Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I take umbrage at some who would say that this is frivolous legislation. Mr. Speaker, to me, patriotism demands more than standing on the House floor and stating that we are all patriotic or we all support the troops. Check the record of those Members that consistently vote against defense bills or intel or even our veterans. It is just not true. To me, there are Members who are unpatriotic in this body. I would say that voting against this bill in itself is not unpatriotic. People have different reasons. But patriotism is always unfinished business. It requires action, not just verbiage. And I state again that a vote against this bill does not mean you are unpatriotic, but I think there is a combination of votes and support for our troops and our country that does classify some people with those actions. Mr. Speaker, a few months ago, I watched on television as they played the series ``Glory.'' It was about a regiment of African American troops that volunteered to go up to the front. They knew in attacking a fort that it would be certain death. And as Denzel Washington, the actor, and his crowd started to go forward to this and attack, knowing that they would most certainly die, the question was asked, ``If I should fall, who will carry this flag?'' And echoed down the ranks was, ``I will,'' ``I will,'' ``I will,'' and they each did so. Each time the flag fell, African Americans picked up that flag and carried it forward. Thousands upon thousands of African Americans died protecting that flag. Who rejects the arguments of the few? This bill will pass. The same group rejects it every time. My friend, who is a libertarian, he votes against it. Many of the far left vote against it. Some people, in my opinion, attempt to hide behind the first amendment. But who says that they are wrong? Two hundred years of tradition. Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, our forefathers, came forward and said that the flag is worth protecting. In the Civil War, and I am not proposing this, but in the Civil War there was the penalty of death in desecrating the flag. That is extreme. But who says they are wrong are 80 percent of the American people. All 50 States have said they will ratify this if we pass this legislation on the floor. All 50 States, 80 percent of the American people, and 100 percent of the veterans groups. Look around and see the veterans groups around Capitol Hill today. They support this legislation. They do not think it is frivolous. They do not think it is unnecessary. They do not think it violates the Constitution, because of 200 years of tradition. One Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, changed 200 years. Mr. Speaker, we are saying that that is wrong. Talk about extremism and affecting the Constitution, we think it is that decision in 1989. I reject their arguments. Mr. Speaker, 14 years ago, the Supreme Court did reverse 200 years of tradition. In my own district there was a protest. It was not about the flag; it was about bilingual education. There was a group of Hispanics that came around to protest a bilingual education ruling. One of the Hispanics started tromping and burning an American flag, and a Hispanic from my district grabbed the flag and was beaten. He said, listen, I may disagree on bilingual education, but this flag is a symbol of why I came to this country. It stands for freedom, it stands for liberty, and you will not desecrate it in my presence. Some people say, well, it does not exude violence. You burn the American flag, and generally there is violence that follows. And again I would say, Mr. Speaker, that patriotism is always unfinished business.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues on the other side of this issue, if you do not have an outlet for civil unrest, burn a French flag; but do not try to do it in France, because you will end up in jail. As my friend on the other side that offered this substitute said, we all have different opinions on this particular issue. We feel very, very strongly, as the gentleman does on that side. But I will tell my friend the reason I think he is wrong, and that is that for 200 years we had tradition in this country that States had penalties for those that desecrated the flag, and in one 5-4 decision, that was changed. Now, 80 percent, up to 86 percent sometimes when they take polls, of the American people disagree with the gentleman. All 50 States, not 40, not 30, but all 50 States have passed resolutions saying that they will ratify this position, which says that my friend's opinion is wrong. I will say that 100 percent of the veterans organizations, those men and women that fought to keep this country free, support this. They are out in this city campaigning for this amendment, and they are going to score this vote, every single one of them, because they feel so strongly and say that my friend is wrong in his opinion. Yes, he does have the right to that opinion. But I would say that when some people have said that it does no harm, listen to what it did to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Johnson) when he was a POW and the Vietnamese told him they were burning the American flag. It was disheartening. That does affect us.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I looked up and I heard these figures come out that this many people are going to be left out of this bill. I looked up at who is supporting it and where the figures are coming from. It is called the Center on Budget Priorities, an extreme far- left-wing organization that is supported by Democrat Socialists of America, lodged a progressive caucus on its website, supports increased taxes, increased social spending, bigger wasteful government, supports union over small business, and I could go on. So I think the numbers are a little bit misfit. In the year 2000, this country was going through a recession. The tax relief that was passed according to Alan Greenspan and the economists who testified before the committees said that the tax relief shallowed that recession. It was growing at about 4.5 percent, which is slow, but it was increasing. And then we had 9/11. New York City alone, $200 billion in reconstruction and construction. That does not include $83 billion in lost revenue and the jobs that went with it. In all of your districts, think about the hotel business, the tourism. Hotels in San Diego were at 10 percent occupancy. Tourism went down. The airlines got hurt. Look what happened to the stock market. Then we had Enron; then we had WorldCom. We produced 58 bills that the other body did not pass to stimulate the economy. That was under Democratic leadership in the other body. Some of those bills restored confidence for people that lost thousands, in some cases millions, of dollars in their retirement accounts, and that would have helped stimulate the economy as well. But that was held up. Mr. Speaker, it was said that this is the worst jobs President there ever was. Let me remind Members of some of the facts. First of all, on the 1993 tax bill, the Democrats will say that no Republican voted for it. Let me tell you why. The same issues that Democrats demagogue on every single day, veterans, Democrats cut COLAs in 1993. You cut the COLAs for our military; that was on food stamps. You increased the tax on Social Security, and in that bill every dime was taken out of the Social Security trust fund. Guess what? You even had a gas tax that went into the general fund. We changed that when we took the majority and put it into a transportation fund. That is where we came up with ISTEA for infrastructure control. We did away with your 1993 highest tax increase in the history of the United States. Then I remember the lady in the red dress and the gentleman from Missouri said we need middle-class tax cuts. Well, you increased the tax on the middle-class. We decreased those taxes. And not a single Clinton budget, not even the Blue Dog budget, which had some very good points in it during that time frame, ever passed the House, ever. Not a Clinton budget passed. Republicans brought the Clinton budget to the House floor to force the Democrats to vote on it, it was so bad. Do you know how many Democrats voted for it? Three, the same amount that voted for the First Lady's health care package. When you say that President Clinton was responsible for the surplus, it just ain't so. Now, let us get down to the issue that is before us that people left out. I have been here for 12 years; and this year is the worst partisan attack, from our side as well, and a lot of it in reaction. I will bet every single Member here, except for those in leadership, would rather sit down and work together, and we can; and we can help the people with this bill, instead of the partisan attacks.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my gratitude for the exceptional services which Scripps Ranch High School Principal David LeMay has performed for the students of San Diego City Schools and for our great nation. Dave's leadership, his promotion of excellence, his positive involvement in student activities, and his deep commitment to educational excellence and sound educational practices make him a truly admirable American and one deserving of recognition by this body. It is for his outstanding dedication and his thirty-three years of service to the students of San Diego that I wish to congratulate and thank Principal Dave LeMay. Dave's leadership history did not begin with an administrative position in the San Diego City Schools or even in the classroom. It began with his service as a United States Army officer in 1966. Dave served our country in the Vietnam War; and was awarded the Bronze Star in recognition of his courage, bravery, and valor. Following military service, Dave completed his education at San Diego State University; and, in 1970, he began teaching history at O'Farrell Junior High in San Diego. Dave's instructional expertise was soon recognized, and he was selected as a district demonstration teacher for comprehensive and gifted certificated staff. After eight years of classroom teaching, Dave became an Administrative Intern at Midway Continuation High School. A short six months later, he was appointed Vice Principal of Garfield Independent Learning Center. In 1978, he became Vice Principal of Wagenheim Junior High School, a position he held for the next two years prior to becoming Vice Principal at Samuel Gompers Secondary School in 1980. At Gompers Dave was instrumental in instituting an Advanced Placement tutorial program for underrepresented students. Dave's administrative rise continued in 1984, when he was appointed Vice Principal of Point Loma High School. He held that position until the fall of 1986 when he became Principal of Montgomery Junior High School. Three years later he was appointed Principal of Crawford High School, a position he held for seven years. At Crawford Dave was instrumental in restructuring second language education to include a Newcomer Center which served immigrant children. Dave also won School Board approval for a School-to-Work bungalow building project. The first bungalow was completed in 1992. Since that time, eight additional bungalows have been built by students enrolled in construction technology. Since 1996 Dave has been the principal of Scripps Ranch High School. Under his stewardship, the school has been honored by the United States Department of Education as a National Blue Ribbon High School of Excellence. Additionally, Dave has been instrumental to the success of my Technology Fair for high school students. Each year more than two- thousand students from high schools throughout my Congressional District attend the event at Scripps Ranch High School. The purpose of the ``Tech Fair'' is to encourage students to study math and science and to go college. The program has been so successful that it has been modeled by the San Diego Science Alliance and by other Congressional Representatives' Offices. Truly, Dave is a consummate administrator. He has a warm, easy manner with people. He is a great listener. He is quietly effective at making positive changes. He demands the best by modeling the best. Dave is hardworking, task-oriented, organized and efficient. It is hard to conceive of a principal who is more knowledgeable of or more involved in a school than Dave LeMay. In addition to his pursuit of educational excellence, Dave is fervent in promoting other aspects of student life such as drama, the arts, music, and athletics. He seldom misses a school event. Principal David LeMay is the longest-serving high school administrator at San Diego City Schools. Dave's remarkable contributions to the students of San Diego speak to his intellect, his professional drive, and his relentless pursuit of excellence. After thirty-three years, Dave will retire on June 30, 2003. I urge my colleagues to join me in wishing him the very best success as he starts a new chapter in his life, and I hope that he will always be blessed with fair winds and following seas.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to honor Dave Kulchin completing his term as the president of the Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club on June 30, 2003. Dave is a dedicated community leader who has contributed enormously and made a tremendous difference to the Rotary Club and the citizens of Carlsbad. Under Dave's leadership, the Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club accomplished many achievements. They sponsored a Rotary Youth Leadership Awareness Conference RYLA, for high school students to reinforce ethical values and to train students in the Principles of Leadership. The Carlsbad Hi-Noon Rotary Club provided and delivered food, clothing, blankets, and other items to the homeless at the La Posada Homeless Shelter in Carlsbad. Also, Dave led the Oktoberfest fundraiser which raised over $12,000 for both the Carlsbad Women's Resource Center and the Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club. In addition to his accomplishments as a Rotarian, Dave Kulchin also volunteers his time to serve on the Executive Board of the Carlsbad Boys and Girls Club, was past chairman of the Hospice of North County, served on the Executive Board of Scripps Hospital, was past president and founder of the North County Personnel Association and serves as an elected official on the Leucadia County Water District Board. I ask my colleagues to join me today in recognizing Dave Kulchin for all the dedication and contributions he has made to the Rotary Club and the citizens of Carlsbad.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Community Housing Works (CHWorks) of Escondido, CA for receiving the Fannie Mae Foundation's annual Maxwell Award of Excellence on May 13, 2003. Community Housing Works was created by the 2002 merger of Community Housing of North County and the San Diego Neighborhood Housing Services to provide housing, reinvestment and community leadership opportunities throughout the San Diego region. CHWorks was one of eight organizations hand-picked to be an inaugural member of the San Diego Foundation's Organizational Effectiveness capacity building program. Community Housing Works helps the homeless and also helps people achieve stable rental housing and homeownership by providing personal finance education, homeownership classes and counseling, and low-income and first-time homebuyers with down payment and closing costs. This organization has acquired and refurbished more than 70 homes and helped more than 400 low and moderate income people buy homes in San Diego County. They have also rehabilitated nearly 800 apartments in well maintained rental complexes. Their award winning designs have received national recognition, from TIME magazine to the American Institute of Architects. The Fannie Mae Foundation is recognizing Community Housing Works today for their dedication to the refurbishment of the Bandar Salaam apartment complex. Due to the efforts of CHWorks, the Bandar Salaam apartment complex is now a safe, renovated home for 340 residents, and it will remain affordable for the next 55 years. This complex is primarily occupied by Somali refugees with large families. Prior to the acquisition by CHWorks, many of the Somali residents found the living conditions no better than at the refugee camps that they had fled. Bandar Salaam has evolved into a place where people are creating a land of peace in the community. The success of this project is due to the creativity and flexibility of CHWorks, and the commitment of a number of private financing sources, including the San Diego Housing Commission, the Bank of America, the California Equity Fund, and the San Francisco Federal Home Loan Bank. I would also like to recognize the incredible efforts of the dedicated and organized community of the Bandar Salaam complex. These residents were willing to accept many challenges in order to make their community vibrant and healthy. I ask my colleagues to join me today in congratulating Community Housing Works, the residents of the Bandar Salaam complex, and all those who assisted in making this project a success.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the Institutes of the Americas on their 20th anniversary. Since 1983 the IOA has improved the opportunities for and relationships among companies and individuals who currently conduct or hope to conduct business in America. In this age of international cooperation the Institute of the Americas has played a vital role in creating greater understanding and interaction between the United States, Canada and the countries of Latin America. With strong Latin American participation, this independent Inter-American organization has become a trusted and respected catalyst for dialog and problem solving. Its relationship with the University of California, San Diego gives the Institute added depth and balance in its quest to develop building blocks for Latin America's progress and stability. Since its creation the Institute of the Americas has met its goal of becoming a significant catalyst for promoting development and integration as a means to improve the economic, political and social well-being of the people of the Americas. I want to congratulate the Institute, and all those associated with it, on the occasion of its 20th anniversary, extending sincere wishes for continued success.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if Patrick Henry could come back today, he would be appalled at what taxation with representation gives us today. There was not time to speak during the debate, so I would like to set the record straight, and these are facts, undisputable facts. First of all, I would like to address the issue that George W. Bush lost jobs and the surplus. Fact: In history, in the year 2000, we were starting into a recession. Alan Greenspan. We had tax relief 2 years ago. Alan Greenspan and the majority of economists say that that tax relief shallowed that recession. Then, Mr. Speaker, we had 9/11. I cannot tell you the effects of this. To New York it was $283 billion, including the $83 billion in lost revenue, and it did hurt this country. I would like to respond to the ranking minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). She stated that only Democrats voted for the 1993 tax increase. Let me tell you why Republicans did not vote for the 1993 tax bill. I would say in fairness, not all the Democrats were here during that 1993 period and they should not be held accountable, but the Democrat leadership should. First of all, they gave us the largest tax increase in history in 1993, and this is when the White House, the House and the Senate was controlled by the Democrats. I heard the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) stand up here and plead for a middle-class tax cut in that 1993 bill. It was the largest tax on the middle class we have ever had in U.S. history. There was a $360 billion deficit, forever, no light at the end of the tunnel. No, we were not going to vote for that. There was a $320 billion increase. Did they increase the spending on veterans? No. Did they increase it on the military or Social Security or the Social Security Trust Fund? No. They did it at that time on the then First Lady Hillary Clinton's health care government control plan and welfare. Well, what did they do? They cut the veterans' COLA in the 1993 bill. Things they demagogue every single day, they cut the entire COLA for veterans. They cut the entire COLA for military. When Republicans took the majority, we passed and rescinded that and we restored those COLAs for our veterans and our military. They demagogue every day about Social Security and our seniors. They increased the tax on Social Security. They cut every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund for their tax increase, and that is wrong as well. Did they cut spending? No, they did not. They even had an increase in the gas tax that went into the general fund. When we took the majority in 1994 we changed that also. We did not eliminate it, what we did was put it into the transportation fund so that liberals could not spend it on social programs. In 2000, as I said, there was a recession. Under Bill Clinton we had 147 military deployments, in Haiti, Somalia, Iraq five times, Sudan, Bosnia, Kosovo. In Bosnia and Kosovo, we flew 86 percent of the missions, we paid for 90 percent. The U.S., not ``Butros-Butros By- Golly'' in the UN, but we paid for 90 percent of those wars. Then the next fallacy is the Clinton surplus. Not a single Clinton budget after the 1993 bill passed this floor. Republicans even brought two of his budgets to the floor to have Democrats vote on them. They were so ridiculous, they got the same amount of votes as the Hillary Clinton health care plan, three votes. Why? Because it was so outrageous and demagogued. But yet they would not vote for it. Not one substitute, even the Blue Dog budget, ever passed this floor. So we restored the veterans and military COLAs, we took transportation dollars and put them into the Transportation Trust Fund, we balanced the budget, and yet they claim that it was a Clinton Democrat surplus. It just is not true.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am not on the Committee on Ways and Means, but I do understand that before the committee the Democrats did not offer a plan. They wanted to do it in the dead of night with no rule, scrutiny and no amendments whatsoever and make press releases. They demagogue today all the things that they demagogued in 1993 when they had the House, the White House, and the Senate. They cut veterans' COLAs. We restored that. They cut military COLAs. We restored that. Social Security, another demagogue issue, well they increased the tax on Social Security; and they spent every dime out of the Social Security trust fund. I remember the gentleman from Missouri talking, oh, the lady in the red dress, we need middle-class tax breaks. They increased the tax on the middle class, and then they stand up here without any scrutiny, without bringing their substitute, their motion to recommit before the committee. It is a little disingenuous.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I object.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), when I first came here, there was a $5.2 trillion debt. That is nearly a billion dollars a day. We paid off over $400 billion in debt when we balanced the budget. It is hard to decrease that when we inherit a 5.3.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have to object because he has had three in a row, and it is going back and forth, and if it stays in regular order, then it is alternating.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I thank the gentleman for the caring amendment. Both my daughters have gone through public school, and most of the Members here have done the same thing. We know that a war on terrorism is a war on drugs, as well. If one is a mother with a child with special needs, or a child in a mainstream, drugs are a problem. A hearing-impaired child that sells cocaine in my opinion should be held accountable, because it has nothing to do with the actual disability. This bill goes beyond that. It protects our schools. It makes sure that our schools and our lockers are free not just from drugs but from weapons. We have seen Columbine and we have seen other issues that have occurred and this helps solve that problem. We spoke yesterday in a bipartisan way about Peter Yarrow and ``Don't Laugh at Me.'' All of these issues are put in place to protect our students and our children, and I commend the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, before I was selected to the Committee on Appropriations, I was subcommittee chairman of the Committee on Education. I went through the IDEA bill and the reauthorization. Taking the parent groups and the schools and putting them in the same room is like putting a Persian cat and a Siamese cat together. It was very difficult. We actually basically put them in a room, gave them no bread or water, and told them to come out with a solution. The solution they came out with was pretty reasonable, and there was balance except that when the final bill came out, for example, the trial lawyers changed the intent, we said the first time a parent goes to the school we do not want a trial lawyer there because it will raise the funding and it will cost schools. And they said let the schools provide a lawyer. The schools do not need a lawyer. But they do, and what happened is they got around it when we established that rule that a parent would go to school, the trial lawyers would still be paid, and it would cost the additional money. I think the Democrats have really got their gall. For 20 years IDEA was supposed to be funded at 40 percent. The most it was ever funded was 5 percent of that 40 percent. When the Democrats had the White House, the House, and the Senate, they gave us the highest tax increase in history. They increased spending with a deficit at $330 billion forever; but, no, they did not increase the spending on IDEA. It stayed at 5 percent. Since we have taken the majority, we have put it up to 18 percent, over a 262 percent increase; and it is on a climb, and it will go on to climb. But they want to put this program on a mandatory level, on autopilot. None of these changes would be possible. People will retire on active duty just like the other mandatory spending programs. The Democrats talk about fiscal responsibility. Let us put veterans, let us put IDEA, let us put Impact Aid, let us put all those other things on mandatory spending. The budget in this place will go out of sight and the deficit and the debt will also go up. The real problem is Gray Davis, the Governor of California. He is cutting the money at the State level and running the whole IDEA engine on Federal money. He is cutting IDEA. He is cutting Impact Aid. He is cutting Title I. So if you want to improve IDEA stop him from stealing the money, I do not want to add new money and have Governor Davis steal it. I do not want to add new money though and have it go to the trial lawyers with these cottage organizations. But the Democrats will not do that, because that is where they get their campaign money. We need to change the system. Alan Bersin was Bill Clinton's Border Czar and is now the superintendent of the San Diego city schools. He has testified that IDEA is his biggest problem in schools. He wants to improve IDEA. IDEA has helped children with disabilities before they were left out. They were left behind. We are trying to improve the bill. But to make it mandatory after what the Democrats have done nothing for all of these years is hypocrisy and political demagoguery.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have spent 12 years in this body, both in the authorization and the Committee on Appropriations. My sister-in-law is in charge of all special education in San Diego city schools. She works for Alan Bersin. And what he has stated that he has got two basic problems. One is that it is improper to say that the governor is taking Federal education money and cutting IDEA. What he is doing is reducing the State funds for IDEA and the Federal funds are supposed to go above that to enhance the IDEA funding, and the governor is doing that to balance his budget. This amendment prevents that. There is much more that we could do in this body. I wish that we could reduce the maximum amount of paperwork. In California it is unbelievable. I wish we could cap lawyer fees, and put the money directly towards students. We cannot do all of those things. We do not have the votes on some of these issues. But this one is not only very thoughtful, and I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), it is not only thoughtful, but it is needed to protect the funds that we have appropriated in a bipartisan way for IDEA.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and I quite often get in a rhubarb right here on the House floor on issues. This is one we agree on. And I am a hawk. I am a conservative. Well, maybe not a hawk, maybe a well-armed dove; but I was asked to go to an event and hear a man speak. And I said, Who is speaking? And they said, Peter Yarrow. And I said, Who is Peter Yarrow? And they said, You know, Peter, Paul and Mary. And I said, I am not going to go listen to that anti-war, left-wing guy. And I went. And I want to tell Members something. Coming from a conservative and a hawk, he is one of the nicest guys I have ever met in my life. His heart is true. His politics are terrible. I would say extremely wrong. And I disagree with my colleague on tax rates, as well as with Peter Yarrow. But I want to say this: Peter Yarrow is doing this not for money but for the profound belief that there is a better way to reach out to children. Maybe music does bring people together because I have another ``left wing'' friend in Steven Stills, as a matter of fact, I think he was one of the heads of the DNC and yet we are still good friends. Aviation brought us together and music brought us together as well. Madam Speaker, I want to read something. This is the song ``Don't Laugh at Me,'' and I would like every single Member, and Madam Speaker, you too, to listen to this. ``I'm a little boy with glasses, the one they call a geek.'' Remember that in school? I do. ``A little girl who never smiles cuz I got braces on my teeth and I know how it feels to cry myself to sleep. I am that kid on every playground, who's always chosen last.'' That was me. ``A single teenage mother trying to overcome her past. You don't have to be my friend if it's too much to ask. Don't laugh at me, don't call me names, don't get your pleasure from my pain. In God's eyes, we're all the same. Some day we'll all have perfect wings. Don't laugh at me. ``I'm a cripple on a corner, you pass me on the street. I wouldn't be out here begging if I had enough to eat. And don't think I don't notice that our eyes never meet. I lost my wife and little boy when someone crossed that yellow line. The day we laid 'em in the ground was the day I lost my mind.'' And the song goes on and on, Madam Speaker. Peter Yarrow's idea is that maybe in Columbine, where one of the worst things we did was we took the young men that knew about the young man that went in and killed a bunch of students was arrested, and they drove him out further, but Peter Yarrow's idea is that we are all the same yet we are all different. I look at Gary Condit on this House floor. Many of us tried to befriend Gary Condit. Think about how he must have felt. I think we need to think about those kinds of things as individuals when we see people that are outside. In our major military institutions, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy, we will find each year that someone takes a dive off the top of a building. They have found that in most cases the individual has isolated themselves away from the rest of his group. Maybe in Columbine, instead of the young men that had been ostracized from their group, maybe if they had been brought back into the group, the suicides and things like Columbine maybe would not have happened. Madam Speaker, this is endorsed by every major school institution we take a look at. When I went through POW training in Eglin Air Force Base, one of the things they showed us was that if someone was going over to the other side, the enemy side, instead of chastising that person, you reach out to bring them in, to bring them into your group, to make them feel whole. That is what this program does. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and my Republican colleague for supporting this, as well as the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), who is a good friend who knows Peter Yarrow very well, and I ask my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to support this. This is about a program that I believe in and that is going to help not only children, but adults all over the United States.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, let me speak to the gentlewoman that just spoke. There are ways in which I think we can come together. One of the areas, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) has an amendment coming up that gives preference to the United States in the rebuilding process over those nations that fought against us in the United Nations. That is American jobs, American construction. In California with our constituents, I think the gentlewoman and the caucus could support that. The second thing, I think it is even more important, as one that opposed going into Haiti, as one that opposed going into Somalia after Adid, and I would tell the gentlewoman if she has been to Haiti, the Halie Selassie Highway, one can drive a truck in a pothole. It is terrible. Many of the conditions have not been improved, and even though I opposed going in there, the dollars that were already appropriated for that should be released to help, and I again opposed going into Haiti and Somalia. So I think it is even more important. I would also inform the gentlewoman there is another way. I have an amendment on Turkey. Turkey stood against our troops going in from the north, stopped us from having a northern front, caused us to have to ship around all the way to the east side our troops. It cost American lives. We should send them a message. That is $1 billion that could be freed up. They did not ask for it, and Turkey gets a ton of money already in the foreign aid package. That is another way which I think we can help. I recently had it in homeland defense. Technicalities did not allow us to do that, but $1 billion in the general fund is a lot of money to work with, with us. As far as the scholarships, the gentlewoman and I both support, and I personally believe, that a child that qualifies, that works hard should not be denied a college education or a general education as a result of their economic status, and they should be provided that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I do not doubt my friend's concern for the troops. I think that is genuine. However, I do debate the gentleman's point on the war. I will be specific. First of all, there is no doubt, no doubt whatsoever that Saddam Hussein has contacts and is utilizing al Qaeda within Iraq. Just attend some of the intelligence briefings. Second, as a combat veteran, the troops, sure, when we flew in Vietnam, we wanted to come home; but we also wanted to do our job. If we talk to the embedded reporters and listen to our men and women overseas, they want to finish the job, I would tell the gentleman. Secondly, on the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman's amendment does not bring the troops home. We are already spending fourth-quarter dollars. What the gentleman wants to do is not be able to even replenish those, which would weaken the state of national security in the long run. I would tell the gentleman that Saddam Hussein today pays $5,000 to a family in Palestine that will take their 15-year-old child and blow themselves up in Israel. We have lost American citizens in that. I do not think we want to let that go. If we listen to Saddam Hussein, he says he will attack us in the air, the sea, and the land. I would ask the gentleman to project Saddam Hussein, if we pull our troops back, project someone like this 5 years from now with a nuclear weapon. It would be devastating, and we would lose American souls, many thousands. A lot of people say, what about Korea? Korea is a threat; but I want to tell the Members, they are not working every single day through Mujahedin, Hammas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda to damage the United States. We need to finish this job, whether the gentleman agrees with it or not. We need to protect American citizens and those abroad for worldwide peace. If we take Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and bring them about with true democracies, this country is far better off than bringing our troops home and not dealing with this problem. If we do that, this problem will magnify in the Middle East, not depreciate.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment related to Turkey be considered at this point in the reading of the bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would say to my friend and my chairman that we have several speakers that are very passionate on this issue. To me, the debate of this issue is as important as its passage, and once those individuals do get allowed to speak, and I would encourage them not to take the 5 minutes, if the chairman would redress the issue then I would not object.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will choose to strike the last word at the end to close, and I would allow the other Members that wish to speak on this issue, and I would go to the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Yes, the gentleman is going to strike the last word. I will strike the last word at the end so I will have time to close.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Okay. Then I will be recognized for the 5 minutes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I truly believe that the United States needs the support of all allies. That includes Turkey. That includes France. That includes Germany. As many of us are upset at those countries for the actions that they took in the previous weeks, we need their help towards world peace in the future. They are aware of the damage that they have done to the United States and their allies and that some penalty is in order. And as I stated before, the debate on this issue is just as important as the passage of the amendment. There needs to be some message sent to any country that chooses to put in harm's way American and allied soldiers that there will be a penalty. The message should be, ``Do not tread on me.'' Now, that does not mean that we do not want them as allies in the future. I would state, and I do not mean to demean Turkey by making this point, but merely to make a point, if my own daughters intentionally did something egregious, I am surely, Mr. Chairman, not going to raise their allowance. I love them. I want their love in the future. And the same goes for Turkey. Secretary Colin Powell at this very moment is negotiating with Turkey, and he has made some great strides. I think all the Members in this House respect Secretary Powell. But I would say, Mr. Chairman, that current negotiations and even positive steps do not forgive what has happened in the past with Turkey denying our troops access. Turkey never asked for this money. The United States is asking to give them $1 billion. The United States is giving Turkey a ton of money in the foreign aid bill. This is in the 2003 supplemental. The 2004 bill is coming up. There is a ton of money in there for Turkey. I am not asking to take this away, but should we reward a country for not only putting our men and women in harm's way, but actually causing the deaths of some of our troops? By Turkey not allowing us to overfly Turkey and give overfly rights, there was an agreement, and they have done some overflights, but that was based on a previous agreement, but by not allowing our troops to launch from the north and out of Turkey, it denied us a northern front. It allowed Saddam Hussein to redeploy his troops and forced us to parachute in with our paratroopers a very lightly armed force to support the north; and I think this is wrong. A foreign aid package should be for Turkey and our allies, but I would tell the gentleman that just like the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) a minute ago spoke against the Obey amendment, he used the analogy that this was only for 3 months, and I would use the same analogy here because in the 2004 budget, I do not object to the support for Turkey, if, if their parliament does not turn its back on the United States as they did in the past. In 3 months, Saddam Hussein will be out of power. We will be on the road to democracy in Iraq and a free people, but can my colleagues imagine giving France preferential treatment on the reconstruction of Iraq? No, and there is an amendment coming up by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) that will handle that; and I would encourage my colleagues to vote for that. By the same means, do we reward Turkey? Do we give them an incentive for turning their backs on the United States even though they are opening up their borders with Colin Powell today? What they did in causing American lives to be lost, there needs to be a message sent and a penalty, Mr. Chairman. I would say the same is true with France and Germany as well. Saddam Hussein did work with al Qaeda, and where he worked in al Qaeda is in the northeast portions of Iraq. By not allowing our northern front to go forward and launch out of that area, it allowed many of the terrorists and al Qaeda to launch out of that area. I ask for the support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have about six speakers for the amendment.