Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations for yielding me the time. This bill is critical to winning the war on terrorism, New York City repayment and recovery efforts, homeland security, replenishment munitions in which the gentleman from California's (Mr. Hunter) been trying to do for years, and support ongoing intelligence. While I support this emergency spending, a bill to fight the war on terrorism and aid continued recovery efforts, I must point out a section of this legislation that does not belong in this bill. It is legislation on an appropriations bill, and that is section 3002 regarding mail service to Alaska. Section 3002, the Rural Service Improvement Act of 2002, was never subject to any congressional hearings or other fact-finding events. We have got two opposing sides claiming problems on either side, and yet the chairman, a Republican, from the other body, refuses to even have a hearing on this issue. These provisions specifically target carriers that successfully and profitably transported mail for the Postal Service within the State of Alaska for many years. The Act's stated goal is to reduce costs which then actually it will increase costs from the Postal Service. Congressional approval of this legislation, without any hearings, that eliminates a single competitor from business and protects incumbent carriers from competition is wrong. Matter of fact, in my opinion, it is an abuse of power from a single Senator from the other body that is abusing his office by legislating someone out of business. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not know how to temper an event when someone legislates someone out of office and denies them going to court. To me that is unconstitutional, and the legislative business that we perform every day should not take up legislation like this on such an important bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Goss amendment. The sanctions on Cuba remind me of the people that want to lift those sanctions as the turtle and the snake story. A snake came up to the river and could not swim across it. So he asked the turtle, Please let me climb on your back and take me cross the river. And the turtle said, I cannot do that because when I get on the other side, you will sink your fangs into me put venom into me and kill me. The snake said, Trust me. I will not do that. So the turtle says, Hop on my back. And the turtle takes the snake across and just as they get to the other side, the snake sink his fangs into the turtle and envenomates him. The turtle said, But you gave me your word that you would not bite me, you would not kill me. And the snake turned to the turtle and said, I do not know what you are complaining about, you knew it was in my nature. This is in Castro's nature. Have we forgot about Che Guevara? Have we forgot about Angola? Have we forgot about the MIAs and the prisoners of war that died under his henchmen, his interrogators in Vietnam? I remember that. And until those people are brought to justice, the 74 people that Castro is harboring that are cop killers, and we are even conceiving of lifting the embargo on Castro. It is amazing. There is documented evidence that Castro works with terrorist organizations and groups. Iran, with a recent visit, biological warfare; and we are considering raising these sanctions? Remember the Bay of Pigs? You do not think he would not put missiles there and use them on us? Think who Castro is. Look at the history of this man and you want to allow the snake to climb on the United States' back and trust him? I cannot do that. It is wrong. I look at Elian Gonzalez. Maybe if you are Janet Reno this would be okay; but to me and those who have fought for this country, to allow someone that in every case in every place, when I was in the United States Navy when we would go when Cuba was getting money from Russia, we would have Cuban advisors there, Cubans in Vietnam, Cubans in Angola, Cubans in every place that the United States were going to go, ready to kill Americans, and you want to lift the embargo? It is beyond comprehension. I guess the best thing is the President will veto it. Maybe you are trying to make a political issue, but the President is going to veto this if it goes in. But Cuba is the only nation in the hemisphere where political activity of all kinds is a crime. Take a look at what this man is. And you are trying to raise those sanctions? Do not let him on our backs. I support the Goss amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, Paul Ecke, Jr., was not a Congressman, he was not a Senator, but most of the Members in this House, and the other body as well, have benefited not only from Paul Ecke, Jr., but his entire family. I rise in tribute to Paul Ecke, Jr., who passed away at the age of 76. I do so for my San Diego colleagues who are on a plane unable to make it here tonight, and also former member Ron Packard. I rise today to pay tribute to the life and accomplishments of my friend, Paul Ecke, Jr., and also my constituent. Paul was a devoted husband and father, a leader in the San Diego community, and a force in the poinsettia industry. While his leadership and the business made him an international figure, it was his warm heart and caring personality that made him a community leader and friend. The entire Ecke family has dedicated themselves to children, education, and the betterment of San Diegoans. Since I came to Congress, Paul and I have worked together on issues important to our community of San Diego and to the flower industry worldwide. Paul's boundless leadership and generosity was evident in his support of local charities. The Magdalena Ecke YMCA, which was named after his mother; the San Diego Museum of Natural History, which he dedicated personal time in the overseeing of; the California State University at San Marcos, and the Del Mar Fair Grounds. In addition, Paul's industry has given America the world's poinsettia for holidays. Eighty percent of the world's poinsettias are licensed to the Ecke ranch, not a small accomplishment. I will never forget the first time I met Paul. He came to meet me in my home when I was a candidate for United States Congress. He walked in my living room, he picked up a basket of silk flowers from my coffee table and immediately threw them in the garbage. He told me that he would replace it with something better, and later that day, he sent me an arrangement of real flowers. Paul was a man who noticed every detail and never hesitated to tell you what he was thinking, and who always followed through with his promises. Paul's life exemplified commitment and service to his community, and he leaves behind a legacy for his family, his friends, and fellow Americans to follow. Together with poinsettias, Paul Ecke leaves a legacy of philanthropy. His generosity extended not only just to the YMCA, but his father had the Paul Ecke Elementary School named after him, so we can see the entire family has been involved in education. Paul Ecke, Sr., who died in 1991, developed the first poinsettia cultivar from a wildflower native to Mexico so that it could be successfully grown in an indoor potted plant. Over the years, the family marketed the plant so it could become synonymous with the Christmas holidays. Today, the family employs 300 people in Encinitas and 1,000 in Mexico. As a member of the YMCA Board of Directors for many years, Ecke, Jr.'s signature fund raiser was a holiday poinsettia ball and annual benefit that would raise $75,000 minimum a year for scholarships for children of low-income families to use at the YMCA. From 1992 to 2000, Ecke, Jr. was a member of the Del Mar Board. During his tenure, the fair flower show expanded to a nationally recognized event. Paul Ecke, Jr.'s son, Paul Ecke, III, now runs the business and told me the motto of the Ecke family house was ``We never give up.'' Paul Ecke, III said that he showed us by example that you do not lie, you do not cheat, and you do not steal, and that you are fair. Paul Ecke, Jr., joined the Navy and served in the Pacific aboard USS Knapp. He was called back to duty in 1951 to serve as an ensign aboard the USS Perkins in the China Sea during the Korean War. Even then, his green thumb was irrepressible. Paul Ecke, Jr. told me a story about his father, that the guns had shook the ship so much that the Captain's flowerpots had jiggled all the dirt out. Paul Ecke, Jr. got the captain to go to the North Korean shore and gather more earth so that the flowers could grow on the USS Perkins. He was a horticulturist. Paul Ecke, Jr. earned a degree in horticulture from Ohio State University in 1949. From there, Ecke, Jr. pioneered the use of greenhouses to grow his flowers. He was responsible for the construction of the Floral Trade Center in Carlsbad. If any of the Members have ever attended the flower gathering once a year held over in the Cannon Building, it was Paul Ecke, Jr. who organized the entire event and gave flowers out to every Member of Congress and lady that wanted them, and most of the men as well, for their ladies. Yes, Paul was a giant man. He was not a Congressman. He was not a Senator. We will miss him. Mr. Ecke is survived by his wife, Maureen; daughter, Sara Ecke May of Greensboro, North Carolina; daughter Lizbeth Ecke; son of Paul Ecke, III, and 7 grandchildren. May God bless Paul Ecke, Jr.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3645 and thank you for the opportunity to speak about this bill. While this issue, as a matter of national honor, is one of the most important subjects that we will discuss this session, It does not capture the headlines and few Americans are even aware of it. Yet it requires no debate to determine the only honorable and right course of action. When we went to war in 1941, the people of the Philippines, then an American Commonwealth, went with us. Under Executive Order by President Roosevelt, the 4000,000 men of the Philippines military were called on to join our forces under General Douglas MacArthur. They faithfully fought with us throughout the war. They walked side by side with us during the Bataan Death March, dying at a rate exceeding that of the American troops., After the war, we passed legislation that denied these brave men status as US veterans, denying them access to veterans' benefits. I am proud to count myself among the many that fee this was wrong and not worthy of our Nation's honor. I believe that a promise made is a debt unpaid, and it is far past the proper time to correct this longstanding wrong. While passage of H.R. 3645 does not correct the entire problem it is a step in the right direction. This bill will take the step of extending VA benefits to the 11,000 Filipino WWII veterans that are living in the United States. I hope we will eventually extend this benefit to the 34,000 veterans that chose to stay in the Philippines. With passage of this bill, we will be closer to this goal. Failure to take action is a stain on our national character. As Americans we can and must set a higher standard.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes, but I rise in strong support of this amendment. I think when we come to this floor and we find ourselves in a time like this, I am excited. I see a ray of light that can finally maybe work for this problem. I agree with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). This issue is so complicated it should not be on this bill. We need to support the Rahall amendment, and we need to fix it this issue. And the positive side of this, we see Members from both sides of the aisle recognize that, A, that this problem is difficult, that it has been festering for too long and that it is wrong of what our government has done to Native Americans. How many of us, when we walked out of Dances With Wolves, felt sad? Probably sad that in what we have done to the Native Americans. What about Wounded Knee? What about Code Talkers? I do not have a reservation in my district. There is one in San Diego. I want to tell you what these Native Americans are trying to do. They are trying to stand on their own two feet, and every time they stand and they may just get one leg up, this government takes and whacks them and knocks them down. This is a chance for us to come together as Members of Congress, both in the House and in the other body, and really do some good. I want to thank my colleague, and I think that it is time that we act. Members will find that I think most of us on this side of the aisle are very, very supportive.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Virginia said that 80 percent of the Native Americans never receive funds. That is not factual. It is absolutely untrue. The study that he himself proposed cost $5 million. He said this would only cost $200,000. Well, this 13- board commission also receives full per diem, airline tickets for 18 months. This is going to cost another million bucks. And study after study after study generated by the gentleman from Virginia. He can be opposed to gaming, that is fine. But do not try and do it with study after study, because the studies that he proposed found out many of the same things he is asking in this study. The only problem is he did not get the answers that he wants, so you do another study until you get the answers that you want. It is wrong. Mr. Chairman, the Interior appropriations bill before the House does include these provisions, and it is wrong. No hearings. In the dead of night--actually it was the daytime--all of a sudden the gentleman from Virginia inserts an amendment on an appropriations bill, not authorized, not studied but in the appropriations bill. I was told by staff that if I did not object in the committee, this would be killed. And here I find it is okayed by the rules. Why? The gentleman is a cardinal and leadership recognized that. But it does not make it right. It should be eliminated. The chairman of this committee, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Skeen), is going to vote for this amendment because it is bad policy, terrible policy. There have been studies from the Department of Justice, memos from the Department of Justice to the anticrime, all recognizing the issues that the gentleman from Virginia is talking about. And you want to talk about Indian health care and education and those things. Absolutely. But visit some of these tribes. I do not have it in my district, but they are in San Diego and I visit them because they used to come down to my ranch to swim, the kids. I want to tell you, they did not have an education center. They do now. They did not have a health care center. They do now. As a matter of fact, that center studies alcoholism, which is a primary problem with Native Americans, and tied to that is diabetes. These people have pulled themselves up by their bootstrings. Just because you are against gambling, do not try to hamfist them and tie them down from doing the things that help them the most. It is just wrong. We all want to do what is right and promised, but how many times have we looked at Native Americans and tied them down in every type of endeavor? Oil on their land. We took it. Their hunting rights. We stopped them. Water rights. They have to fight tooth, hook and nail even for water rights on their own land. We took it. And here, for the first time, they found something that is viable. The study that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) commissioned found that there is no other viable, long-term, across-the-board resource that can help as much as this issue. They are doing everything that we ask. They spend millions of dollars to fund the gaming commission. They spend millions of dollars internally to fund it, and they are doing it right; and because someone is opposed to gaming, they want to stop it. That is wrong. Support the Hayworth amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would like to address in colloquy with the chairman. Would the gentleman be opposed to making that 40 minutes, primarily the next amendment? We have many, many speakers.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, most of us Republicans and Democrats come to the House to pass legislation and to help the American people. I heard a minute ago from one of the Members that the accounting bill that we passed on this floor was a sham. Well, I want to inform my colleagues that 118 Democrats voted for that. Only 40 Democrats, from the leadership, primarily, voted against it. Instead of helping the American people in a time of crisis, when the markets are bad and people are losing confidence, the Democrat leadership, once again, is playing partisan election year politics. They also say that tax relief is only for the rich. Well, listen to the facts, as stated by Alan Greenspan yesterday. Tax relief stopped the recession. It also put this economy back on a positive note. Yet my friends on the other side, the Democratic leadership, would rather say that the tax break was for the rich. This is partisan election year rhetoric. Mr. Speaker, we are here to pass legislation, not to jam it up, like the other body, which is holding 54 of our bills.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is not very often in a body like this that we get to honor someone like Joe Skeen. I remember Mr. Natcher. I was a young freshman Member of Congress in the minority; and I was upset, like I am about the Wolf portion of this bill today that is a strike against Native Americans, and I was so upset I remember Bill Natcher said, ``Well, Duke, in Kentucky, we have horse races. And sometimes those horses come out of the block so fast that they break their legs and we have to shoot them.'' And he says, ``If the gentleman will settle down, I will help him with his amendment.'' Bill Natcher was like that, and Joe Skeen is the same way. He is a gentleman, and he works in a bipartisan fashion. You will be missed here, Joe; but we will not forget you. I rise in support of the Hayworth amendment. There was a gentleman on the Republican side that offered an amendment in committee that was legislating on an appropriations bill. That is supposed to be against the rules, and yet the Committee on Rules protected his amendment. That is wrong. We stopped Members' amendments on the other side. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) knows and objects to legislating on an appropriations bill. We do it from time to time, but it does not make it right. And that is the fact with regard to this process. What we are doing as Republicans is adding a brand-new bureaucracy that oversees Indian gaming, when there has been report after report after report. This would be just another bureaucracy where a report is written that sits on a dusty shelf. Instead, let us take that money and put it toward Native American health care or education centers. We have been told there is only a 2 percent increase. Let us support the Hayworth amendment when it comes up and fight, for once, for Native Americans.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, this has been one of the more honorable debates that I have taken part in, and my utmost respect goes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar). You will not find very many times that I vote with the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), so you know when I do it, it is pretty bipartisan. But I want to tell Members that although it makes 100 percent allowable, that will never be reached. The only people that are going to be allowed in those cockpits are people that are qualified, that are trained and that complete the training; and that will never reach 100 percent, and it should not. All this did was raise the cap. If it is true that we should only have 2 percent, then why do we not just arm 2 percent of our Capitol Police? Arming 100 percent of them that are qualified makes it safer for all of us. This is a bipartisan agreement. I think that you will see the vote on the DeFazio amendment was one of the most bipartisan votes we have had this year. Not just committee members, but of this body, of this House. It is a good amendment. It makes our airways more safe. For that reason, I strongly support this. I ask Members to support the bill. And I would also like to again express my appreciation to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I understand his argument except the fact that I know, I do not have to study it, I know if I was in a cockpit of an airplane, I would want to be armed as protection because that guy is going to cut my throat and I want to be able to defend not only myself but the pilots in the back, and I do not need a pilot program.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I support not only the underlying bill but the DeFazio- Thune amendment, and let me tell my colleagues why. I spoke a little bit on the bill itself. Two percent is a good step, and I commend the chairman and the ranking member. And we had 70 percent of our pilots qualified up to 1987; as a matter of fact, our mail planes required that a weapon was carried to protect it prior. And so that is in place. I disagreed with one of the Members that spoke earlier that we do not mandate different folks. Very seldom can we take a car or in a post office or something like that and kill 3- to 10,000 people at one time. If we save one airplane, if we save one lawsuit, if one life that is lost, we are going to more than pay for this program. I support, 100 percent. I do not think that we will ever get to 100 percent, but all that does is allow the airlines of those people that are qualified. And I would demand strict regimentation in the actual training because I do not believe everyone should be allowed to carry a gun on an airplane because they are not predisposed either psychologically or physically to do so. I do not believe everybody is. A large portion of our airline pilots today are former Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, and I think they are predisposed to do that; they have carried those kinds of weapons. But our passengers deserve to feel safe. As my colleague mentioned, a wide array of security, starting with INS and Homeland Security, to when I go through, I had a knee preplacement I have to end up doing this every time at the airport and take my shoes off. It is a pain, but I have to look at the alternative, and I am glad they are doing that job. But on that airplane, once I get on that airplane, like the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) spoke about, I have seen the cockpit door open, and it is vulnerable. As a pilot with over 10,000 hours of flying both civilian and military airplanes, I know that I would never take that airplane and fly it into a building. Al Qaeda knows that, also. So the first thing they are going to do is cut the throat of that pilot and kill him and they are going to take over the airplane. As a pilot, I would want to feel a last line of defense. I hope they stop it in all the other places. I hope a marshal, which I support flying with the airplanes, would stop it. I hope a Kevlar door would stop it, but once that fails, if we have got a pilot inside that airplane that is armed, it is going to deter, as a last line of defense. Or even if those guys overtake the airplane and they are using an ax to get through that door, we know that airplane is not going to be used against New York or any other target in this thing. I feel very, very strong about that, and the fact that we need to pass this kind of legislation. The gentleman talks about costs. Tell me one family member in New York who would worry about costs or one passenger that jumps on these airplanes that would worry about costs. Our lives have changed for good in this country, forever, and unless we take up the challenge, these rascals are going to attack us. I serve on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I truly believe we stand a 100 percent chance this year of being struck by al Qaeda, 100 percent, because these rascals are out there collating in all these different countries and raising money and raising arms. And it may not be an airplane because we are vulnerable in other areas. If this amendment does not pass, I hope it does, I have got an amendment to strike it to 25 percent. I am not going to offer that because I do not want to take away from the gentleman from Oregon's (Mr. DeFazio) and the gentleman from South Dakota's (Mr. Thune) amendment and have people split off from it. But this is a well- crafted, well-designed amendment that will supply security for citizens of this country, not just airline passengers, but for the people on the ground as well. I thank the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) and the Members that support this.

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to take the whole 5 minutes, but I would like to counter some of the things the gentlewoman preceding spoke about. First of all, it is almost laughable when you talk about the tight confines. Have you ever flown an A-4 Skyhawk or an F-14? I had 20- millimeter Gatling guns in those airplanes, I could disintegrate this building in a half-second burst, and I could operate it fine. If I was landing or taking off at a Naval airfield, I can assure you, I could use it. When I was shot down over Vietnam, I had a .357 Magnum, I had a .38 flare pistol and a 9 millimeter Luger. I used them. I did not want to. When the time came, I used them, and they were effective. It let the enemy know I was armed. I probably did not hit anybody, but they knew I was armed. I want to tell the gentlewoman that just a terrorist knowing that someone in that cockpit is armed is going to deter them. If I was a terrorist and I thought only 2 percent of these pilots were armed, I might take the bet. But if I knew between 25 and 100 percent of those guys were armed, I am probably not going to play those odds because I know I am not going to win. I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), because I want to clarify something in the bill, if the gentleman does not mind. It is my understanding that someone other than a military or policeman is not eliminated from participating in the armed pilots program, is that correct? They were just given a preference?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it does not eliminate someone else?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for clarifying that. Mr. Chairman, if the DeFazio amendment fails, I am going to offer an amendment to put it at 25 percent. I will not do that if that passes. I cannot imagine it not passing, because the public has spoken, the airline pilots have spoken, and I think this House has spoken as far as that position. I understand that, in drafting a bill, you have got to work in a tight way to craft a bill that you think is the best, but I think looking at what the needs are, we need more than a 2 percent chance of these pilots bearing arms.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, not very often do we find ourselves trying to stretch out the time. I guess leadership is downtown and they want to stretch it out until 3 o'clock. One of the enjoyable things about this debate, and I see my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), but I have seen some people that, in my opinion, do not know what they are talking about. But even in that light, they were offering constructive types of legislation or comments that were in good faith. I think that is why this debate has been so healthy. Quite often on this floor we sit here, and because it is an election year, there is partisan rancor. I want to thank my colleagues on the other side that that has not been the case. There has not been a partisan issue on this, and although we may disagree, it is based on wanting to help the American public. With that, I would say that I disagree with my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), on the amendment. I would say that it has been established that it is a benefit to have our aviators armed in the cockpit. If that is the case, should we only arm 2 percent of our Capitol Police? I think not, because 100 percent of our Capitol Police armed gives us better protection. Should we arm 100 percent of our aviators? No, because I also agree with the gentleman that not 100 percent of aviators should carry a weapon, or even qualify for that. But I think a goal of that would be correct. Of those that are allowed to do that, I think the training should be very, very intensive, with modern techniques, in the problems they may incur in a highly pressurized aircraft at elevation. Our marshals carry weapons, 100 percent of them. I think we ought to achieve that goal, and the DeFazio-Thune amendment I believe should pass. I would be sad if the gentleman that has tried so hard to craft a good bill, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), would oppose it because of that; but I think that the American people have spoken, the airline pilots have spoken, and I think this body will speak, and I expect that overwhelmingly to pass. I would hope the gentleman would join us in this with enthusiasm. Mr. Chairman, I would take a look at professional aviators. I looked at the one amendment as far as preference. The reason I asked my friend if military and law enforcement had preference, but did not eliminate, I want to tell the gentleman, I have known some aviators that the only pistol they have ever handled was a .38 during qualifications when they were going through the AOC program in training; so again, they may have precedents, but there are people that I hunt and fish with that have far more experience. If we look at Suzie Brewster, a former Member's wife, I would trust her in a cockpit with a weapon, and she has never been in law enforcement or been an aviator, more than I would some of my pilot friends. I would not want those individuals eliminated. I was glad to see that they are not. I think there needs to be a real close look at the requirements and the capability and the overall experience, not just because they are in the military or in law enforcement.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the reason I did not vote for the Hostettler amendment, it required 30 percent within 30 days. There was no way to do that if the percentage was increased. I think that is why the DeFazio amendment strikes a good balance on this and gives us the maximum amount of protection. I urge my colleagues on both sides to support this bill. It is a good bill for the American people. They want it, the American Pilots Association wants it. God bless you.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate what the chairman just spoke about. I have got over 10,000 hours in military and civilian airplanes flying Lears, G-4s, every fighter that you can name. And I would tell my colleagues first of all it is hard enough to shoot down an enemy airplane with your psyche and if a pilot ever has to shoot down a civilian airplane, we ought to give that pilot a lot of support because not just during the act but after the act it will be very difficult for that individual. But I tell my colleagues that as a pilot myself with thousands of hours, if I was going aboard an airplane either as a passenger or a pilot, I would want several things. The massive security that the gentleman spoke about before, including INS, to make sure that people are not available to do the bad things, but I would want the marshals. I would want a policy where airline hostesses are trained so that if an act takes place, then they are automatically going to strap themselves down because if someone tries to get through that cockpit, a 757 will take about two negative G's. I am going to put those guys on the top of the roof and try to break their necks and let them pick themselves up off the ground. But as a pilot, as in the Pennsylvania airplane, there is no pilot in the world that is going to take that airplane and fly it into a building. The bad guys are going to slit your throat and take over the airplane. And I want the Kevlar door. I want the marshals. But as a last line of defense to protect the passengers and myself, I would want to be armed. Not everybody should be armed, but up until 1987 pilots were armed. A large portion of our aviation pilots today are military men and women. I know Air Force and Navy aviators, and they need this type of legislation. I think it ought to be a much higher percentage. Up to 1987, over 70 percent of our pilots qualified to be armed. Mail aircraft hauling pilots were forced to carry a weapon up to this time, but as the chairman says, until political correctness came to this Nation, our lives have been changed forever. Political correctness is going to get passengers and people killed. I highly and strongly recommend this legislation, and I thank the chairman for it. But I would also say that we need lethal and nonlethal ordnance on those aircraft to support, in my opinion; and we need to support the legislation, not only this legislation but future legislation to protect passengers and the airlines and restore the confidence so that our public will fly the airways.