Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001 ( H.R. 4). H.R. 4 represents the first comprehensive national energy policy considered by this House in more than a decade. The President's energy policy will put in place a long-term plan that will provide power to America for generations to come. In my district in California, my family and my constituents are suffering from the dramatic rise in electricity prices. Sadly, we have learned the consequences of not having a long-term plan to produce energy. The failure of the last decade by the Clinton administration, combined with the failure of the Davis administration in California to develop a reasonable long-term energy plan, created this disaster. The failed policy they embraced is the policy of the radical environmentalists. These groups promote an energy plan based on fantasy. They oppose nuclear power, hydropower, oil, gas, coal, natural gas, and in some cases even wind power. They cling to the failed belief that we can magically make energy without action. There should be no question that this is a strategy of failure, of skyrocketing costs and blackouts. I support solar power. I believe that solar power research can and will help us address our future energy needs. Nevertheless, commercial solar power is not available today. I also believe that fusion power will help us meet our energy needs of the future. I am working closely with the gentlelady from California, Ms. Lofgren, in pushing a fusion energy research bill, which the Science Committee included in H.R. 4, that will set us on the course to commercial development of fusion power. But fusion power is not available today. I believe that conservation will help us solve our energy problems. Which is why I am the sponsor, with the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey, of the Energy Efficient Buildings Incentives Act (H.R. 778). This commonsense bipartisan bill provides incentives for conservation and energy efficiency. I am proud that portions of my bill are included in H.R. 4. I am also proud that the President's plan promotes responsible conservation methods. Yes, as we in California have learned, we must increase the supply of safe, reliable domestic energy while promoting a clean, safe and healthy environment. Our Nation's energy problems must be addressed by increasing supplies of traditional fossil fuels, developing alternative sources of energy, and improving conservation. It will not be easy and it will not be quick. However, we have the technology and the resources to meet our energy needs for decades, even centuries to come. At the same time, we can ensure a clean environment as a legacy for our children. The President's balanced, comprehensive national energy policy will strengthen our economy, lower consumer prices, create jobs and protect the environment. We should pass H.R. 4 today.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman on the other side cannot hide the truth. Associated health care plans, if you have a union or large business that has maybe 3,000 or 4,000 employees, they can go to a health care organization and negotiate lower rates because it spreads out the risk. We are asking that maybe all the bakers get together, all the barbers get together, little groups that can form into larger groups so that they can negotiate those health care plans with lower rates. If we have lower rates, we are going to have more people access into them, so the gentleman is just flat wrong. Another gentleman talked about taxes. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) just last week said he wants to raise taxes. In 1993, he was proud of it. They raised taxes on the middle class. We want to give it back to the American people for medical savings accounts, not have campaign finance fund-raisers with Jane Fonda.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to add my voice in support of the passage of a strong Patient's Bill of Rights. Congress has been working for several years to improve the delivery of health care to everyone in America. As a cancer survivor, I know how important it is to have good quality health care available when you need it. I believe that for the most part, Americans who currently have health insurance are happy with their providers. Unfortunately, too many Americans can not afford the health care they need, and sadly, there are extreme cases where some Americans are the victims of fraud or abuse that prevent them from accessing the care that they are paying for. I am committed to ensuring that America maintains the world's best health care system by enacting reforms giving people more choices, and more access to high quality health care. That is why I rise today in support of the Patients' Bill of Rights agreement reached by President George W. Bush and Congressman Charlie Norwood, as well as in support of an amendment to expand Medical Savings Accounts (MSA) and allow for the creation of Association Health Plans (AHP). I am proud to support a Patients' Bill of Rights that will empower individuals and doctors to make health care choices, without the interference of government bureaucrats or trial lawyers. I support the Bush/Norwood agreement because it ensures that the American people will have swift recourse when an insurance company bean-counter decides to practice medicine. There are a lot of people who say that when your insurance company denies coverage, you should be able to run them straight into court. Let's stop and think about that for a minute--when an individual is denied coverage by an insurance company, what is it that they really want? Coverage for life saving medical care! Lawsuits don't get you medical care. Lawsuits drag on in court for years, and line the pockets of trial lawyers. Lawsuits won't provide care for sick patients. The bottom line is that lawsuits don't save lives--but an independent medical review process will. While we are working to improve health care for those who have insurance, we must also take action to bring this high quality care to those who cannot currently afford insurance. I support the inclusion of a provision to give millions of Americans the best patient protections of all--health care coverage. I hope that today an amendment will prevail to expand Medical Savings Accounts, and allow for the creation of Association Health Plans. Association Health Plans will allow small businesses and the self-employed the same purchasing clout and administrative savings that large, multi-state employers and labor unions currently enjoy. This provision will expand health care coverage for thousands of employees of small businesses who cannot currently afford to provide coverage to its employees. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the passage of the Bush/Norwood agreement on Patients' Rights which balances the need for affordable health insurance with the need for real patient protections.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, John Porter, the former chairman of Labor-HHS, asked me to do a terrible thing once. He asked me to chair a committee with children with exotic diseases. I had to shut down the committee it hurt so much. One little girl said, Congressman, you are the only person that can save my life, and that little child died, and there are thousands of these children. I am 100 percent pro-life, 11 years, but I support stem cell research of discarded cells. The concern that all of us have is, if we go along with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the same thing will happen that happened in England. They started with stem cell research, then they expanded it to nuclear transfer of the somatic cells. Then they went to human cloning, and even a subspecies so that they can use body parts. Where does it stop? The only way that we can control this research through the Federal Government is to make sure that these ethical and moral values are adhered to. We have to stop it here. Support the Weldon bill, oppose the Greenwood bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to laud my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Veterans issues are very important. Both sides of the aisle support this bill very well. But every once in a while we have got people that just cannot stop themselves from partisan shots, and they need to be answered. The gentleman from California said there is not enough money for veterans because we spent the surplus in tax relief. First of all, surplus is defined as the amount of money above what it needs to run the Government with a 4 to 6 percent increase. That is what this committee has done. Secondly, the 124 deployments, $200 billion cost destroying our military and our ability to fund things like the veterans, $200 billion under the peacekeeping deployments of Bill Clinton. Recently, the ranking minority member says, ``Well, this is a good step but we have got a long way to go.'' The gentleman from Missouri, the minority leader, recently said that raising taxes in 1993, he was proud of it when the Democrats had control of the White House, the House and the Senate, and he would do it again. I think it is right to point out what those taxes were. The first part of those taxes were to cut the COLAs of the veterans. The second part was to cut the COLAs of the military. That is the wrong direction. The third was to increase the tax on the middle class which affected military and the veterans. The fourth was to increase taxes on Social Security and then take every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund which raises the debt which veterans and military have to pay for. So yes, I think we are going in the right direction. We do have a long way to go. Let us analyze what is the reason why we do not have the dollars to put forward that we really need. We have had 124 deployments taxing our veterans and our military. That is why I laud both sides of the aisle now for increasing those funds.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would say, Mubulhi Ag Filipinos, and to Filipinos, mama haline keta Hunggung Wacus. To the Filipinos I say, I will love you until the end of Earth. I was stationed in the Philippines for many years, and I lived and almost died with them in Vietnam. I want to tell the Members, there is no more loyal group to the United States than the Filipinos. I have never met a Filipino that turned his or her back on the United States or a friend, but I think this country has turned its back for too long on those people that fought and died for Americans. General MacArthur said, ``I shall return.'' The Filipinos never left. They gave their todays for many, American lives. They fought and they died. Many have seen the old John Wayne movies. They say, ``It was just a movie,'' but it depicted the lives and the sacrifices of Filipinos at Corregidor, Manila, Bagio City. Places like that, and the Bataan Death March, ring in our ears and our history, but yet, Filipinos lived and died in those issues, in those battles. I served with thousands of Filipinos in the Navy that served on Navy ships. They served for 20 years just so that they could become American citizens. We have turned our back on them for 60 years with their sacrifices, what they have given to this country. They have never forgotten. I think the gentleman from New York said, how many are left today? Not very many. Yet, we promised them as veterans, as freedom fighters, veterans' benefits. They have been turned down. So I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and people who support this issue. Members will not see very many Filipinos on welfare. Instead, we will see their children at our universities, because if we go into the Filipino community we will see them honor God and country and hard work, and the family values that all of us cherish. But they live it every single day, not only as citizens here, but as citizens in the Philippines, as well. The Navy right now, as a matter of fact, is short sailors. During a period of time, they were our most loyal sailors. I have a bill coming forward that says we ought to reinstitute that program to have Filipinos serve, so they could become American citizens, just like in the past. I want to tell the Members, in San Diego, the last American flag to fly over the Philippine Islands before it fell, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has it in his office. That flag, at great risk to a Filipino, when the Japanese tore it down in Bagio City, he wrapped it up in a piece of canvas and saved it for the end of the war, because it was of value to freedom. We should value those same traditions. Today the President of the United States recognized thousands of Filipinos at the White House today for their 60 years of service as veterans. If we recognize that value, if we take a look and have a resolution to that from the President of the United States, from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Secretary Principi, then it should be recognized that they deserve the benefits due to veterans. We are asking only for justice, what we say we all stand for in this body.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is an emotional issue for many of us. I have seen a lot of my friends die in Vietnam, as has my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), who was a POW for six and a half years. Even we have different feelings on this particular issue, and it is hard. I look, and people outside the United States could look, and point out the bad things about the United States. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) did about Vietnam. Look at a young African American that was drug down a country road, drug to his death. Look at the inequities to minorities in our judicial system sometimes. I acknowledge those and say we want to trade with the United States. But there is so much good. Most of the people who live in Vietnam today were not alive during the war. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) asked me to go to Vietnam a couple of years ago and raise a flag over Ho Chi Minh City. I told him, no, I do not go on CODELS; and it would be too hard for me to go back. But I did go. I am glad I did. Mr. Speaker, if you walk on the streets of Vietnam today, those people welcome Americans openhandedly. They want a chance, much like the people in Tiananmen Square did. I met the prime minister, and I asked him, why will you not get involved in trade that President Clinton is trying to get you involved in? He said, Congressman, I am a Communist. If those people have things, I will be out of business as a Communist. I said, trade is good. If we look at it that way, there is no movement with Saddam Hussein. There is no movement in Cuba with Fidel Castro, but there is in Vietnam. Yes, there are a lot of pitfalls with this. I have a constituent that was arrested in Vietnam. I ask my colleagues to think about if we have a country like Vietnam that definitely are Communists, but they have made movement like the gentleman from Washington stated, I think we ought to support that trade and deny this resolution.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that some citizens were disenfranchised, many of those in Florida. But I also know that I thought it was a travesty for the Gore and the Vice President candidate to try and disenfranchise our military vote in Florida as well through technicalities. A Federal law says that you do not require a postmark because an FPO or APO many times, our military, are not able to get there. But yet the Gore and Vice President candidate tried to send lawyers to disenfranchise on technicalities those votes. Also, the State law says that you have to have a date on it. The absentee ballot that was sent out by Florida did not have a date on it. I do not know about you, but if it does not have a date on there, I am not going to add it. Yes, across this country, we need a fair vote system. I do not reject that. But what I do reject is people trying to make political points, coming down, saying that the election was stolen.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The gentleman thinks that both President Clinton and President Bush would have wanted to put people in office that they wanted, even though they were not voted upon?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it has been well documented the problems we are having in California with energy. My colleague from San Diego talks about his constituents. I think he works very hard for his constituents. But I would ask the gentleman from California, when Bill Clinton had this problem, for a year and a half, a year and a half, there were no calls for price caps. But now that we have a new President, the political expediency is to say, ``Well, let's have caps,'' to shift the blame. I would say that, under President Clinton's rule, for 8 years there was no energy policy and now we are developing a policy that looks long term, that is a balance between exploration, technology and, yes, conservation and energy effiency. Bill Clinton's FERC was nonexistent. Where were my colleagues on the other side calling for caps when FERC, in my opinion, did not do their job and let the horse out of the barn that caused many of the problems we are in right now? George Bush appointed a FERC, and already they have started to act to control prices, and I think FERC has saved a lot of the ratepayers money in the State of California. We have already seen some of the prices come down. Some of that is because of the conservation of California residents who have seen that it is a way to bring their prices down. Pete Wilson first came up with the idea, Governor Wilson, a Republican, for deregulation. But then we went to Gray Davis, the Governor, and said, if you allow this deregulation, but you do not allow for long-term purchasing contracts, it is going to kill San Diego. In where my friend from San Diego lives, as I do, San Diego Gas and Electric is a private company. They cannot buy public power unless there is an excess. Of course, there is no excess. And when we put ourselves at the mercy of outside resources, which has happened, then we end up in the situation we are in right now. We warned Governor Davis. Governor Davis came in with a $4 billion surplus and increased that after we balanced the budget because we sent more money to the States. Now the State is bankrupt. There is no money for education. There is no money for health care for the people of California. There is no money for transportation, because he has bankrupted the State. We want our State back. I would say, where were my colleagues pointing the fingers when all of this was going on and happening under Bill Clinton with no action by FERC? But now we have another President, the finger points, ``Well, how about caps?'' Caps do not produce one ounce of energy. We have a President now that has an energy plan. We ought to get behind it and pass it. We have gone to a very positive plan. But I want to tell my colleagues, we doubled our population in the last 12 years in California. Most States cannot claim that. We have. But at the same time we have been forced to shut down existing oil and gas refineries. We have been prevented and even shut down many of the electricity generators by the same type of radical environmentalists that shut off all the water in Klamath that put 40 percent of the farmers out of business up there. They do not care. Where were my friends then when we said, hey, we need more power for long-term planning? They were silent, the same people that are still trying to shut down hydroelectric in northern California, in Washington and in Oregon for fish. We say, ``Let's build spillways around so we can still have it.'' But, no, to the extremists, to the radical environmentalists, energy and water means growth, and they want to stop all growth. Where were my friends from California then pointing the finger for their constituents for a long-term plan? We warned that this was going to happen. We are going to double our population in California over the coming decides. If we do not have this long-term plan for infrastructure, for conservation, for technology, for exploration, then we are going to really be in a problem. But, no, they just want to say caps, let us bring a caps bill to the floor so they can point at the White House, who was in business one day and they started pointing the fingers at the White House. The White House has helped.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I will not take 5 minutes. We are all concerned about electricity costs, but let me tell Members some of the things that the Vice President and the President are not doing. They are not holding 400 Lincoln Bedroom lavish dinners for campaign contributors every single day for millions of dollars for the DNC. They do not have John Huang, Trie and Riady that are agents for the Chinese government and then sign an executive order giving missile secrets away to the Chinese. They are not holding these lavish parties. There is a controlling authority, a legal controlling authority in the Vice President's office now, unlike the Vice President that made fund-raising calls out of there and then charged it to the taxpayers. So when you want to point fingers, where were you pointing fingers with the Clinton-Gore administration? Oh, no, they were silent. But when you talk about costs, let us be realistic. The Vice President is trying to do everything he can to diminish the cost. The President has assigned the military a 40 percent goal of energy reduction. In California, they are already doing that. We were at Camp Pendleton. We were at other military bases. They have shut the things down. That is the same thing the Navy is doing, by reducing consumption. The President is doing that. So is the Vice President. But my colleagues want to talk about increased costs and shifting the blame. The whole Clinton-Gore administration last year, over the last eight years, you know how corrupt they were. You know the millions and billions of dollars they spent. Look at Africa, $12 million for a trip to Africa. Where were the gentlemen when the President spent $12 million for press and aides going to Africa? Yes, we are concerned about costs. But when you have got somebody that is focusing on that and then you blast them, we think it is a little ridiculous. We have a good bill. We have a good balance from the President. We have bipartisan support. What we need to do is focus the energy of my colleagues on the other side. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) and I are supporting a bill on fusion. We have got 11 nations involved in that. With the help of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), we actually got some things into the bill of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) to give tax relief to people that conserve energy. Yet my colleagues want to talk about stuff like this. I think it is ridiculous.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My real concern is, and in the other body we have many confirmations in defense, NTSB, those sorts of things, that have been held up. I think there ought to be a way to force those to be seen, because the administration is operating at a disadvantage. If they are not voted on, then I think they ought to be able to to be appointed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I tend to agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts and the gentleman from Maryland. I get upset when I think that someone is taking potshots, I am the first one to stand up and defend. I think the other two issues were, in my own opinion. But I asked myself why, and I would yield time, why would President Clinton want to remove this in his tenure and why would it appear now. Would it be that if someone is not acted on, there is not a vote, that it would be a way to force the Senate to bring that to a vote and to discuss it? I think that part would be good. But if the person has already been voted on under the Constitution, then I can understand why the gentleman would object to it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, many of us were revolted when the Democratic leadership took $1 million from Bernard Schwartz from Loral that gave military secrets to the Chinese who in turn gave them to North Korea that can now hit us with a Taepo Dong II missile. We were sickened when the DNC used our military as waiters in a White House fund-raiser. But the latest tops all of that, I believe. Democrat leadership had a fund-raiser this weekend with Hanoi Jane, Hanoi Jane Fonda, that stood beside Vietnamese gunners as they were trying to shoot down American airplanes; Hanoi Jane and Tom Hayden, who stood beside those gunners, knowing that our POWs were tortured and brutalized, and said nothing. Yet the Democrat leadership this weekend has a fund-raiser in the face of campaign finance reform with Hanoi Jane Fonda. I hope you choke on every dollar.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, most of my life I have spent fighting against Communists and Socialists. You would think of anybody that did not want to support the Chinese, it would be Duke Cunningham. I am probably the only one in this room that has been shot at by the Chinese near the Vietnamese border. I cannot tell you what I told them over the radio or called them. And they were my enemy. They are an emerging threat today. When the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the committee, asked me to go to Vietnam and raise the American flag over Ho Chi Minh City, I said, ``No, I can't do that. It's too hard.'' And then Pete Peterson, a friend of mine, the Ambassador to Vietnam, said, ``Duke, I need your help. I was a prisoner for 6\1/2\ years. I can do this. You can, too.'' So I went. And I met with the Prime Minister in Hanoi. I asked him, I said, Mr. Prime Minister, President Clinton is trying to work negotiations and trade with Hanoi to open up our two countries. Why are you dragging your feet? In perfect English, he looked at me and said, Congressman, I am a Communist. If we move too fast in trade, you see those people out there? And we were looking at a sea of thousand bicycles. He said, those people out there will have things, like property, like things of their own, like their own bicycles that they could own. He very frankly said, as a Communist, I will be out of business. I looked at him, and I said, Mr. Prime Minister, trade is good. I was the commanding officer of Adversary Squadron, and at Navy fighter weapons school my job was to teach Asian and Sino-Soviet threats to the world. Twenty years ago, they were a real threat. Today, China is a threat; but let us not close the door on our farmers, on the people that fought in Tiananmen Square, on the people that are fighting for human rights within China itself. My daughter dates Matthew Li. He is Chinese. I want to tell you, you look at our universities and the immigrants that we have into this country. They are the hardest working, the most freedom-seeking people in the world. And if we do not support this open trade with China, then we are going to lose that opportunity. China is not what it is or what it was 20 years ago. Are they going to be a democracy? Not in my lifetime. But do we want them to go backwards? Or do we want to slowly change that 10,000-year-old dog? It is hard to teach an old dog new tricks is the saying. I believe with all of my heart that if we close that door and that opportunity for us to reach out, at the same time I think it was wrong to give China missile secrets and then for China to then give it to North Korea and make us vulnerable to missile threats, but we can hold them at bay. Do not let the cobra in the baby crib but milk it for its venom.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oregon asked me earlier in the day if I would support this, and I said yes. I do not think everybody in China is evil, but I do think there are evil people in the government, and I think there are atrocities going on which the gentleman is trying to get to, all the way from Germany with the experiments that went on there to the even alleged nonprisoners being executed and killed for international marketing. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, and I thank him for offering it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from California has got the most noble of intent in this particular legislation. I have no doubt. But I do not think, not that I do not think, I know, that in this particular case, it is not just about intellectual property rights. It is not just about the pharmaceuticals. Our point is, is that pharmaceuticals in almost every one of our districts. They go out and they try to survive producing new medicines. FDA goes through and takes sometimes years to get the okay, and many of these companies actually go out of business; they do not survive. But a few of them have been fortunate enough to get through. And then our own laws, many times the patent runs out just about the time that they get their new drug, new wonder drug okayed; and they have just a short time to recoup any loss, or even make a profit, or even keep from going out of business. If we just give these medicines away, if we violate those intellectual property rights, we force them to stop producing new medicines for the future. It is not about profit. It is about the fact that those new medicines, which the previous gentleman spoke very eloquently about, would not be produced, not only now, but in the future. We stand on the edge. This is going to be the decade, I really believe, and I am on the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, from stem cell research to the genome program to new research, we stand on the edge of biomedical research and new medicines. If we shut down the companies that are discovering these very medicines, then not just the people that are infected with HIV, and I think it is terrible about the number of people, and the gentlewoman is exactly right, there are entire civilizations that are dying, and there are children that do not have homes because their parents are dying of HIV, or even it has been transmitted to them at birth. So it is not a question about not caring; it is a question of caring not only now, but for the future.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the primary threat to our country comes from a bomb, or hostile nation. I do believe that the threat to this Nation comes from within, from those that would taint the values of this country of religion and our beliefs and our flag. Mr. Speaker, 23 nations, 23 civilizations have been destroyed from within for this very type and form of demagoguery; degradation of values. Mr. Speaker, this is not political to us that support the flag. I have lists here of every single ethnic group in the United States, gender groups, children, senior citizens that support the amendment. The other side just stated, there is not much to do today, if one wants to listen to this, to trivialize the event. To us, to every single veterans' group, to 80 percent of the American people, 49 States that had laws on the books was overruled of 200 years of history, 200 years of tradition, by a one-vote margin in our courts. Is it wrong because nine people in a 5 to 4 decision decided otherwise? Yes. That is why we are here today. We believe that it is wrong. It is not hard to make this decision when one knows what their values are, and one cannot rule by ``but.'' People say, well, I deplore the burning of the American flag, but. It is not hard to make the decision when one knows their values and what they are by deed heart; mind. I have in this folder literally hundreds of letters from third graders, from fourth graders, from fifth graders about what the flag means to them. This is more than just a piece of cloth. It is something that our children, our grandchildren, our grandparents have thought and talk about what it means to them. To watch somebody burn the American flag represents a destruction of those values, of those ideas and of those thoughts. That is why we are opposed to it. I was witness to a young Hispanic that was protesting proposition 187. He was opposed to the proposition. But in his midst, there was a group of Hispanics that turned to burn the American flag. This young Hispanic grabbed the flag and protected it and was beaten by the group that was burning the American flag. If we take a look at our Nation, every ethnic group stood behind this flag, every veterans' group. Mr. Speaker, 372 Members of this body, 372, voted for this amendment, and it will pass today. But yet, there is a group out there that would fight against it. Mr. Speaker, if one has nothing more to do, watch us today? I hear that in disgust. Mr. Speaker, as an example of what the flag means, I was overseas and there was a friend of mine that was a prisoner of war for 7 years. It took him 5 years to knit an American flag on the inside of his shirt, and he would share that flag with his comrades until the Vietnamese guards broke in, and they saw the POW without his shirt. They ripped the flag to pieces, and they threw it on the ground. They took him out, and they beat this POW for hours, and they brought him back, unconscious to the point where his comrades thought that he was not going to survive. His comrades comforted him as much as they could, and they went about their work. A few moments later, they saw this broken, bodied POW crawl to the center of the floor and watched him as he started gathering those bits of thread to knit another flag. Mr. Speaker, we are not here just to waste time. This is what this country stands for, its flag, whether it is the right to be able to say a prayer, to honor our flag, or to honor our traditions.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate one thing that the gentleman from Florida spoke about. There is a problem called ``hold harmless'' in title I education funds, to where the States that are losing population maintain a certain level, but those States that are gaining children that are impoverished do not get additional dollars. I worked with a Senator in the other body from California, we brought it to conference; and we decided to fund both until we can find resolution to that. Guess what? There was not enough money to do that. So those children that are the poorest of the poor in title I funds, this supplemental takes care of it. That is one of the reasons this is important. Secondly, we met with Secretary Rumsfeld this morning. While all the 12 appropriations bills have been going up, if you have got a baseline, up to a level like this, Defense with all of the deployments we have had, the cost is down here in the cellar. Even this supplemental will only bring us up to a level here. It will not even bring us back up to the baseline. Secretary Rumsfeld said that one of the most important things that will happen if we do not get this besides all of the ships and things and the repairs and the training that stops, our TDY personnel, that is temporary duty orders, and our permanent moves, right now it is the summertime when our military folks' kids are out of session and they are trying to get their families moved in to their next base so that they can enroll their children into the schools. If we do not hurry up and do this, that is going to be delayed; and all of those families, the disruption of not having your child entered into a school is going to be affected. So we strongly support this amount in this supplemental. It is critical. We should have done it before we left for our Fourth of July break, and now it is even more critical.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Honorable Joe Kellejian, a member of the Solana Beach City Council, who recently received a President's Service and Safety Award from Amtrak. Councilman Kellejian was recognized as a State Partner, which means that he has been a leader in promoting the growth and expansion of passenger rail service at a regional and state level. Joe has been a constituent and personal friend to me for many years, and it is an honor to see him recognized for his contributions to rail service in California. Promotion and expansion of mass transportation is an important part of the continued growth of the economy in southern California, and Councilman Kellejian has been a champion of this effort. As Chairman of the North County Transit Development Board, he played a key role in the development of the Coaster, a successful commuter service for southern California that is run by Amtrak and owned by the North County Transit District. Councilman Kellejian also serves as a member of the San Diego Association of Governments, and chaired the High-Speed Rail Task Force sub- committee, which provides recommendations for the 20-year Regional Transportation Plan for San Diego County. As a member of these organizations and as an individual advocate for the enhancement of the passenger rail service in southern California, Councilman Kellejian has raised millions of dollars for the funding of various rail projects. Recently, Joe and I were successful in obtaining a $1 million appropriation for the Solana Beach Intermodal Transit Station Structure. This money is to be used to initiate a funding package for parking expansion and other improvements at the Solana Beach station, in order to help increase the use of the San Diego Coaster. Since much of southern California and especially San Diego County are such large, sprawling areas, finding efficient public transportation methods proves to be a challenge. Thanks to the efforts of citizens like Councilman Kellejian, above-ground commuter rail service has flourished in recent years, providing, for less congested roads, cleaner air, a healthier environment and an overall better quality of life. I hope that everyone in the city of Solana Beach as well as the 51st District will join me in congratulating Joe for his achievements in improving rail service in San Diego County.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, there are a few people in this Chamber that all of us respect and one is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). I love the gentleman. He is a descendent of Daniel Boone. I also agree with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) that this is very, very noteworthy. As a matter of fact, the individuals that spoke in favor of his amendment, I cannot see a one of them that is antidefense, that is not there to help our men and women. We asked for $362 million, which the gentleman helped us get for ship repair. The Navy switched that over to nuclear and carrier refueling and then gave us $171 million shortfall in ship repair. So the mismanagement within the services is a problem as well. If we look at the basics of the things that have been mentioned here today, this does not even scratch it. And if I had the ability to override the other body and the Senator in the other body, I think we would see all of us supporting that. But we do not have the 60 votes in the other body. Many of us spoke about, including my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), not going along with Izetbegovic in Bosnia. When we talk about the U.S.S. Cole, it was those Mujahadeen and Hamas that surrounded Izetbegovic in Sarajevo that blew up the U.S.S. Cole. And the 124 deployments that have put us into this position, that many of us fought against, including many of my colleagues on the other side, have put us in this hole. Shalikashvili, previous Secretary of Defense, stated that it just wore our equipment out and tore us down. I do not think there will be supplementals in the future. That tells me that the services better come up with a clean number so that we can fund them, because there may be limited ability to do that. But I laud my friend and I regretfully oppose his amendment. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, let me give a little history. Price caps in the 1970s were disastrous. Canada controls a large percentage of the energy coming into California. If we put price caps on, there is nothing that controls Canada in resources for selling power. That is why we ended up with gas lines in the 1970s. My colleagues, look at what Governor Davis has done to stop power generation, yet he is now trying to shift the blame to the White House. The Governor was warned that deregulation and not buying long-term power would be critical to California. He not only rejected it, he killed it. And at the same time the Governor now has millions of dollars from those same energy companies in his personal campaign. I think that is wrong. The Governor was warned that San Diego Gas & Electric was a private company and they had to buy excess power from public utilities, but they could not because there was no excess power. He rejected it. The White House offered the California Governor the GE and Caterpillar generators that could produce thousands of megawatts of power. I quote, ``We do not need it.'' The White House offered the Governor help, and each time he rejected it. The White House said if you make a request in writing, we will do a waiver of the California Clean Air standards just for this emergency period. The Governor would not do that. A year and a half later, he is now thinking about it. We could have turned on 600 generators just for the emergency period, and in the interim worked to clean up those generators. One generator producer in Los Angeles wanted his license because he cleaned up his system. The Governor said, in response to the gentleman, ``If you unionize your shop, I will give you a license.'' Playing politics. And now the Governor's poll numbers are going down and down and down, and the only thing he can do is try and shift the blame to the White House that was in office 1 week when this hit him. It has been caused over and over. Some of my critics will say, well, Pete Wilson started it. Gray Davis had the chance to buy long-term power and he did not, and now he is getting campaign money from the very electric companies that are ripping off these folks. I would say that regardless of what the reason that my colleagues on the other side want price caps, it is detrimental and it will not work, because there is no one that forces those 14 States or Canada to sell power to California. They will sell it elsewhere, and then we will end up with the gas lines like we did in the 1970s.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I think the majority of Members in this body use frank mail to send out information to their constituents. This is information that will help those constituents. But I understand not wanting to send a letter out. In 1993, my colleagues took all the money, or cut veterans' COLAs. They do not want to send a letter out for that. They cut military COLAs. They increased the tax on Social Security. They spent every single dime of the Social Security trust fund, and I understand why the gentleman did not want to send out a letter for that. But I would say in this case, we believe it is their money, and we would like to let them know that it is coming in a fair manner.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we are asked to work in a bipartisan way. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) has a bill on fusion; my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). The President spoke about Path 15 and the inability for us to get power transmission. All the positives that the Members on both sides of the aisle are working together with, if we do not have a way to get that power to our constituents, it is all for naught, whether it is ANWR, whether it is electric, whether it is whatever. That is why I think that this is a good amendment. My colleagues on my own side of the aisle sought not to support this amendment, but I would say that there are many, many bipartisan supporting activities. The exploration of ANWR, some are against it; some are for. The things that we want to do and look at: clean coal, some are for; some are against. We can take all of these positives that we are working on, and I think people would listen and say we are fighting each other on caps. I think caps historically are wrong and will be detrimental. But the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is exactly what the President spoke about in his own power projection plan. That is the reason I rise in support.