R. 10 legislation bullets in it. She has done a good job. But there are many things that I totally disagree with that I think would do more harm for this country than good. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) is a friend and we work side by side. It does not mean we have to agree on every issue. First of all, putting the National Intelligence Director under the White House, everybody knows how it works around here. The closer you are to the White House, the more political things become. If you have everything that is scrubbed through the National Intelligence Director by the White House, regardless if it is a Republican or a Democrat, that White House is going to be concerned that anything that is done is going to reflect on their next election and it is going to cause gridlock at that level. It is going to keep our intelligence agents from being flexible and mobile and have initiative. I think that is wrong, and it could harm this country's intelligence services. That is one. Secondly, control of the NID totally over the defense budget, I think that is wrong. If you look at Senator John Kerry, that is exactly what he tried to do, is gut defense, for 30 years. And if they are able to have a person as a NID control the Secretary of Defense and the entire defense budget, that is exactly what they want. It is politically motivated, and I think it is wrong. If you take a look, look at the Army Times. Seventy-two percent of the Guard, Reserves and active duty, officer and enlisted, are going to vote for G.W. Bush, and they want to stymie that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I commend both the minority and the majority for bringing this bill up as a suspension. It should pass well. But I would like to address something my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), said. It is not negative. It is just a difference of opinion and the fact that we ought to condemn our society for all of the people that are in jail. I remember a young gentleman that spray-painted a car in Singapore, and he was caned. And I guarantee you he would not do that in Singapore, although the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) did tell me he did get in trouble in the United States and then got a letter from the head of Singapore and said, I do not think he would have done that here. In many cases, our penalties are not strong enough. We found that if many times a youth will commit a crime and just get their hands slapped, he will commit another crime and get their hands slapped and each time it elevates in severity. And many times we need the counseling, we need the guidance, I agree. And in first-time offenders I think it is very important too, but in many cases the penalty is not strong enough, so we end up with more people in jail.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in 2002, the City of San Diego declared a local emergency regarding the flow of sewage across the border from Tijuana to San Diego. It is estimated that 70 million gallons per day of sewage is released into the Tijuana River Valley and flows into the Pacific Ocean. It is imperative that something be done to stop the flow of sewage from Tijuana into the Pacific. This legislation is a positive and significant step forward in ensuring that the requirements of the Clean Water Act are met. It makes the necessary changes that would effectively allow for the building of a waster water sewage treatment facility in Mexico that will process 50+ million gallons of water per day in compliance with the Clean Water Act. I have been working for years now to ensure a solution to this problem, and I believe the proposal to construct a treatment plant in Mexico is the most cost-effective solution. This bill will enable that to occur, and to eliminate the potential threat to the quality of water in the San Diego-Tijuana border at zero cost to taxpayers. This bill will ensure major environmental benefits for California and is the best option to address this serious public health and safety concern for San Diego. OMB certified that the public-private partnership approach will save significant funds. The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has completed treaty minute negotiations with Mexico. This process has taken years, and I would like to thank the IBWC for working on the issue. I would like to thank Duncan Hunter, Darrel Issa and Susan Davis for all their hard work. H.R. 4794's introduction by this delegation makes technical corrections to the base law. I would like to thank Chairman Don Young, the Ranking Member James Oberstar and Jerry Costello for all their help. This bill is a victory for San Diego, Mexico and the environment.