Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have got right here in front of me, it took me 5 months to compile this, I have got the votes of every one of the Democratic leadership, every single time, from the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), right on down the list, every single time that you voted to take 100 percent of the money out of the Social Security trust fund. For 40 years your budgets used money out of the Social Security trust fund. When I came here, we had $5 trillion of debt. The gentleman just said, and he is right, not quite a billion dollars a day but almost a billion dollars a day we pay on the interest when we came here. Now, if you pay down $500 billion it does not take a mathematician to figure if you are paying a billion dollars a day and there is 365 days in a year, you will end up with a lot more billions of dollars. And it keeps going up, and it keeps going up because you cannot pay it down. I heard the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) every single day when I was on the floor in the minority come in and talk, oh, the lady in the red dress. I am sorry. We need a middle-class tax cut. But in 1993, when you had the House, the White House and the Senate, you could not help yourselves. You increased the tax on the middle class. You increased the tax on Social Security. You took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund. You cut veterans COLAs. You cut military COLAs. You called it a deficit reduction plan. But yet when Republicans came we eliminated that Social Security tax. We gave a middle-class tax cut. And our policies, not one single Democrat bill or budget, not one Democrat budget from the President ever passed. As a matter of fact, Republicans brought up your budgets to show how bad they were. And for you to get up here and day after day talk about tax breaks for the rich, I talked to some of my colleagues. I said, what are you talking about? You know that is not true. And they said, it is gamesmanship. You lowered the bar too low in this House.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in condemning the Ninth Circuit Court's ruling striking down the Pledge of Allegiance as unconstitutional. This decision is unpatriotic-- particularly at this time when our nation is at war. We should be embracing symbols of national unity like our pledge of allegiance, but instead the Ninth Circuit Court is attacking them. The argument against the pledge is above all, unreasonable. By declaring the inclusion of the phrase ``under God'' as unconstitutional, the ruling implies that any mention of ``God'' is equally inappropriate. Remember--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution refer to ``the Lord'' and ``Creator'', our currency reads ``In God We Trust'', and even the oaths we take as Congressional members speak of ``God''. These references are embedded in the very foundation of our country and national identity--if we stand by and allow this change to the pledge, what will be next? Where do we draw the line? Mr. Speaker, this court decision will only lessen the already declining respect for our national symbols and for the liberties for which they stand. Yet devaluing an American symbol is unfortunately something that America has been seen before. As you know, in 1989 the US Supreme Court ruled that desecration of an American flag was a permissible and constitutional right. Nevertheless, public disrespect for such a well-known symbol only weakens the sense of a united people. When we do not protect our flag and the god-granted liberties it represents, decisions such as the one declared yesterday will certainly continue. It is just as essential for Congress to pass House Resolution 459 today as it is to pass the flag burning amendment. We must send a strong message to the courts of America: we value our liberties. We take pride in symbols of national unity. We will fight to protect the pledge and the flag to which we profess our allegiance.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, George Washington was quoted as saying, ``An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support,'' and I think that that person that brought this lawsuit forward, I do not think, I know, he has got the right to feel like he does; but it is also our right to detest that particular point of view. We stand here today, I do not care if someone is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, I think to denounce that decision that was made in Ninth Circuit Court, and I would tell my colleagues, there was a time in my own life, I was raised in a Christian family, had to go to church every Sunday. When I got out on my own, I could not say that I actually knew that there was a God at one time. On May 10, 1972, over the skies of Vietnam, my aircraft was hit with a surface-to-air missile and the airplane started going out of control, and it actually rolled upside down; and like many people, the only time I would ever ask for God's help was when I was in trouble. I remember thinking, God, get me out of this, I do not want to be a prisoner of war or die. The airplane righted itself as I took the stick and put it to the left side, and I remember thinking, God did not have anything to do with this, it was just my superior flying skills that righted this airplane; but about that time, the airplane went back upside down, and I remember thinking, God, I did not mean it, get me out of here. I will tell the people that are atheist or do not support this resolution, all they have to do is get on their knees and say a prayer and I do not care what religion they are, somebody is going to listen.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I object. I object to the last one.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and I have been friends for a long time. I have a mom. I have a grandmother that is 93 years old. I have a mother-in-law and two daughters. They just left topside. What we resent on this side, and they know the gamesmanship when they had the majority, but the inferences that Republicans do not care about our families is wrong. We do. I would give my life for my family. And I would not give a dime to drug companies if I thought it was going to hurt. Let me give an example. I had pneumonia a couple of years ago; and when I went to the doctor, the price of Augmentin was $110. My wife had prescription drug insurance through the school system where she is a teacher. That drug instead of $110 was $17. That is the free market private system, and we want more and more people to be included in that. Now, I understand if the other side of the aisle wants a government- controlled health care plan like the former First Lady tried to do with health care. That is their prerogative, but we think that is wrong. We do care about our people. No child should have to apologize because they go to get a drug, and like the President sat right up here, President Clinton, and we take care of that. But to give the inference that Republicans do not care about our families is wrong because we do. We care very much. I would also say that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), who spoke previously, since 1988, every single year she voted to take 100 percent of the money out of the Social Security trust fund, and here is the documentation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 4794, designating the Ronald C. Packard Post Office Building. Ron has a long legacy of service to San Diego and has served the community in one capacity or another since 1962. From his election to Congress in 1982 until his retirement in 2000, Ron worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of San Diego. His leadership as the chairman of the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee provided for many of the improvements to San Diego's infrastructure. Ron was also a senior member of the Transportation Subcommittee and was crucial in securing funding for many of the highway improvements and transit projects in the county. Aside from Ron's service and achievements, he is also a trusted friend. In my time in this body, I have turned to Ron many times as the senior member of the San Diego delegation for advice. Ron is one of the most sincere and genuine individuals I have ever met. His character is unquestionable and I think that we would all do well to conduct our lives with the same sense of purpose and moral wisdom as Ron. I believe that this post office is a fitting tribute to Ron Packard's career in Congress and I am pleased to lend my support to this legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would tell you, I am a veteran, the gentleman that just spoke is not, and I would say that the gentleman's party over there in 1993 talked about decreasing the tax for the middle class. They could not help themselves. When they controlled the House, the White House and the Senate, they increased even the tax on the middle class.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a family in San Diego. They are not in my district. I called him a Hispanic American and he corrected me and said, ``I'm a Mexican American, Congressman.'' That gentleman has since passed away. When he immigrated to California over 60 years ago, his family bought a piece of dirt down along the border. It is rock. You still look at it today and it looks like rock and dirt and you cannot grow anything on it and it was basically worthless. But that family worked and saved to buy that piece of land. Like most urban sprawl areas, that land became very valuable. The gentleman died. They had six children. When the tax bill on that property came up, because he did not have money to hire lawyers and to set their estate and probate and all the different things that you can do today, they tried to split the land and sell half of it just because of the interest on the default for the tax, and it did not even cover the penalty. Then they had to sell the rest of it. So those six children ended up with nothing. This is a low-income Hispanic family that had some valuable property that they wanted to hang on to for the family, and the estate tax did away with it. I am from California, but I grew up in a little town in Shelbina, Missouri. Right there, farmers are having second and third jobs just to hang on to their property. The property, the farm, if they sold it, is probably worth a lot of money, but they sure do not make a lot of money. When that family member dies, that valuable property, the government wants to come in and tax it above 55 percent, and those families cannot afford to pay that tax so they have to sell it off, and all of that 200 years of work into a piece of land, the government takes it, and that is wrong. Does anybody know where the death tax reared its early head? Not to pay for a war but it was Karl Marx's and Engels' Communist Manifesto. Fact: Karl Marx knew that if you took property away from people and the benefits and things that they had, you could control the bourgeoise, the rich versus the poor, just as my colleagues, day after day, tax breaks for the rich, use class warfare every day. The Democrat socialists of America mantra is government control of health care, government control of education, government control of private property, the highest tax possible and higher socialized spending and cut military. That is in their agenda. That is what they are trying to do. They want higher taxes. They have never found a tax that they do not like. Yet they want to take private property away from farmers and the rest of the people. I think that is wrong.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Personal items, furniture, housing equipment, personal items, movies, all kinds of things. One of them still is working over there, and I am going to make sure that she is not working there in the future. But the bottom line is the President is not cutting education. Tax breaks for the rich, we will hear over and over. Again, do not let the facts get away with the truth. Alan Greenspan said the Democrats tried to go after the President for the recession and the economy. Guess what, tax relief helped stop that. That is not the Republicans talking, that is OMB, that is Alan Greenspan, our economist. All Democrats want is an item for the election, and they cannot do it. They tried to get the President on Enron, and it did not work. They said he should have helped with Enron on the other end. That did not work. The majority leader in the Senate went after the President on the war, and that did not work. They are trying everything they can in this election year to have leverage and make an issue. Mr. Speaker, we are not cutting education. The Secretary pointed out to the gentlewoman from Ohio point by point that her statements were false. I would like to thank the gentleman. I ran over here because I serve on that committee, and it is upsetting in an election year to make false claims that the President is doing something when he is not. We may not be adding as much as the gentlewoman wants, but we are staying within the budget.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman would yield, not only was the money increased, but the accountability was not there. The Department of Education had $50 million in student loans that they could not account for. Their books were unauditable. The Democrats and their group at the Department of Education, $12 million in direct student loans went to the wrong students, and so they then had to give another $12 million up. We are shoring that up. We are not only increasing the money for education, we are making sure that it gets down to the children, and that the parents have control of it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for letting me go out of order to speak on education. I would tell the gentleman I grew up in Missouri, and many of the folks who pass away, they try to pass down their farms, and they have to sell off the farm that they have had in their family for 200 years because they cannot afford to pay the taxes on it, up to 55 percent. Mr. Speaker, this is the silly season. It is election time. We hear tax breaks for the rich. We hear the Republicans are cutting education. The White House is cutting education. Do not let the facts get in the way of the truth. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) just spoke, and I would like to address some of the things that the gentlewoman said. I was in the committee hearing with the gentlewoman when Secretary Paige came and she made the same accusations. The Secretary, point by point, refuted every single claim that the gentlewoman from Ohio was making that we are cutting education, or that the President's budget cuts education. We here on the House floor had a very bipartisan H.R. 1 vote. The President's primary concern is that no child is left behind. My wife is a special assistant to the Secretary for Education for Management, a position that the Clinton administration totally did away with and caused a lot of the fraud, waste and abuse. The Secretary told the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) point by point where the gentlewoman is wrong. The Democrats have a number for education, an increased number for education. No matter what it is, the Democrats will add to that number. They claim to be the great fiscal responsibility party; but when we look, every single budget, except for defense, they want to increase it out here beyond the budget and actually take money out of Social Security. We came up with an increase in education. We increased Pell Grants. We increased money for IDEA. The maximum amount that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle ever funded IDEA for was 6 percent. We quadrupled that. Pell Grants, all the way down the line, we have increased dollars. And something else that the President did and now that the Department of Education is in Republican hands, what they are doing, they are driving the money to the local school districts so that the parents, the teachers, and the administrators can control those dollars instead of the bureaucrats that the Democrats want to control the money. They want more money in an election cycle so they can pass it down and have bigger bureaucracies. We want to get it down to the classrooms. The President is also making sure that there is accountability with those dollars. My wife sits on the management team over there in the Department of Education. Do Members realize under the Clinton administration the folks that worked over there had over $400,000 on their credit cards? There were over 40 of them that charged houses and furniture and personal items on their credit cards. There is one lady still working with her job. The department may be afraid to go after her, but I am going to go after her donkey, and she is not going to have that job after I am through with her. It is fraud, waste and abuse.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, some of my colleagues on the other side, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), who is standing back there, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I think the majority of the Democrats are just as tough in fighting for the defense of this country as most of us. I am a veteran, and I want to tell my colleagues something. Using our military as White House waiters, to me, is not patriotic. Putting them in harm's way, our rangers in Somalia, and not giving them the tools that they need, and we saw Black Hawk Down, is not. And I would tell my colleagues on the other side, I feel the same way about our Marines that were left in Lebanon that were hurt. To me, that was not patriotic either, and that was under a Republican administration. It is not patriotic to me to cut veterans' COLAs and military COLAs for those families that fight for us and have to move all over the country. But yet in 1993, the Democrats controlled the White House, the House, and the Senate, and they did just that. I heard my colleagues talk about, well, in 1993, we had a program, an economic stimulus package, and not a single Republican voted for it. Absolutely right. Why? Because in that bill they cut military COLAs. They cut veterans COLAs. Talk about Social Security, my colleagues increased the tax on Social Security. That is a fact. And all the leadership that is standing up here today and talking about raiding the Social Security trust fund, when the Democrats had control of both bodies and the White House, they raided every dime out of the Social Security trust fund and had a $300 billion debt, plus increased spending. We inherited nearly a $5 trillion, a billion dollars a day on just nearly the interest. And has the debt gone up? Absolutely. It is kind of hard to pay off $360 billion every year that accrues, and then interest on that. Then I heard my colleagues say, well, under their leadership there was a surplus. Not one of President Clinton's economic plans passed this House with a Republican majority. Not one. And matter of fact, we restored the veterans' COLAs. We reinstated the military COLAs. President Clinton's gutting of veterans' health care we put back in. We increased it. And we increased the defense of this country, and I would say with bipartisan support with my colleagues on the committees. But when we look at or talk about the Social Security trust fund, it took me months to collect, and I have a document that I am going to bring to the floor, it is about that thick, it is every single time the Democrat leadership voted to take and steal every dime out of the Social Security trust fund. So when my colleagues talk about it, be careful, because we will point out every single time the Democrats voted to steal the money out of the Social Security trust fund. Now, was it bad? Not necessarily. Because our country is at war, and there are debts to pay. But do not demagogue here for political reasons and say that we are raising the debt to raid the Social Security trust fund when, in fact, my Democrat colleagues stole the money. We came up with a lockbox. The gentleman in the other body, who I cannot mention on the floor, threatened to filibuster for a Social Security lockbox. We had to fight that. We had to fight welfare reform on this floor with many of my colleagues. And I will say that there are many of the people on the other side of the aisle here that vote consistently against defense bills, that vote against intelligence bills, that bring amendments to the floor to gut military and intelligence every single year. To me, that is not very patriotic, my colleagues. Our military today, our kids, are hurting. We are trying to make up over a $250 billion deficit that was built up from 127 deployments: Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia. Billions of dollars. Kosovo. We flew 86 percent of the missions in Kosovo. We paid for 90 percent of that bill. That is wrong. Because who ends up paying for that? We were only keeping in 22 percent of our military under President Clinton because they were so abused in our equipment. We can do better. We can pass this bill, and we can fight for our military. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, if my colleagues on the other side only spoke about defense and not the political rhetoric, ``tax breaks for the rich,'' have you ever heard that before? ``Debt ceiling,'' which we support. Social Security, ``stealing all the Social Security money.'' The rhetoric is political, and that is why we are here today. If they would do away with that and talk about the bill and the defense of this country, we would come together. Mr. Chairman, I look at ``tax breaks for the rich.'' My colleagues in the Democrat leadership have never seen a tax that they do not like. They fight against tax relief when it comes, and then they fight to try and justify why they did not vote for tax relief for working families. In 1993 they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House, and then the majority leader said, ``Oh, we are going to have a bill, we are going to have a tax bill that has tax relief for working families and the middle class.'' What did they end up doing? They increased the tax on the middle class. They increased the tax on Social Security. They stole every dime out of the Social Security trust fund to balance their budget. Was it a balanced budget? No. That budget was $300 billion in deficit, and we were looking at approaching a $5 trillion national debt. We paid $1 billion a day on just the interest on the debt. So Democrats are not only to blame for that, Republicans are, too. But the rhetoric going on here today, saying, well, Republicans are doing this, that and that, it is just not true. It is intellectually wrong. Let me go through some things, reasons why we came together in the Committee on Appropriations, that I think is very, very important for us to realize. The previous administration, I stood on this House floor and said to my colleagues that supported extending going into Somalia that it is going to cost money and it is going to cost lives. You have seen Blackhawk Down. You know why we lost those soldiers, because an administration changed the policy of going after General Adid and reduced the number of troops in Somalia at the same time, making our troops vulnerable. And when our very military asked for help, they were turned down. It cost the Secretary of Defense his job. Was he to blame? No. And what happened? We lost a lot of people. Haiti could still be there for many more years. Go to Haiti sometime. It is one of the worst places you could ever go. Billions of dollars. Then you look at the other 127 deployments, peacekeeping deployments, that put us over $250 billion in the hole for defense. There are 14 ships, both Republican and Democrat districts. But there is even more for the national security of this country that cannot go anywhere because we had to take money out of the O&M accounts, operation and maintenance accounts, and we have not been able to fix those ships and bring them up to mission capable. We are going below a 300-ship Navy, which is detrimental to the national security of this country. The R&D accounts, the SU-27, a Russian-deployed fighter going to many, many different countries. Mr. Chairman, I have flown against Mig AIC, and our pilots died 95 percent of the time in our best airplanes, our F-14s, F-16s, F-18s, because the Russians have developed an AA-10, AA-11 and AA-12 missile. They have a helmet-mounted sight. Our kids died. We have never had that in America. We are fighting a war overseas, billions of dollars. Billions of dollars going to New York, which I think is justified, to help them recuperate. We are fighting with billions of dollars here in the United States, trying to defend this country. My good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), fought brilliantly to actually increase homeland defense. Do we want to raise the debt ceiling to help our military? Yes. Do we want to go through the political rhetoric of this bill? No.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I had not planned on speaking but the minority leader came to the floor, and he talked about Social Security trust fund safeguards, tax breaks for the rich, Social Security, Medicare, prescription drugs. Let me remind my colleagues that not a single Democrat economic package went forward when President Clinton was President. None of my colleagues' policies went forward. We passed them to create a surplus by welfare reform, by tax relief, by stimulus packages, whatsoever. Matter of fact, in 1993, the Democrats, when they had the entire majority of the House, the Senate and the White House, increased the tax on the middle class. They took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund. They increased Social Security taxes. They cut military COLAs and veterans' COLAs. So do not tell me about saving Social Security. I have been waiting for this debate. I have in my office the leadership of the Democrat party, since every one of them have been here, the number of times that they have voted to cut the Social Security trust fund, which I am going to submit. So do not talk to us about cutting the Social Security trust fund. It is just rhetoric. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we pass a lot of legislation on the floor, and I hold very seriously what we are doing today. A lot of people do not understand, I think, those that listen to us, miss the significance of what we are doing. I support first amendment rights. There are certain limitations in which I think we all agree. I just sat through a Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence hearing, which I am very limited in what I can say about the memo that was written by Mr. Williams, and the reasons why that much of the information was not passed forth is because of the politically correct environment, the liability environment, the civil liberties union going after our agents for things in doing their job in which their hands are tied. I think all of us after September 11 are living in a different world. Do we want people violated? No. But I will tell you, if an agent, whether it is DEA, whether it is customs or whether it is INS, feels that I am suspect due to my activities, due to suspicions or I am reacting a certain way, then I have no ill feelings to those individuals that search me. Every time I go through the airport now, and I do not think I look like a terrorist, although the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) says, yes, I do. I disagree with the gentlewoman from California. But every day that I go through the airport, I had a knee replacement and I have got a steel knee. I have to stand and spread eagle, they go through my bags, I have to take off my shoes and put those through the machine. Does that violate my civil liberties? Yes. But in the name of protection of this country, I feel it is very, very important. There are some inconveniences. Do you realize that today we have many of the people that we suspect as being terrorists that produce pro al Qaeda and pro bin Laden information in Arizona that are still in those flight schools? And our agents cannot deport them because under the first amendment they have got all the rights that they can. They are recruiting individuals to go fight in Afghanistan to defeat the Western world. One of the things we need to do is these individuals before a visa is ever granted, to do a better background research before we ever let them in. Because once they get in here, we sure as heck cannot get rid of them because of our politically correct laws which I feel personally endanger us in this country. We had two individuals in 1999 on an airline, known al Qaeda supporters. One looked suspicious. The other actually went up and rattled the airline door, and they stopped. These individuals were arrested when they landed. They are now suing the airline for racial profiling. I guarantee you, there is some liberal judge out there that is going to grant them the case. My point is that if a customs agent feels with their professional training that there is a problem, a risk to American citizens, they be given the right to protect us, whether it is an Irish guy like myself or anyone else. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) is one of my heroes. He is a Korean war veteran, fought for us, and we are good friends. But I think in this fine line of defense I would disagree with my friend from New York.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life and accomplishments of my friend, Paul Ecke Jr. who passed away on Monday morning after a long illness. Paul was a devoted husband and father, a leader in the San Diego Community, and a force in the poinsettia industry. While his leadership in the poinsettia business made him an international figure; it was his warm heart and caring personality that made him a community leader, and a friend. 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 like the Magdalena Ecke YMCA, the San Diego Museum of Natural History, California State University San Marcos, and the Del Mar Fair Grounds. In addition, Paul's industry has given America and the world the poinsettia for holidays. Nearly 80% of the world's poinsettias are licensed to the Ecke Ranch, and the popularity of this wonderful plant can be traced to Paul's hard work and efforts to grow the poinsettia as an indoor potted plant, and to make the plant suitable for mass production. I will never forget the first time that I met Paul. He came to meet me in my home when I was a candidate for the U.S. Congress. He walked into my living room, picked up a basket of silk flowers from the coffee table, and immediately threw it into the garbage. He told me that he would replace it with ``something better'' and later that day sent me an arrangement of fresh flowers. Paul was a man who noticed every detail, 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, friends, and fellow Americans. Earlier this week, Paul's family released a statement that read, ``In tribute to Paul's legendary support of the floral industry, we suggest that you send flowers today to someone you love.'' I ask my colleagues to join me today in honoring Paul's legacy by sending flowers to their loved ones. I have attached an editorial from our local paper paying tribute to Paul and his works. I could share countless stories, but words are insufficient to convey the extent of his kind heart, ambition, and lifetime of effort to improve our community. Paul Ecke Jr. Succumbs to Cancer (By Adam Kaye) Encinitas.--Paul Ecke Jr., who expanded both his family's worldwide leadership in the poinsettia growing business and its emphasis on local philanthropy, died Monday at 76 from cancer. Ecke Jr., who was president of Paul Ecke Ranch from 1963 until turning it over to his son in 1991, assembled the scientists and salesmen that perfected the mass production of poinsettias first developed by his father. Today, an estimated 80 percent of the poinsettias sold each year worldwide got their start, in some form, from the Paul Ecke Ranch. Together with poinsettias, Ecke Jr. leaves a legacy of philanthropy. His generosity extended to the Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA, named after Ecke Jr.'s mother, to the Del Mar Fairgrounds, local schools, Planned Parenthood and the Republican Party. Ecke Jr. also was instrumental in saving the landmark Carlsbad Flower Fields from being wiped out in the early 1990s. ``Paul Ecke Jr. was a model of what it means not only to be successful in business but also a good citizen who was almost unique in how much he gave back to the community and in particular the community's youth,'' said Assemblyman Mark Wyland, who serves on the Ecke Family YMCA board of directors. ``San Diego County owes Paul Ecke a great debt of gratitude, and he will be sorely missed.'' Ecke Jr. inherited the family poinsettia business his father, Paul Ecke Sr., started in Encinitas in 1923. The business launched Encinitas as a flower-growing hub and made the family a lowkey royalty. Ecke Sr., who died in 1991, developed the first poinsettia cultivar from a wildflower native to Mexico, so that it could be successfully grown as an indoor potted plant. Over the years, the family marketed the plant so it became synonymous with the Christmas holidays. In 1963, when Ecke Jr. became president of the family company, production shifted to small cuttings in greenhouses. The company now employs 300 people in Encinitas and 1,000 in Mexico and also has an office in Denmark to handle European distribution. Local works Ecke Jr. left his mark in North County in numerous ways, friends and colleagues said Monday. Just down the street from the Ecke Ranch on Saxony Road is Magdalena Ecke Family YMCA, which began as a 5-acre gift from the Ecke family in 1968. Twelve years later, the Ecke family added 15 acres more. Today it is one of North County's premier recreation centers, with the region's largest skateboard park, only public BMX course, gymnasiums, ballfields and pools for competitive swimming and diving. Much of the facility's growth is due to Ecke Jr.'s prodigious fund-raising efforts, said executive director Susan Hight. A member of the YMCA's board of directors for many years, Ecke Jr.'s signature fund-raiser was the holiday Poinsettia Ball. The annual benefit would raise about $75,000 a year for scholarships for children from low-income families to use the YMCA, Hight said. His ``attention to detail'' at the facility would prompt Ecke to visit regularly, to check on the landscaping, pick up trash, and eat a sack lunch while watching the children play, she said. ``He truly treasured the Y,'' Hight said. ``And he will be sorely missed. We came to love him, respect him and treasure him.'' From 1992 to 2000, Ecke Jr. was a member of the Del Mar fair board. During his tenure, the fair's flower show expanded to a nationally recognized event. ``Paul's expectations were always a little higher,'' said Chana Mannen, the fairgrounds' exhibit manager. ``He didn't stand for anything that wasn't great.'' Ecke Jr. brought to the fairgrounds a penchant for cleanliness and fresh paint. He ordered colorful landscaping for the grounds. And even when he was in his 70s, he rode the scariest rides at the fair. One of his favorites was the heart-stopping 120-foot tall bungee jump. ``He decided he'd go on it every night of the fair,'' said Andy Mauro, a former fairgrounds administrator. ``And true to form, he took great delight in involving us all. At some point during that fair we each had to swallow our fears and brave that bungee jump with Paul. None of us would have done it without him, but we all remember our accomplishment with great pride. Paul inspired those around him to reach a little further.'' Legacy of integrity Ecke Jr.'s son, Paul Ecke III, runs the family business today. The motto in the Ecke house was, ``We never give up,'' Ecke III said. That and an ironclad sense of integrity created a system that secured many business deals with a handshake. ``He showed us by example that you don't lie, cheat or steal,'' Ecke III said. Ecke III and his father both attended the little elementary school that was once known as Union School on Union Street. The school had two name changes. It became Central School; then, in 1985, became Paul Ecke-Central School, named after Paul Ecke Sr. Over the years, the family has supported the school's sixth-grade camp and literacy programs, Principal Gregg Sonken said. This year, Ecke Jr. sponsored a field trip so each of the school's students could visit San Diego Natural History Museum. ``He would frequently call and ask if he could come by the school,'' Sonken said. ``He was just a great benefactor of our school. He really took an interest in our students.'' Ecke Jr. himself was a student at San Dieguito High School, where he graduated in 1942. He soon joined the Navy and served in the Pacific aboard the 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. After a day of heavy shelling, sailors had disposed of dirt that shook loose from planter boxes in the officers' mess hall. ``He convinced the captain to send a patrol to (the North Korean) shore to get more soil,'' Ecke III said. Flower power During the years between his military deployments, Ecke Jr. earned a degree in horticulture from Ohio State University in 1949. From there, Ecke Jr. pioneered the use of greenhouses to grow poinsettias, because the controlled environment produced faster-growing plants that were less susceptible to disease. His company would become the innovator that set competitive standards in the industry, said Chuck Gainan, president of the Society of American Florists. ``People would aspire to do it as well as they do,'' Gainan said. Gainan and other agriculture experts say Ecke Jr. has given the flower industry political muscle and other support. Bob Echter is a member of the San Diego County Farm Bureau's board of directors who grows flowers on property he rents from the Eckes. ``He has always been very fair with his desire to help farmers grow and compete,'' he said. Ecke Jr. was responsible for the construction of the Floral Trade Center in Carlsbad, a trucking and distribution hub for a number of North County flower growers. Beyond North County, he lobbied Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham to include language protecting flower growers'' intellectual property in federal legislation that would become the North American Free Trade Act, said Bob Vice, a former colleague of Ecke Jr.'s on the fair board. Locally, Ecke Jr. chose not to oppose Encinitas' incorporation in 1986 as long as the family's acreage was not included as part of the city. That decision came at a time when many flower growers were against incorporation, anticipating their property taxes would rise. ``He didn't want to get involved in a controversial situation,'' said former councilman Rick Shea. ``In essence we created a city shaped like a doughnut. The Eckes were the hole in the middle.'' As the city's general plan took shape, the Eckes were open and receptive, Shea said, and eventually annexed their property into the city. Lola Larson, a longtime neighbor who attended elementary school with Ecke Jr., said he was ``very likeable and always on his best behavior.'' Except on certain days when he walked to school with boys who threw stones at a glass greenhouse. ``They eventually broke every pane,'' she said. ``Finally the owner got incensed and came to the school. He said `Who did this?' Paul jumped right up and said he did it.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues in expressing our solidarity with Israel as they join the United States in the war against terrorism and the quest for peace in the Middle East region. Israel has been a long time ally of the United States and was founded on the same democratic principles and freedoms as the United States. As President Bush leads our Nation in this new war on global terrorism, we must stand by Israel in its condemnation of the shameful attack executed on its people during Passover of this year. We must stay committed to stomping out terrorism all over the world while working toward peace between Israel and its neighbors. I admire Israel as the lone democracy in a troubled area of the world. Since 1993 Israel and the Palestinians have been engaged in intensive negotiations over the future of the West Bank and Gaza. The United States has been a consistent supporter of Israel, and I firmly support the Bush Administration's efforts to promote peace in the region and encourage countries throughout the region to condemn and prevent terrorism. By standing behind Israel now, we can prevent future terrorism and aggressively seek to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East. A few years ago in my home of San Diego, an Islamic mosque was attacked for practicing its Muslim beliefs. This action and those against Israel fail to honor the American belief in equality. We are a Nation of many cultures, many religions, many ideologies. We are Asian and Arab, European and American, a truly proud multi-cultural society. We must celebrate the diversity of this world and condemn those radical extremists who seek to promote their own beliefs through violence. Today we stand in solidarity with all of our allies, European and Arab, Judeo-Christian and Muslim, and all those who are committed to the preservation of freedom and liberty.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I oppose the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) amendments, but I think he offers it in good stead. And the reason is that so often the public sector is fraudulent, it is wasteful, it is abusive. And we found, time after time, that most of the innovations do come from the private sector. And I think a blending of the private sector and the public sector benefits both. And I think if we inhibit the private sector from interfacing and collating the information from the public service, then I think we are deficient. There is a code of ethics that is involved. Every day we use foreign military with our military. Maybe it is a bad analogy, but we benefit from our interaction with foreign military. But, yet, we also know there are some very classified things that are involved that are protected. When we have a program like this, we also have certain safeguards. One of those is called a code of ethics and what one can dispose of and what one can gather and what one can transfer to one's our own private company. But every day we public employees have the basic information from the private sector that they use every day, and the standard should be the same for public as it is for private. I laud the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). I think his intent is good, but I think the reaction is bad. I would recommend to my colleagues on both sides, a nonpartisan little pamphlet, one of the best I have ever read. It is called, ``Reflection on a Millennium'' by Alonzo McDonald. He was the president of Bendix. It goes through where we have been in this past millennium and where we are headed. One of those is technology and the benefit of technology to our society and how we can benefit. He also talks about the inhibitors to technology. Whether it is onerous rules and regulations, whether it is tax increases instead of tax cuts, whether it is unions, whatever it happens to be, it is what we can do to benefit technology until the future. I think the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) amendment would inhibit that technology growth. I know that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support this growth in the high-tech field. I want to laud the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for his bill, and I think it is good legislation, and I ask for the defeat of the Waxman amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding naval officer, Commander Laurell A. Brault, who served with distinction and dedication for over two years for the Secretary of the Navy and under the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (FM&C) as a Navy Appropriations Liaison Officer. It is a privilege for me to recognize her many outstanding achievements and commend her for the superb service she has provided to the Department of the Navy, the Congress, and our nation. On a professional level, Commander Brault has supported members of the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Defense as well as our professional and associate staffs, providing critical information on Department of the Navy plans, programs and budget decisions since January 2000. Her valuable contributions have enabled the Defense Subcommittee and the Department of the Navy to strengthen its close working relationship and to ensure the most modern, well-trained and well-equipped naval forces attainable for the defense of our great nation. As a Member of the Subcommittee representing the San Diego naval community, I have worked extensively with Laurell, and have come to greatly admire her. Although she is a quiet and very humble person, no one should mistake those qualities as weaknesses in the rough and tumble world of Washington. Laurell is a very strong, talented and reliable professional, who has worked her system to be more responsive to our needs on Capitol Hill. More than serving as a conduit of information between the legislative and executive branches, Laurell has reached out to her colleagues and taken the time to get to know us on a personal level. Nowhere is that personal touch and caring more evident than in her life outside the Pentagon. Despite the long and demanding hours she keeps as a Navy liaison, she continues to devote considerable time to her faith and community. She dedicates considerable time each week for a host of volunteer programs at her church and to an ever expanding group of ``adopted'' family that she has come to know through those efforts. I am certain that everyone who has had the opportunity to get to know Laurell and work with her is the better for it, and I am pleased to be among that fortunate group. Mr. Speaker, Laurell Brault and her husband Jim have made many sacrifices during her Navy career, and her distinguished and unselfish service has exemplified the best our nation has to offer. As they depart the Appropriations Matters Office to embark on yet another great Navy adventure in the service of a grateful nation, I call upon colleagues to wish them both every success, and the traditional Navy ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I, along with co-sponsor Mr. Filner of California, introduce legislation aimed at righting a wrong that has been inflicted on a small, hardworking, patriotic segment of our population. When our immigration laws were changed in 1996, we inadvertently affected a group of people that have stalwartly defended our nation since World War II--the Filipino servicemen of the U.S. Navy, and their families. Under the 1996 changes, life as a Filipino citizen serving our nation became much more difficult than it was in previous years. They saw their families placed in ``deferred action status'' in order to gain authorization to work. This status, however, is not a period of stay that gives them lawful presence in our country. As a result, they are subject to accruing time unlawfully present, thereby making it difficult for them to ever successfully apply for residency or citizenship. In short, if they want to work, they must accrue bad time. This is clearly an injustice and a remedy is long overdue. Any person who legally enlists to serve in the United States military should be allowed to have his immediate family reside here with him for the duration of his enlistment. And those family members should be authorized to work. Additionally, they should not accrue any ``unlawful present time'' while their husband or father is defending our nation. That is the simple purpose behind this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to swiftly pass this important legislation. While it will not affect a great number of people--the Navy only recruited approximately 400 Filipinos per year until 1991 when this recruitment ended--the people it does impact will be greatly affected.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Alexander Gonzalez, the President of California State University San Marcos. This morning, President Gonzalez was sworn in to serve on President Bush's Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans. President Bush authorized the Commission in October 2001, and charged it with creating a multi-year plan to close the educational achievement gap between Hispanic American students and their peers. On September 1, 1999 I stood beside Alexander Gonzalez while he was sworn in as the second President of the California State University at San Marcos. Together, we recognized the achievements of the University, which was celebrating its tenth anniversary, and reflected on the greatness and potential of the institution and its people. Since his inauguration, President Gonzalez has worked to make the University an epicenter for the diverse community that it serves. Under his leadership, Cal State San Marcos has expanded the National Latino Research Center, which disseminates research-based information regarding Hispanic populations in the U.S. The NLRC also facilitates the training of researchers to do research on Hispanic populations. Cal State San Marcos has also expanded The Barahona Center for the Study of Books in Spanish, which collects, catalogues, and reviews the world's only complete collection of Spanish-language books published since 1989 for children and adolescents. Programs of the Barahona Center focus on skill development in literacy, including literacy training for educators and parents, and services to assist librarians, parents, and teachers in book selection. In addition to these programs which document the history of Hispanic Americans, President Gonzalez is also working to improve their future, as Cal State San Marcos is training a new generation of teachers for our Nation's schools. As a former teacher and coach myself, both for students in public schools and for fighter pilots at the Top Gun Navy Fighter Weapons School at Miramar, I share with President Gonzalez a strong commitment to excellent education, and a desire to share this enthusiasm for learning. It is frustrating to me that our educational system has created an achievement gap between Hispanic Americans and their peers. Closing this achievement gap is going to require a fresh perspective on an old problem. Having seen the changes that Cal State San Marcos has inspired in our local community, I am confident that Alexander Gonzalez will be able to provide that perspective for the President's Commission. I am proud to rise today to recognize President Gonzalez, and I look forward to my continuing work with him to improve academic achievement for Hispanic Americans in San Diego, and now all across our great Nation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, today we are being asked to vote for a campaign finance reform bill. And, like most in this body, I see that we are currently at a place where special interest money is threatening our democracy. Votes should not and cannot be influenced by money. But in our fervor to achieve reform, let us not blindly support any piece of legislation that dons a reform mask. Rather, we owe it to our constituents to strip away the disguises and pass legislation that will actually accomplish the ends that it claims to achieve. While I applaud the ends of the Shays-Meehan legislation--to get special interest money out of politics--I cannot support the means. What good is closing one loophole only to create 50 more in the process? Today, I implore my colleagues to look at the facts and take a moment to understand what this legislation does. Please, look past the smoke and mirrors and understand the many problems with the Shays- Meehan bill. Good intentions do not equal good legislation and passing bad legislation does not fix a problem--it merely creates more problems. Americans deserve better than the pretense of reform and I would hate to see this bill pass the House today, only to revisit the issue next year after we wake up to realize the monster we have created. The Shays-Meehan legislation does not remove soft money from politics. Rather, it bans this contribution at the federal level, only to allow a union or a corporation to give up to $10,000 at the county and state level. This means that a single union or corporation will be able to give more than $30 million per election. In my estimation, not only does this not help the problem, it actually makes it worse. Instead of having a single national party collecting soft money, we will have 50 state parties collecting it. Their offices will line the streets of DC with union and corporate lobbyists throwing a parade with $10,000 checks raining down like tickertape for every state party. Is this closing a loophole or making a mockery of our system? Accountability is the key to reform. The problem with soft money is that it is hard to know where it is spent. When voters cannot discern where elected officials are getting the money to finance their campaign efforts, there is no accountability. By restricting the way that unions and corporations can participate in the political process openly, these interest groups will resort to issue advocacy and independent expenditures, activities that do not fall under any laws. Unlimited and unregulated resources can be devoted to these types of expenditures. With the passage of Shays-Meehan, accountability is out the window. We will push campaign-related activities made on behalf of candidates by outside groups into an abyss of unregulated anonymous money. Mr. Chairman, I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that is going to put more loopholes in a campaign finance system that has enough problems on its own. We need good legislation that still allows for political participation and that demands accountability. it is for this reason that I support the Ney-Wynn substitute. This legislation does not prohibit participation or force disclosure into oblivion. Rather, it sets reasonable caps on soft money contributions to national parties. Ney-Wynn allows national parties to perform one of their key functions of get-out-the-vote efforts and voter registration drives. These are efforts that are financed by soft money. Ney-Wynn allows soft money to national parties, but only to be used for these purposes. Furthermore, it regulates the types of independent expenditures that can be made by unions and corporations, specifically limiting television ads for longer than the mere 60 days as mandated under Shays-Meehan. Ney-Wynn reforms our system of financing campaigns without loopholes but with sound policy. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to closely examine these two pieces of legislation. Bad legislation with a nice name is still bad legislation. The Ney-Wynn substitute contains real reform and real reform is what we need.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on this side of the aisle are not evil. Matter of fact, I spoke to the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) staffer just yesterday. He informed me that only about 9 percent of the population that he represents own their own home, and it is difficult to think that people with tax relief in that district could help themselves more than government, but neither my district nor the gentleman from New York's (Mr. Rangel) district I think represents mid-America, and tax relief does help those individuals with money in their own pockets. I would say to my colleagues, the issue of the Social Security Trust Fund is not on this floor because in 1993, when the Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the Senate, they claimed that they wanted tax relief for the middle class. What did they do? They could not help themselves. They raised the tax on the middle class. They took every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund for domestic spending. They increased taxes, and they increased spending, and what we are saying is that we believe that for all America that tax relief, marriage penalty, death tax, more money in education IRAs benefits most of the people in America. I understand why the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) wants more government support. He is not evil. It helps his district, but in my district and I think the majority of districts, it does not, and that is what we are fighting for is across the board middle America. I would say that when we increased taxes on Social Security in 1993, when we take increased gas taxes, that hurts Americans. Look at the truckers that we had demonstrating on the lawn because it increased just in gas tax and the high cost of fuel. That is wrong, and it hurts jobs. Why are people laying off people today, over 700,000 people since September 11, and before that, we had started into a recession? Because they are not making margins. Remember in Los Angeles when we had the riots, all those businesses that were burned out, how much revenue was coming to the United States Government? Zero. But yet Jack Kemp's type law for an enterprise zone gave low-interest loans. We put money in there. We started those businesses. People started working, and the more people that worked, the more revenue we had in government. That is what we believe in, and then we can help these domestic programs. This country is at war, both domestically and overseas. Most Americans do not mind reducing the amount of growth. We will set a number, my colleagues will set a higher number. Because we do not reach their higher number, they will say we are cutting when we are actually increasing domestic programs. I understand my colleagues on the other side, but government does not do it better than people themselves.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the people in Iraq support Saddam Hussein. I do not believe that people in Iran support the religious mullahs that force terrorism all over their country. But the issue I would like to bring to the floor today is that for generations, for 100 years, the Filipino people have supported the United States; not just in thought, but in blood. I spent a lot of time in the Philippines and I know the people. I have lived there and been with them. Over 90 percent of the Filipinos support the United States presence there and the war against terrorism. I have heard some negative things about the Filipinos, and I would like to let this House know that they are loyal, they support the United States, they support democracy.