Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Military Time, 72 percent of the military, active, Guard, Reserves, are going to vote for President George W. Bush, not John Kerry. Why we are here today is there has been a ruse before the American public. Some people thought they would scare people into thinking the President was going to reinstitute the draft. You have been caught in your own trap. That is the reason we are here today is to show the American people that it is a spoof. When you talk about politics, you are the ones that put forth politics, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), you how I love you, and when you talk about politics on this floor, you need to take a look within your own party. It was your leadership that voted against the money to give our troops the support that they need. It was John Kerry that voted against the money to support our troops. You know that, and you are caught here today trying to spoof the American people; and shame on you, shame on you and shame on you. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about spending, deficits, taxes, Democrats, Republicans. I am going to do something a little different on the floor. I will talk about a vision for world peace. And the title is ``To Cast Aside a Friend,'' maybe a little different perspective on Saudi Arabia. There was a speech in which the individual talked about a Saudi businessman who was talking about the murderous events on September 11. We know it as 9/11. The Saudi was worried about the derailment of the partnership and alliance that Saudi Arabia and the United States have enjoyed over the past 60 years for the betterment of a free world, both for Saudi Arabia and for the United States. I recently visited Saudi Arabia for a couple of weeks, and I want to talk a little bit about what I found there, the support for the United States but yet some of the anger towards the United States, not hatred, but anger. There has been a fire storm of criticism against Saudi Arabia in the months since 9/11, and the relationships between Saudi Arabia and the United States has been condemned and vilified. I believe Saudi Arabia remains a valuable ally to the United States. The detractors will say that Saudi Arabia is an incubator for terrorism simply because many were Saudis on that flight during 9/11, and they were citizens. The individuals to whom I spoke in the cabinet and the Shura council, which is like the Congress of the United States, were in disbelief when they were told that Saudis were on that airplane. One of the reasons that some of the people who were reported on those airplanes were still walking around Saudi Arabia, so they said, no, it cannot be. It is misinformation. And when it was proven that it was, they were in disbelief. If you have a gang of thugs in a city, it does not represent the mainstream of that city. And I found through the citizens I was able to speak to, businessmen, to teachers, to almost every cabinet member, to the Shura council, to women in universities and colleges in Saudi Arabia, and I found nothing but support for the United States, and a lot want to keep the relationship and better the relationship. Osama bin Laden was targeting Saudi Arabia, not just the United States, and more specifically, he was targeting the relationship between the two countries by using Saudis as hijackers in 9/11. We know he could have used dozens of different nationalities on those airplanes, but Osama bin Laden wants to bring down the Saudi regime which condemned and expelled him years before. Second, the disparagers will say that Saudi Arabia is an incubator of terrorism because of school systems. I will be including this because I do not have time tonight to read the whole thing, but it goes into talk about the bank system, the lending system and how Saudis have shut down terrorism. I would like to first cover what I found about education. We had about 20,000 Saudi Arabian students in the United States before 9/11. One of the fathers sent his son back. He was a senior in college. And after 9/11 he went through the airplane, and INS saw that he was a Saudi student, held up his visa and made the statement, ``Okay, smile for me like a terrorist.'' This is the inhumane treatment that many of the students and the ill treatment that people from the Mideast are receiving when they come back into the United States. So when I say anger by the Saudis, not hate, in some cases, I believe it is justified. I have an individual in my district. He has been an American citizen for many, many years. His brother still lives in Saudi Arabia. His brother's son, named Bater, came through the airport as he had many, many times to come back to school within the United States. He ended up on some list. No one was able to find out what list or why that list existed. Upon arrival, he was put in handcuffs and shackled, his legs shackled like a common criminal. He was held at the airport and shipped back to Riyadh. No explanation. When he got back to Riyadh, guess what? The United States found out that the allegations were not true. Now, can you imagine how my constituent's brother treated him when he came back to Saudi Arabia? He still loves the United States. The son, Bater, loves the United States. But would there be anger? If it was my son, you bet. These are the kinds of things that Secretary Colin Powell is working on to find out, how do we allow the students to come back into the United States, $1.2 billion just from students coming in from Saudi Arabia? Seventy-five percent of the Saudi cabinet graduated from U.S. schools and colleges and universities. Most of them end up with Ph.D.s. These are the leaders running the country in Saudi Arabia; and every one of them with whom I spoke supported the United States and wanted to regain that kindling relationship. It is best in their economic and their political lives to be friends with the United States. One other area that I have heard criticism of Saudi Arabia, that they teach Wahhabism. Eighty-five percent of the curriculum in Saudi Arabia is okay by the United States; 15 percent was marginal; and 5 percent taught intolerance. Well, guess what? The Saudi government under the Crown Prince said, all right, imams, the teachers; they fired over 3,000 of these imams who were teaching intolerance. They have changed the curriculum to go along with a 100-percent okay by the United States. They either fired these imams or they actually threw them in jail, and now, they actually have a school curriculum to purport no intolerance, will be taught within the Saudi schools. The curriculum had not changed much in 40 years in Saudi Arabia, but they are doing that because they know that is also in their best interest. Now, also, 75 percent of the Shura council, that is like our Congress, Republicans or Democrats or however they are made up over there, but to the person there when I spoke to them, their Shura council supported the United States. It was an odd thing though, Mr. Speaker. Every person that had just visited the United States and the Cabinet or the Shura Council had not made those personal relationships, not made friendships, learned our economic system, learned why a free society is good. They rejected the United States and said I do not need the United States; I will send my son to Australia, or New Zealand or to England to learn. My fear, Mr. Speaker, is that in a very short time we have 75 percent of the Cabinet and the Council and the leadership in Saudi Arabia that is very strong supporters of the United States. If we lose that relationship because their sons and their daughters and this generation is going to other countries to study, we are going to lose that mass friendship toward the United States and the support that we have today, and that is scary. The next generation will be lost. Many of the businesses that support the United States are now purporting to Russia and China and Vietnam to New Zealand and Australia. We are losing $40 billion a year in just trade and business because of the way that we are treating Saudi Arabia. One of the key issues I think in the relationship is visa delay. It is critical. Secretary Colin Powell, when I spoke to him, is working diligently to make sure that we improve the visa situation and at the same time ensure national security and homeland security in visa issuance. That is a difficult task but we have got to do it. These visa restrictions are alienating students and the Saudi people themselves. In medical care and health care, most Saudis come to the United States for their health care. One of the groups were talking about health care a minute ago, but our hospitals and doctors lose over $1 billion a year from Saudis coming to our hospitals. When you take a look at the hotels, the restaurants, the transportation that they use, the firms that they contact for business, we are looking in excess of $15 billion a year that the United States loses in revenue. Four hundred in new business opportunities have been lost between 2003 and 2004. Colin Powell once said that like our Statue of Liberty our Nation has a spine of steel but our torch is a welcome torch, and that is all we are trying to do, Mr. Speaker, is to make sure that our longest-serving friend in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, remains our friend, and we castigate those that would say otherwise. I would be a fool to say that Saudi Arabia does not have its own problems. Are there people that want to kill us in Saudi Arabia? Absolutely, but I want to tell my colleagues, there are other areas in what I looked at as well. The leadership in Saudi Arabia escorted me to several banks where I witnessed American, Canadian and British auditors in every bank making sure that every single dollar that goes through there is legitimate and not going to service terrorism. They have taken their charities into one group, and anyone that invests in a charity cannot do it with cash. You cannot use an ATM card. You cannot use a credit card. The individual that puts the money into the charity has got to be identified and identify where the money is going to, penny for penny. We could not do that in this country, but yet Saudi Arabia is trying to cut off any fiscal resources that the terrorists could use, both through money laundering in their banks or through charities, and they have done a good job. It is not just with the United States. They are working with Interpol. They are working with MI5. They are working with our intelligence services on a day-to-day basis on banking, on money laundering, on charities. Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I cannot get into a lot of it, but I want to tell my colleagues that the intelligence that we receive from Saudi Arabia rivals the information that we receive from our strongest allies, and I want to tell my colleagues also, Mr. Speaker, they are suffering miserably against al Qaeda. Just in the past weeks they have killed or captured 300 al Qaeda, at a loss of many of their police and their own military. Many have realized that if they pet the wolf, the wolf is going to bite them. They are in full array trying to share as much information as they can with us and our allies. Crown Prince Abdallah Aziz and King Fahd are visionaries, Mr. Speaker. I would like to submit for the Record copies of initiatives and actions taken by Saudi Arabia to combat terrorism. There are reams of pages of loss of life of Saudi police and military that talks about the captures in here. It documents it. It talks about their international cooperation, the regard to charitable organizations, combat money laundering, legal and regulatory actions. I would also like, Mr. Speaker, to submit for the Record political and economic reforms in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and somewhere in here I think most importantly are the public statements by senior Saudi officials condemning extremism and promoting modernization. Political and Economic Reform in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia The Government of Saudi Arabia has implemented a number of political and economic reforms to encourage political participation, promote economic growth, increase foreign investment and expand employment opportunities. The Kingdom has been updating and modernizing its academic curricula, and monitoring its religious schools. It plans to hold municipal elections as part of a comprehensive streamlining of local government. In addition, the Kingdom is promoting its free market economy by privatizing twenty major state enterprises, establishing fourteen regulatory authorities to carry out reforms, improving foreign investment laws, revising a broad range of commercial laws and implementing intellectual property rights to foster innovation. It is also becoming a more significant player in international trade by seeking membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Will my friend yield for just 10 seconds on that issue and then I will leave you alone?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will be happy to provide the 9/11 report. The committee graphically details from 1990 to 2000, to when Saddam Hussein was captured, his linkage with al Qaeda and it is in the 9/11 report.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. I applied for a 1-hour Special Order, but under the rules you are only allowed 2 hours; and thanks to the goodness of my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), I am able to speak for a few minutes. Madam Speaker, my intent is to bring something different, something refreshing to a Special Order. As I listened to my colleagues on the other side, you would think that the White House and Republicans are mean-spirited, evil, and do not really care about the American public. I think it would be refreshing to listen to a Special Order that actually projects a vision. I wish it was my vision, Madam Speaker, but there are many great men that have tried to work on this, and the good news is that it is achievable. Now, tonight I only have 20 minutes left to speak. On Monday night I will have a full hour and I will expand. But history has witnessed great men with a vision accomplishing some very difficult tasks, and that vision is a safe and secure Israel. That vision is a Palestine that lives in peace beside its neighbor, Israel. It is a vision that says that the Muslim world can be supportive of both Palestine and Israel. And to make this happen, I want to go through this vision. I am just a Member of Congress. I do not have the power to bring this to fruition. But I think it is possible, and I think if all of us pull together on both sides of this aisle, it could be something that will change this world for the better, for Republicans, for Democrats, and all Americans. Can you imagine a time of peace? I know in my life I thought there would never be peace in Ireland. I am of Irish descent. A Democrat went under the Clinton administration and I think worked wonders in that part of the world. He had a vision of bringing Ireland together in a time of peace. Are there differences today? Yes. But it is a lot better than it was. That is what I want to talk about, and this is why I think it is possible, is to talk over this 20 minutes and then the hour on Monday night. First, I want to tell why I think it is possible. This is coming from a pilot that flew in Vietnam and also flew in Israel in the 1970s. It comes from a Member of Congress that is a strong supporter of Israel, but yet sees the possibility of Palestine living side by side with Israel and peace in the Middle East. I recently visited Saudi Arabia for a week. I went there with a constituent of mine who is an American citizen and has been for many years. He is an American citizen first, but he also wants that vibrant feeling that used to exist between the United States and Saudi Arabia to be rekindled. Madam Speaker, I think that vision is possible, so much so that I am willing to lay out political capital to invest in this Special Order. I would like to thank Minister Mohammed. He put together a difficult schedule in which I was able to speak to every minister in the council. I was able to talk to the Shura Council, which is like our Congress, to business leaders, to students, to families, to bankers. We even went to an orthopedic rehab center that is rivaled nowhere in the world that takes care of people with orthopedic problems. Saudi Arabia is a leader, Madam Speaker, in the Muslim community. What happens in Saudi Arabia directs the rest of the feelings in the Muslim community itself. Both Mecca and Medina are looked upon by 1.3 billion Muslims many times a day and pray towards Saudi Arabia, Muslims that want peace, not their counterparts that are active terrorists and extremists. On 9/11, Saudi Arabia saw many of the Saudi Arabians involved in the 9/11 attacks. They were shocked. And one of the reasons they were shocked is that it was purported that many of the people that were still walking around in Saudi Arabia had been linked to those aircraft crashing into our World Trade Centers, and they were not. So they acted in disbelief that a nation that had been an ally of the United States, yes, they had problems. They had problems then and they still have problems now. But the majority of Saudi Arabians have a very strong friendship and belief with the United States itself. They thought that this terrible event, when it was confirmed, the Saudi leadership at first was slow to react in some areas; but in other areas, they stepped forward. One example is they provided millions of barrels of oil right off the bat to stabilize the U.S. economy and to help us meet our needs to help New York, to help the rest of the community when jobs were being destroyed right and left. Madam Speaker, in many instances I will discuss tonight, Saudi Arabia has helped us over and over again. I want to talk about some of the things I think that hurt us, that can take away from this vision. I look at the students before 9/11 from Saudi Arabia. When I spoke to the cabinet in Saudi Arabia and I spoke to the Shura Council, 75 percent of both the cabinet and Shura Council graduated from U.S. universities. Saudi Arabians that came to this country made personal investments in this country; and to a person, not a single one that had graduated said that they want to separate the ties with the United States. Quite on the contrary. They love the United States; they want to see those relationships rekindled. But, yet, they are angry at some of the things the United States is doing towards Saudi Arabia and the rhetoric that comes out of much of our newspapers that hurts that relationship. If Osama bin Laden wanted to achieve a division with the United States and one of its best allies in the Middle East, it would try and drive a wedge between us. They feel that is exactly what Osama bin Laden did on 9/11 in using Saudis. He could have used anybody within the entire world. Let me tell my colleagues about some of these students. I spoke to cabinet members that had graduated and, as a matter of fact, Madam Speaker, the majority of those students obtained Ph.D.s. These are the people who are now leading the Saudi government, both in the Shura Council and within the cabinet itself. But those who had just visited in the United States to a person said, we do not need the United States. I am going to send my son and my daughter to Australia, to England, to Austria, to New Zealand, to English-speaking schools, because they did not make that personal friendship bond with the United States. My biggest concern, Madam Speaker, is the fact that if we lose that strong support for the United States, 30,000 students from Saudi Arabia prior to 9/11, do we know how many we have today in U.S. universities? Two thousand Saudi students. There is a fine line between issuing visas and national security. Colin Powell is working desperately to change that and weigh the differences between making sure that those visas are offered only to people that are safe; but on the other hand, we are denying access to our universities and our schools, which people within 5 to 10 years, we are going to ask to support the United States, and that support is not going to be here. That is dangerous, Madam Speaker. I will give a couple of significant issues as examples. When I talked to one of the students, one of the students who had been attending a United States university for many years had gone back and forth, a strong supporter of the United States even though he was a Saudi. When he checked in through INS, the INS agent looked at his passport and saw that he was from Saudi Arabia. The INS agent said, smile for me like a terrorist. These are the affronts that every single day Muslims in this country face, and the ignorance of some people on how it affects people. I have a constituent that lives in San Diego. He has been an American citizen for many, many years. His brother is still in Saudi Arabia. His brother's son had been a student within the United States, again for many years. He stepped foot into the United States after traveling back and forth many times, was put into handcuffs, was shackled, his legs where he could just shuffle, and shipped back to Riyadh with no explanation. And guess what? When he got to Riyadh, our agency said, oh, it is a big mistake. Now, when this constituent of mine goes to Saudi Arabia and speaks about how strong the love is that the United States has for Saudi Arabia, can we imagine what his brother purports to him about his son being shipped back without any reason and then it is proven wrong? And did the United States even offer to ship this man back? No, that is not the case. When I talked to this young man, his name is Badar, and Badar was even allowed to go get a meal. He had handcuffs, his legs were in irons, he had a tray, and as he is walking to the little cafeteria, he looks over and sees the very agents that had secured him, and he looks and says, can I pick you up anything while I am on my way? I am on my way to do that; can I help you get anything? This is the attitude of many of these young men and women who attend our universities, and it is a shame. They give us support, and the problem is that we may do away with that support in the future. Madam Speaker, I have heard over and over the media, and even some of our Members of Congress, purport that Saudi Arabia is evil. They have problems in Saudi Arabia. I sit on the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, and I also sit on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I will tell my colleagues directly, not rhetoric, not spin, but the Saudi Government is working with the United States intelligence service in which on Monday, I will purport and submit for the record reams and reams and pages of al Qaeda that they have captured, that they have killed of their own soldiers dying to help us and the rest of the world live in peace from these terrorists. Again, have they had problems in the past? Yes. Do they have problems now? Yes. But we need to help a nation that is trying to help us instead of bashing that nation. In trade, in oil, they have always been there. Now, in the 1970s, when we had our oil shortage, Saudi did not help us. But since that time, under the first George Bush, under President Clinton, and now under George W. Bush, while the world is providing us oil at $50 a barrel, Saudi Arabia is working to give it to us at $38 a barrel. In the 1970s, when some of us were old enough to remember the gas lines, it was $72 and $73 a barrel. Yet, Saudi is pushing their own wells to make sure that the United States is taken care of, not just for Republicans, but for Democrat administrations as well. Colin Powell is working desperately to resolve this as well. Let me get into one last issue before my time runs out. Some of my friends that I meet with regularly, and I meet with Jewish constituents, with Persian constituents, with Muslim and Arabic constituents, and they have told me, those who have served in Saudi Arabia, that the Saudi curriculum, education curriculum has not changed in 40 years. Eighty-five percent of that curriculum was okayed by U.S. standards. Fifteen percent was in a gray area. Five percent taught the Wahabiism, the antitolerance system. Well, guess what? Saudi not only supported the 85 percent that we support; they got rid of the 15 percent that was in a gray area. The 5 percent that taught intolerance; they fired those individuals, over 3,000 teachers that were teaching intolerance were eliminated, fired. And they actually have schools that go to purport a new curriculum to help not only not teach intolerance, but to help the Saudi education system itself. Many Americans do not recognize that, that they are trying to work in that direction. So the students coming to the United States and establishing a bond, the curriculum that they have changed to make sure that it is a curriculum not of intolerance, but of tolerance for other nations and adhere to the United States standards. I think that is significant. Madam Speaker, I am not sure how much time I have left, but I think it is a good start to set forth on Monday, when we talk about the issues and how do we get from this vision of having Palestine and Israel secure, yet to have a strong Middle East with support for a peaceful system in the viable future. Madam Speaker, I will start by saying on Monday, I am going to talk about a controversial issue. The Crown Prince Abdullah purported U.N. resolutions and supported U.N. resolutions 338 and 442, and those resolutions were adopted by the United States. They were adopted by the U.N. and NATO and all of the Arab nations. And what that did is it established a Palestinian state, a Jewish state, and if anyone violated those resolutions, the Arab nations would come to the rescue of Israel and support it. Now, I ask my colleagues, Madam Speaker, can we in today's environment continue the Israeli-Palestinian issue as it exists today? Every day people are losing their lives. I strongly feel before we ever have peace in Iraq and in Afghanistan and Egypt and Syria and Lebanon and other areas that the resolution between the Israeli and the Palestinian people has got to be fixed, and that is no easy issue. They have been fighting for a long time. So on Monday I want to give my colleagues a vision, not my vision, but a vision that has already been adopted by the United Nations, by the United States, by all of the Arab world, and supported by Crown Prince Abdullah. That is the antithesis of the direction that I would like to go forward in on Monday and give examples of how Saudi Arabia has helped the United States and other nations in the war on terror and the directions that we can go to have peace in the Middle East.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Committee on Appropriations; and of the 13 appropriations bills, on average there is an increase of $1.5 trillion on each of those appropriations bills. We came out with a budget, and the Democrats whine it is not enough. The President limits spending to 4 percent, and the Democrats say it is not enough. It is ironic they stand up here and talk about ``the debt.'' I have got friends on the Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), and I have got guys like the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and many others that support defense, but the other point for those that say, oh, defense is an issue here, well, I think for many of the people, I hope they have time to explain themselves before they die so the rest of us do not die laughing. When my colleagues talk about the support for defense, look at the Presidential candidate that has voted across the board to cut defense and look at the progressive caucus and the rest of it. In 1993 my colleagues cut their COLAs and veterans COLAs and took every dime out.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Rancho Santa Fe Historical Society on their 20th anniversary, commemorating two decades of public service. The Society dedicates itself to preserving and documenting local history; while educating members of the community and visitors on such matters. The Rancho Santa Fe Historical Society received national attention for its World War II Veterans Oral History Project. The Society has also published a book, Rancho Santa Fe: A California Village, which was just printed in its fifth edition. The book captures the distinctive beauty and an architectural quality of one of California's first planned communities through early and contemporary photographs. In 1989 Rancho Santa Fe was designated a California State Historic Landmark. The Society provides educational tours and lectures to students of all ages, and graciously offers their archives to researchers. Also, via the Architectural Review Committee, the Society offers expertise and advice on the preservation of historic homes. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to share with you the contributions and accomplishments of the Rancho Santa Fe Historical Society. Their enthusiasm and earnest efforts over the past 20 years have contributed greatly to the community of Rancho Santa Fe.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Rancho Santa Fe Historical Society on their 20th Anniversary, commemorating two decades of public service. The Society dedicates itself to preserving and documenting local history; while educating members of the community and visitors on such matters. The Rancho Santa Fe Historical Society received national attention for its World War II Veterans Oral History Project. The Society also published a book, Rancho Santa Fe: A California Village, which was just printed in its fifth edition. The book captures the distinctive beauty and the architectural quality of one of California's first planned communities through early and contemporary photographs. In 1989 Rancho Santa Fe was designated a California State Historic Landmark. The Society provides educational tours and lectures to students of all ages, and graciously offers their archives to researches. Also, via the Architectural Review Committee, the Society offers expertise and advice on the preservation of historical homes. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to share with you the contributions and accomplishments of the Rancho Santa Fe Historical Society. Their enthusiasm and earnest efforts over the past 20 years have contributes greatly to the community of Rancho Santa Fe.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio knows good and well, so does my counterpart on the Democrat side, we have testimony before the committee from the Justice Department, from the FBI, from law enforcement that this is not a good idea. And you know under President Clinton or President Bush, if they say this is what we want out of the White House, those Secretaries and those Department heads are going to say, Aye-aye, three bags full. That is what they have done in your letter today. You are putting this country at risk today. FBI has testified that these matricula cards, some individuals have up to 30 of these things. You say Mexico requires a birth certificate. Have you ever tried to get something in Mexico? I have been down there a lot, and a few dollars will get you anything. There is no database. You want to work on a bipartisan bill? You want to work something bipartisan? Let us have our U.S. Government with a database issue a card, I will support it, that is controlled by our homeland security, our FBI; but to take a Costco card out of Mexico and risk our national security, I am disappointed in this White House, I am disappointed in my own party, and I am disappointed in those on the other side that support this amendment. The gentleman from Ohio is my friend, but he is wrong on this. I have been here 14 years and nothing has ever bothered me as much from my own party to put us at risk. These cards are fake. Every single day they use these cards illegally. It is not about financial services. The FBI testified, they use these cards to gain driver's licenses. And guess what? They can get on an airplane, and they can blow it up. FBI has testified to this. Justice Department. I do not care what letter you got out of the White House or these guys that are going to say, okay, Mr. President, we'll give you a letter to support your position. It means nothing. You look at today's situation, with these folks coming over that are illegal, with these cards, using them every day, and that is wrong. I am so disappointed in my own party, I cannot believe it.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Taking my time back, why do we not do a U.S.-side card that has a database? Mexico has no database whatsoever. You can go from area to area and get a different matricula card like this. Why do we not work this out to where a U.S.-side matricula card that has a database that can actually control the services and not allow additional IDs to be formed so that these guys can drive airplanes and bomb this country? Why do we not do that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will be happy to. In the meantime, I do not want to support your amendment which in my opinion is a disaster to national security in this country. Special interests in banking, a caucus over on this side and people that want to support this, I disagree 100 percent. If you say I am fighting the White House, you are absolutely 100 percent right.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do not totally disagree with my colleague but just a little bit that just spoke, because there are limited directions of stem cell research that I think that we could all support, whether you are prolife, prochoice, which is not an issue in this case. Dr. Larry Goldstein from the University of San Diego, California, my daughter interned with him, and he does genetic research. I would like to remind my colleagues, first of all, that it was President George W. Bush that supported stem cell research in a certain line, that turned out to be tainted. There are some folks and some doctors that would actually clone people for body parts. I do not think most Americans support that, and I do not support cloning. But there is an area in which I think we can all come together. Dr. Goldstein told me that quite often a woman invests her embryos because she is going to go through chemo or radiation treatments, and maybe she wants in-vitro fertilization at a later date. But they do not save those embryos for 1,000 years. They discard them. They throw them away, because they can't save them. They are thrown down the toilet. In that case, why can we not use those stem cells to further research? They are not going to become life. They are going to be discarded, they are going to be thrown away. I think that if you sat in the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations during hearings where they have children with unique diseases, I had one little girl 8 years old, and she said, ``Congressman, you are the only person that can save my life.'' If we can come together and work in this particular area, I do not support cloning, but if they are going to be discarded, why can we not use those to enhance; save life? I have asked the President, along with Mrs. Reagan and Mary Tyler Moore and others, to work in this direction. There is a third area which Dr. Goldstein pointed out, that there are some stem cells that are so diseased it would be unethical to implant them. Doctors and researchers want to use those stem cells to be able to eliminate those diseases in children, and that is another area in which we can come together. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues, in my opinion, want to go too far. But I think we can all get around it and embrace an area in which the stem cells are going to be thrown away, they are going to be discarded, and we are this close, I say to my colleagues, to getting rid of diabetes. Let us come together on the issue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the USS Ronald Reagan and its crew on their arrival this week at their new home port of San Diego, California. I am pleased that one of the President Reagan's many legacies is the Navy's newest nuclear carrier, the USS Ronald Reagan. The ship recently set sail from Norfolk for its rightful home in San Diego. Throughout his political career, President Reagan always concluded his campaign in San Diego. He called it his ``Lucky City.'' It is only fitting that our shining city on the hill, San Diego, will be home to the USS Ronald Reagan. This ship is perhaps the most fitting tribute to Ronald Reagan's legacy of strength and security, to the imprint he had on our past, and the promise that we hold for the future. The ship's motto, ``Peace Through Strength,'' was borrowed from one of President Reagan's radio addresses and embodies the essence of his vision of national security. The USS Ronald Reagan is the most advanced aircraft carrier in the world. It has the newest hull design, two nuclear reactors, a length of 1,092 feet, a top speed over 30 knots, over 6,000 highly-trained service members, and more than 80 of the world's top aircraft. Finally, its 4.5 acres of flight deck are American territory that can be used to project our presence anywhere in the world. A United States ship is a powerful symbol and the USS Ronald Reagan stands to be the most powerful of all. It will be a welcome sight to many around the world who see it as an example of America's strength and protection of freedom. It will also bring caution to people and nations who would deny that freedom. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you urge our colleagues to join me in recognizing the outstanding service of the USS Ronald Reagan and its crew and wish them the best in all their future endeavors. San Diego anxiously awaits the arrival of the USS Ronald Reagan and our opportunity to welcome it home to its ``Lucky City.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time. I think that some speakers seem to distrust big business. Some do need it, but I would tell my colleagues, California was hit extensively with defense cuts. A lot of the jobs were lost, a lot of not just DOD but jobs in the high-tech industries, defense and so on. We have replaced a lot of our businesses with bio-tech, and quite often the young entrepreneurial company does not have the capital to start up the business. So what did they do? They reach out to scientists and say, Hey, we cannot pay you the amount necessary to study a cure for AIDS or cancer, but we can give you a piece of the rock. Some of my colleagues talked about creation of jobs. Well, we have gotten rid of the high-paying jobs and only have the low-service jobs. These quite often are high-paying jobs. It is an investment in the future, not only of the company but for the workers on all levels of that company that do have stock options. For California, our job market is improving, primarily of those young entrepreneurial companies. There are some that want to tax those, put a tax on it, but we think that that is wrong. When we could create an environment that produces jobs on all levels of the scientists, all the way from the people that take out the trash, and that is good, and it means that the economy can recover; and in the State of California it helps us, and I rise in strong support of this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would like to thank the ranking member, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the chairman. And sometimes my colleagues may think this is a free vote to vote ``no'' on. After all, it is the D.C. bill. A lot of times, if you ask Members of Congress to serve on the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, you have to pull them out from under the bed. They will not do it. But I want to tell you, if you want a rewarding job, take something like D.C. that had so many problems. I mean, instead of a sterling city like San Diego that does not need much upgrade, if you take D.C., that is where you can make the most and have the most benefit, and I think we have done that, a lot of it. A very controversial name with the Democrats is Newt Gingrich, but Newt Gingrich set a path to upgrade this city's Capital and to move it forward for the first time in decades, and I would like to remind my people that if you are thinking about voting ``no,'' think where we have come on this bill. I have seen this bill take 3 or 4 hours on the House floor. We passed it in about four minutes. Does it mean everything we agreed on? No. But we came together as Republican and Democrat Representatives, and we have done a lot. I remember when the schools could not open because the fire department had to control the schools. They were unsafe. They would not open. And that has been fixed by the folks mentioned. Summer school, we did not have a summer school, and we opened it up for the first time. We had 12,000 children volunteer for summer school, not because they had to, because they wanted to learn. That is why this opportunity scholarship program, I think, is important; and also the program of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the chairman and ranking member put forward on college scholarships and college access. I happen to believe as a conservative that there should be no child that qualifies for college that should not have that opportunity, because it is either pay-me-now or pay-me-a-lot-later by not giving education. And those are going to be the people that are the rich that we give tax breaks to from the other side, I think, some day because they have got a college education. But I look at the waterfront and the Anacostia River. One of the things that is a challenge to this committee and to this body, every time it rains in Washington, D.C., the Anacostia River is flooded from the sewage system at Washington, D.C. It has the highest fecal count of any river almost in the world. The pollutants are terrible. Fish die because the bacteria is so high, it eats all the oxygen. The waterfront has been fixed. They used to give 1-year leases, and who is going to invest in a waterfront. This waterfront is going to be like San Diego or San Francisco. It is going to be revenue-producing for the city instead of drawing money. It is already starting to do that, and that is because of this committee and Mayor Williams. I especially want to give attention to Mayor Williams and the job he has done.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate California State University San Marcos for its 15th Anniversary which will be celebrated on September 1, 2004. It is an honor to recognize the accomplishments and contributions that this university has made over the years for the City of San Marcos, and the San Diego region, and for the priceless opportunities it has provided for over 13,000 graduates. Over the past 15 years Cal State San Marcos has grown from a small campus with classes held in rented space next to a furniture store to an accredited four-year institution that is the leader for higher education in the northern San Diego region. The creation of Cal State San Marcos resulted from more than 20 years of work by business and civic leaders who understood how important a university campus could be to the region. A leader among them was Assemblyman and later State Senator William A. Craven, who obtained initial state funding for the campus. In 1990, President Bill Stacey, twelve founding faculty and key administrative support staff were hired and the campus consisted of 448 upper division students. As of today I am proud to say there are 7,777 student enrolled at Cal State San Marcos. I have closely observed the rapid growth of this institution and couldn't be more proud of its accomplishments. I have witnessed numerous campus facilities rise from the hillside where it was established, including their newest addition, the Kellogg Library. I have worked closely with past presidents, including Dr. Alexander Gonzalez, who served the institution from July 1998 to July 2003, and is currently the president of California State University Sacramento, the sixth largest campus of the twenty-three California State Universities. His successor, Dr. Karen Haynes, has come to lead Cal State San Marcos from the Victoria, Texas, campus of the University of Houston, where she was president since 1995. With the exceptional vision and value of leaders like these two, a city that embraces collegiate excellence, and a community that prides itself on positive growth, it is only befitting that a successful institution of higher education emerge. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize California State University San Marcos for 15 years of collegiate excellence and the continuing role this institution plays in enriching the lives of students. This campus is fused with boundless optimism as it prepares to meet the higher education needs of a growing region. Happy Birthday Cal State San Marcos.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of this agreement. First of all, many folks in the military that have traveled around the world, no matter where I have gone, where we needed allies, Australia has been beside us. Through all the world wars, through Desert Storm, through the continuing evolutions we are going through right now, they have been a strong ally. They deserve this. I hear many Members talking about manufacturing jobs and the loss of manufacturing jobs. For California, this benefits our manufacturers, in biotech and electronics, machinery and a whole host of others, which creates jobs. That is good for us on a fair trade measure. I also want to tell you that if you have ever been on an aircraft carrier and go into Australia, it is not much different than going into a city in the United States. Those people are friendly, they are allies, and they love the United States. I heard when I was watching on television, though, about the issue on reimportation of prescription drugs. Many nations subsidize their drugs, like Australia, like Canada, like the Netherlands; and in those cases they will not reimport them because their own government subsidizes them for low cost. They have government control of their prescription drug programs. We are working on a program to make sure that those imported drugs are safe. The Secretary has said that and is working diligently on it, and I think before long we will have a safe program where we can reimport drugs into this country and make them cheaper. But I also remind my colleagues there are a lot of other things we can do locally to make sure that happens. The FDA, we threatened to privatize them at one time because they were so slow, and they sped up. If you look at the patent laws that we have, quite often a biotech company will produce a drug, and they have got still people working in their businesses, and they do not know if they are going to be able to realize the benefits from that or not. It may take 2, 3, 4, sometimes 5 years to get through the process; and at the end of that, the patent law runs out, so they have to get an exorbitant price of that particular drug just to recoup their benefits. These are things that I think we can do locally, besides the reimportation, and make it safe. There is no one that does not support it, if it is safe for the American population. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support. I thank the chairman for the time and for bringing forth this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I will tell you why. Ask the Cuban exiles if they support this amendment. Every single one of them in my district says no. They know what Castro represents. Ask Cuban exiles all over. I want to be able to walk into a free Cuba with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), with the gentlemen from Florida, the Diaz brothers, and the millions of people that have been exiled out of Cuba. What is helping the Cubans is to get rid of Castro. Mr. Chairman, this is also personal. Here sat the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) tortured, tortured brutally by Castro interrogators. They took a pistol and blew the head off of one of our Americans that was a prisoner of war in Vietnam. Remember Elian Gonzales? Remember them shooting down an American airplane that was along their coast? You know, I do not forget things. Look at the movie Hanoi Hilton. It is not made up. I see people shaking their heads. A Castro torturer stood and held a gun to an American prisoner of war and blew his head off. Ask Sam Johnson. He was there. And it is appalling. Now, there are American stakes. Some of my friends said, Well, Duke, we are trying to open up agriculture trade. We represent agriculture districts in the opening up of sanctions to Cuba. Sometimes things are worth fighting for. Sometimes things are worth giving up. Let us give up a little bit so that the Cuban people can be free and that Castro dictator can be eliminated. God bless this country. To hell with Castro.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Fraternal Order of Police on their outstanding victory today on the passage of the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (H.R. 218). This afternoon, H.R. 218 passed the House by a voice vote, affirming this body's support for police officers across America. H.R. 218 is the number one priority for law enforcement across the country and allows qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in any jurisdiction. The bill has broad bipartisan support with 296 cosponsors. The F.O.P. has been absolutely instrumental in working with Members of Congress to bring this legislation to the floor. The F.O.P. is an outstanding organization that has served their membership well in their tireless work to bring their number one legislative priority to the House Floor. Many of us know the long history of H.R. 218 and I can safely say that were it not for the efforts of the F.O.P., their current President Chuck Canterbury, and former President Steve Young, this bill may have never seen the light of day. The benefits of H.R. 218 are two-fold--officer safety and improved public safety. Many jurisdictions do not allow off-duty officers to carry concealed weapons. Due to the unique responsibilities and dangers that come with law enforcement, off-duty officers are at a greater risk than most Americans. It is not uncommon for off-duty officers to run into people they have arrested or helped to incarcerate. There have been documented instances where felons have sought retribution against officers who helped to put them in jail or prison. It is only right that the men and women who put their lives on the line everyday when they go to work be afforded to right to protect their families and themselves while they are off-duty. These concerns apply not only to off-duty officers, but to retired officers as well. A criminal who is seeking retribution does not care that the officer who put them away is retired. It is a disservice to those men and women who risked their lives to perform a public service to be deprived of the right to defend themselves and their families simply because they retired. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the F.O.P. for all their efforts on behalf of H.R. 218 and for cops across the country. Today, I am happy to join with them in celebrating House passage of this crucial legislation and look forward to working with the F.O.P. in the future to see H.R. 218 signed into law.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I do not oppose the amendment, but I resent the implication that the President did something wrong. And I would like to read. ``That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9-11 you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process. I supported what he did going into Iraq. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. Same thing I've always been worried about North Korea's nuclear and al Qaeda, as well as North Korea giving away nuclear components.'' This is President Bill Clinton. And al Qaeda was there in Iraq. Al Qaeda had significant ties to that. Saddam Hussein paid people to blow themselves up in Israel and kill American citizens. So the implication that al Qaeda was not in Iraq I oppose. But I do not oppose going in and researching exactly what those were. [From Time Magazine, June 28, 2004] You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis that the Iraqis would be better off, we could shake up the authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East, and our leverage to make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis would be increased. At the moment the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in 1998, this is the proper language: there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin, chemical agents, unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that's all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity. After 9/11, let's be fair here, if you had been President, you'd think, Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction, right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you're sitting there as President, you're reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, ``Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process. You couldn't responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he'd [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. Same thing I've always been worried about North Korea's nuclear and missile capacity. I don't expect North Korea to bomb South Korea, because they know it would be the end of their country. But if you can't feed yourself, the temptation to sell this stuff is overwhelming. So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for. on whether the Iraq war was worth the costs It's a judgment that no one can make definitively yet. I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished his job. Having said that, over 600 of our people have died since the conflict was over. We've got a big stake now in making it work. I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack. I think if you have a pluralistic, secure, stable Iraq, the people of Iraq will be better off, and it might help the process of internal reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. I think right now, getting rid of Saddam's tyranny, ironically, has made Iraq more vulnerable to terrorism coming in from the outside. But any open society is going to be more vulnerable than any tyranny to that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think it is ironic, some people up here on the floor say we are not spending enough. They have never served in the military. They vote to cut defense. The last speaker, the gentlewoman from California, in 1993, the Frank amendment to cut Intel funding, she voted yes; in 1996, the Frank amendment to cut Intel funding, she voted yes; in 1998, the Iraq Liberalization Act, regime change, she voted yes; in 2002, authorization for military force, she voted no; in 2003, Iraq supplemental appropriations, she voted no; in 2003, intelligence authorization, to increase funding, she voted no. This is a sad day, Mr. Speaker. I have got some very good friends on this committee. Some of them I hunt and fish with. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman), during the Ronald Reagan funeral, I had tears in my eyes. She reached over and grabbed my hand to console me. That is the kind of friendship that we have on this committee, and I think one of the saddest things I see is the partisanship coming out in election-year politicking. We will still be friends after this. You say, oh, this is not partisan. That is the spin. But it is, Mr. Speaker. It is sad, and I hate to see it. All the way through, you have people that have fought the Republican Party on prescription drugs, Leave No Child Behind, energy, tax relief, the environment. You think the Republicans are the meanest people in the whole world, no matter what we do. But never before on this bill has it been so partisan, and I think it is sad, a sad day on this House floor, and election year politics. I think when you look at yesterday's vote on defense appropriations, which is the authorization for this bill, most of my colleagues voted for that. That was less funding than this. The Senate has less funding in the bill. But what our great chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) did, is restrict some of the flow of the funding. We have taken and analyzed and cut a lot of waste, fraud and abuse out of every bill, defense, education, all these bills, and we have put the money to good use. I think it is even sadder right now that we have got folks that choose to go along with their Democrat leadership. When you all elected your liberal Democrat leadership, we rejoiced, because we know there is a bill to cut the tax break for the rich in the next Bill, and we knew exactly what was going to happen to show the differences between Republicans and Democrats from your liberal leadership. But what is sad is how that leadership is driving some of the good people within your party to be partisan, and I think that is even sadder. The defense authorization, I sat clear through that thing, and the gentleman that is filing ethics violations, that is leaving this body this year, filing ethics violations, demanded he see the Taguba report. Well, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) just so happened to have it on the desk. And, guess what, that individual has not even read the report. There are 11 investigations going on. The Ronald Reagan event stopped hearings. There has never been a hearing that any member of this committee has asked for that we have not gotten, whether it is on Chalabi, whether it is on the prisons, or whether it is on other issues within that party. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss) is one of the most bipartisan chairmen, and I think the gentlewoman from California would agree Mr. Speaker, I also sit on the Defense Authorization Committee, and one of the liberal members said, ``Well, we want the Secretary of Defense to step down.'' He said, ``You know, I pray for you every day, Mr. Secretary. You are a good, respected man, but maybe you ought to step down.'' And I told the Secretary, next time someone prays for me, I hope they are not trying to put a knife in my back in the partisanship that is going on. I think it is sad here today, we hunt and fish together, we are friends. But this is wrong. Vote for this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, is it the committee position to pass this bill?

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