Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend, Brian Kent, a young man from White River, Vermont who recently won an award for a letter he wrote regarding the protection of the United States flag. Not only do I have deeply held, personal feelings on this subject, but I have also introduced a Constitutional amendment (H.J. Res. 36) to prohibit the desecration of the American Flag. Millions of American men and women have died in defense of this nation and the flag that represents the history of our nation. The American flag is a national treasure and the ultimate symbol of freedom, equal opportunity and religious tolerance. Brian's letter to his Congressman reflects these feelings and I was pleased to see a young person have such strongly held values and pride in America. Brian's value system and convictions are commendable at any age, but all the more impressive for this 8th grader. I had the opportunity to meet this young man and judging from this encounter, I know his parents must be proud of this fine young American. I commend his letter to my colleagues. Knowing students such as Brian assures me that this country's future is in good hands. Dear Representative Sanders: Two hundred and twenty-five years ago, the great nation of the United States was formed. This country has had its share of wars and protests, but one act of violence that offends most Americans is flag burning. Flag burning is a way of protesting, but it is at the expense of the country's unity and it needs to be stopped. An unfathomable number of men and women have fought and died to defend the red, white, and blue. To see not only young, but also older Americans burning flags literally makes me ashamed that these people are Americans. Former POWs have created the American flag out of dead bugs while imprisoned. For many Americans, our flag has lifted their spirits through the darkest hours of our nation's history. The American flag is not only our nation's emblem, it's a part of our everyday life. Flag burning was not just a fad of the sixties but many people still burn flags in protest today. People defend their despicable acts by insisting that flag burning is practicing their freedom of speech. Does anyone really believe that is what Samuel Adams and Thomas Jefferson intended when they wrote the constitution of the United States of America and included the article for freedom of speech? Did they want to create one nation under God that would spit on and burn the American flag, the symbol that our forefathers died to defend? No. These acts of burning our flag have divided our country and some of the ramifications still divide Americans today. I am writing lawmakers to bring flag burning to their attention and ask them to consider passing a new law to prosecute any person unlawfully burning or desecrating to flag of the United States. I urge you to strongly consider supporting this type of law. Burning of the American flag is an act perpetrated against both our country and government, and should be prosecuted as a federal offense. Every unjustifiable burning of the American flag is a mockery of the patriots who first died for ``liberty and justice for all.'' Sincerely, Brian Kent.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side spoke about the California energy problem. There is a desperate problem in California and all over the West Coast. However, I want to tell my colleagues, special interests have kept us from building power plants in the State of California for over 20 years. While our population growth has increased, our ability to produce our own power has reduced. They have stopped nuclear power, they have stopped new generating power, and now we are facing the biggest crisis in decades. At a time when most of our power generators in California were forced to be outside the State because of these special interest groups, Governor Gray Davis, exercised no responsibility for the newly deregulated energy market place, and that put us in the situation we are in right now, especially for San Diego, because San Diego Gas & Electric is a private industry and cannot buy inexpensive public power. There were two natural gas power generators, two different types, built to be environmentally safe. The President offered to help Gray Davis obtain these generators. Gov. Davis said, we do not need them. Another company upgraded its energy plant and went to get the operating license from Gray Davis, our governor said, if you unionize this plant, I will give you your license. The biggest problem we face in California is the governor of California, he has failed us in his handling of this energy crisis.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) has done some marvelous things, I think, in education. He has identified multiple programs, and he has got my utmost respect. But I think the gentleman is wrong on this particular issue. I have talked to the superintendents in San Diego. They are opposed to the amendment. They want the flexibility to test. I spoke to a group in New York that were against it; and basically, they were from an affluent school, and they wanted their students to be able to go on to Harvard and Yale and those things; and they thought that a higher level of testing would limit them from doing that. We want to be able to judge. We put billions of dollars, which my colleague has fought against, in education without accountability. This is one way that we feel that, if we put the money in, we hold the schools and raise the bar, because if one lowers the bar, that is going to lower the standards. The only real way to assess that is with this quality standards. I laud the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra) for his effort in education, but I do oppose the amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the rule. I do not like closed rules myself, but I think in this case with the bipartisan support that we have on the bill, I doubt if there will be very many people opposed to it. I support the rule and am a cosponsor of the bill. I have a son. He happens to be adopted. I would like to tell people that there is no difference between a natural son and an adopted son as far as the love and care, through better and worse. Like all children, you have problems; but it has been a blessing to my wife and myself. I would also tell you a story. My brother, when he was going to college, was dating a young lady. Unbeknownst to him, the young lady became pregnant. She went away to Kansas City and gave birth to this child without my brother's knowledge. Later on, my brother married this same young lady. They had two children. Later on, the adopted child wanted to know who her parents were. My niece, Louise, sought to find her mother. It took almost 2 years. She arrived in St. Louis and called my sister-in-law and said, ``I think you are my mother.'' Louise had been adopted. She turned out to be living about a mile away from her natural parents. When she arrived, she had no idea she had a natural father and a natural brother and sister. Louise is now pregnant with her third child. No, the child will not be aborted; and the child will have a loving family from Josh and Louise. A loving mother who supported her daughter's right to seek her natural parents is very close to my brother and the entire family. So the story, Mr. Speaker, is that adopted children, there are success stories. And it is a wonderful thing that I think Members on both sides of the aisle are doing here by making it possible to go forward with this bill. Mr. Speaker, I thank the sponsors of this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for this amendment. If one takes a look across this country, and people talk about reducing the debt, they talk about money for education, health care, but yet they want to put $1 billion into the United Nations. They want to spend $67 million a year for UNESCO. I mean, think about it. That money is going to take away from the World Health Fund. It is going to take away from the Children's Fund and things that are effective to a risky scheme like UNESCO that they say, quote, has changed. It has not. The authors of this amendment have thought it through very, very carefully. It is no wonder that there was never a balanced budget on this House floor for 40 years or people wanted to dump money into welfare without reform when the average was 16 years on welfare. We owe it to the American people to be the guardians of their tax dollars and the effectiveness of those dollars. Support the Tancredo amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say that I respect the right of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to take the position she does. But let me address it as a father myself of two beautiful daughters and an adopted son. If my wife was attacked and she was pregnant, or my daughters, and they both survived, then I would support the enhancement clause that the gentlewoman is trying to put in here. If either my wife or the unborn child was killed, then I would want justice, not enhancement. As a father, to know that a child that I was going to have that would not be born in this life because of some criminal act, I feel that that is wrong. In Bosnia there was a Muslim that offered a private a child and says, ``Help me get my child to the hospital.'' On the way, the Muslim man said that, ``Help me, private.'' The point is that they are all our children.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in the Department of Defense, we have 480,000 bureaucrats that buy and sell. They charge 22 percent to the military. Should Congress eliminate a lot of that bureaucracy, and instead of having taxpayers cough up money for more defense, should we just put more money into it without more reform? In education, we get as little as 48 cents to the dollar because of the bureaucracy in education. This morning the Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, testified. The gentleman from Wisconsin pointed out that the President's budget only puts in 6 percent increase. Six percent. Traditionally we have been increasing it by over 12 percent. The Secretary pointed out that there has been a flatlining; that we put more money in education, but there has not been any change. Can Congress work harder, can we do our job to eliminate Federal bureaucracy and spending or can we afford to give the money back to the American people? I pick on not just education, I pick on defense and all government agencies. Mr. Speaker, environmental cleanup was mentioned. Seventy percent of Superfund went to trial lawyers. Do we look as a Congress and work with the States on how to clean up the environment, or do we keep dumping in money? Many of my colleagues fought against welfare reform. Sixteen years was the average. They want to dump more money. We have to raise taxes to pay for that. Welfare reform put people back to work, and it helped stimulate the economy. Capital gains, my colleagues said it was only for the rich. Alan Greenspan said it helped stimulate the economy. So we do not reduce taxes? What I am saying is that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle always want to spend more money without reforms.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, on the 86th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, to lend my voice to this important debate remembering the Armenian Genocide. While Turkey's brutal campaign against the Armenian people was initiated almost a century ago, its impact lives on in the hearts of all freedom-loving people. That is why we must continue to speak about it. We must remind the American people of the potential for such atrocities against ethnic groups, because history lessons that are not learned are too often repeated. The Armenian Genocide, conceived and carried out by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, resulted in the deportation of 2 million Armenians from their homeland and the ultimate slaughter of 1.5 million of those people. The continued tensions in the Caucasus region are rooted in this history, and until they are forthrightly acknowledged among world leaders, the prospects for resolution remain dim. And so, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize history, and to demonstrate that history is unkind to that abuse either rules of war or basic human dignity. I have fought in a war and understand each side feels compelled for its own reasons to fight. When that fight extends to civilian populations it is justifiable to both examine and condemn such occurrences. The U.S. has some of the most extensive documentation of this genocide against the Armenian people, and there has been no shortage of corroboration by other countries. The Armenian genocide has been recognized by the United Nations and nations around the globe, and the U.S. came to the aid of the survivors. But perhaps we were not vociferous enough in holding the perpetrators of this genocide accountable, and for shining the light of international shame upon them. For it was only a few decades later that we saw another genocide against humanity: the Holocaust. That is why we must continue to tell the story of Armenian genocide. It is a painful reminder that such vicious campaigns against a people have occurred, and that the potential for such human brutality exists in this world. We must remain mindful of the continued repression of Armenians today, and challenge those who would persecute these people. If we do not, future generations may be destined to relive such horrors against humanity.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to cover real quickly the EP-3 incident with China. Some of my colleagues had questions. From the time the aircraft was hit, the EP lost 8,000 feet. I am sure the crew inside thought that those were their last minutes. They had 20 minutes to make a determination with a single-engine gone, another engine damaged and the entire front of the airplane off. Some of my colleagues say, why did they not fly to other places? The chances for fire and explosion on that airplane were very high. Secondly, we are in a non-Cold War situation. The rules of engagement dictated that they fly and land that airplane to save the crew. Why not ditch the airplane? The EP-3 has probably got a minute and a half from the time it hits the water. It is not like pulling over to the side of the road and changing a tire. Half the crew is going to be lost. Why not bail out? The closest rescuer or destroyer was over 12 hours away, which would have put them there about 11:00 at night. It was not an option. Our crew did a good job. They had 20 minutes to get rid of all the classified material, which we think that they were able to do. I think they did a good job. I think we owe them a lot of our appreciation, and it is time that China let them come home.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hard- working families in my Congressional district to support H.R. 6, the Marriage Penalty and Tax Relief Act. I am here today to ask for fairness and common sense to protect families and secure our children's future. The Marriage Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001 (H.R. 6) will provide roughly $400 billion over 10 years in tax relief to families by increasing the child-care tax credit and fixing the marriage penalty tax. In addition, this legislation also increases the standard deduction, expands the 15 percent tax bracket, doubles the earned income tax credit for low-income families and adjusts the alternative minimum tax. Twenty-five million couples pay the marriage tax penalty each year to the tune of $1,400, including over 60,000 couples in my congressional district alone. It is unfair that married couples should shoulder this burden, simply because they chose to say ``I do.'' This legislation is critical to simplifying the tax code more simple, and making it more fair. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 6 and finally ending the marriage tax penalty. I am also pleased that the House will continue its work on reviewing President Bush's tax plans when we consider the repeal of the estate tax in the coming week.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 811, and I am happy to see it is in a bipartisan fashion. It is so much more to come to the well when we are not throwing slings and arrows at each other. Secretary Principi is from San Diego, and he knows full well the problems we have with seismic problems in the State of California. This will go a long way, but I would like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member for working on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I would also have a plea to my colleagues that subvention for our veterans TRICARE are merely still Band-Aids, especially if you live in a rural area. I feel that if we work on an FEHBP bill that gives access to all veterans, it will be much better off. Since I am not on the committee, I would also like to speak to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that we once had a male-dominated military force, and since then, it is men and women, especially women at a much higher rate, which means our facilities need to be upgraded with the increased number of women serving in our Armed Forces that are retiring; that health care is important and there is especially needs to that. I would like to mention one other area that I hope the committee addresses. Over 50 years ago, and I think this is also in a bipartisan fashion, General MacArthur promised our fellow Filipino Americans they would have health care. That promise has not been held. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are working currently with Filipino health care from a time of Corregidor and Baguio when they gave their lives for the Filipino Islands and for the United States and their service to the United States, I think it is fair time that we bring that forward. There is other things that help them, Impact Aid, COLAs for the veterans in active duty and a partnership that we have in San Diego where the Children's Hospital with UCSD working with our current VA medical facility, those kinds of things are helping, but I still feel, Mr. Speaker, we still have a long way to go in supplying and providing our veterans with adequate health care.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, throughout my military career I have had the honor of associating with more than a few gallant men and women who served our country in times of conflict abroad. However, heroes and patriots may be found here on our home front as well. These are folks who quietly live their lives helping others, and who, through their leadership, commitment, and most of all their example, support and defend our American way of life. Christine Pike will always be a true American home-front hero. Mrs. Pike, a native of New Britain, Connecticut, lived for many years in Wethersfield, Connecticut, where she became active in the League of Women Voters. Throughout her life, she loved aviation. She was passionate about aviation history, its pioneers, and those who courageously defend our country from in the sky. Christine was, in fact, an aviation pioneer in her own right. At a time when there were few women in the field, she became a pilot. She flew Taylorcraft and J- 3 Cubs in the 1940s and in 1946 she joined the ranks of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. In 1962, Mrs. Pike moved to Reno, Nevada, where she became a successful business leader. She launched her own company, Pike Advertising, and counted many of the area's major hotels and casinos among her clients. However, her favorite clients were in the field of aviation, the Reno Air Races and Bill Stead's Smirnoff Bearcat for whom she handled both public relations and advertising. Christine moved to San Diego, California, in 1968, and wore many hats during her nearly thirty years there. She had a tremendous respect for law enforcement officials and spent much of her time pursuing related fields. She served as a municipal court clerk. She worked in the field of private investigation. Additionally, she was, for many years, a welfare fraud investigator for the County of San Diego. Also in San Diego, Mrs. Pike worked as a travel consultant with a company known as The Travel Center. During this time she put together a number of high profile tours, occasionally accompanying her clients to make sure there were no bumps in the road. Among her accomplishments in this field was a nostalgic tour she organized for the members of Consairways, a commercial airline that flew C-87 Liberators and other transports in support of the Army during World War Two. One day, early in my first bid for a seat in the House of Representatives, Mrs. Pike walked into my campaign office. Things were never quite the same after that. She had an incredible facility for organization and for establishing critical relationships with key people in the community. As my volunteer scheduler, she worked tirelessly making sure I was always in the right place at the right time. For all intents and purposes, Christine halted her business activities so that she could devote her attention, full-time, to my campaign. She continued in this way throughout my first term in office and my second successful campaign in what was at that time the newly formed 51st Congressional District. Throughout this time, Christine was always ready and willing to take on any task or assignment. Every job, no matter how large or small, was handled with consummate professionalism and meticulous attention to detail. Her services were so valuable that many times she was asked to take a permanent position on my staff. But, she would always laugh and tell me that she preferred simply being a volunteer. In the early 1990s, Mrs. Pike left San Diego and moved to Tennessee. There she continued her active support of Republican causes. She continued to work as a travel consultant and she began to cultivate her long-standing interest in the activities of the Union Army during the Civil War. After a few years though, poor health caused her to return to Reno. We maintained contact after Christine moved to Reno. Sadly, after a long and courageous fight, Mrs. Pike passed away there last December. Trying to summarize Christine Pike's life in these few sentences would be an injustice to her, because she accomplished so much more than I have recounted here. She was passionate about honesty and justice. She had no time for fabricators and prevaricators, but she was sensitive to the needs of those who were lost or less fortunate. Always a private person, Christine seldom talked about the many lives she touched. During one of her many ``power walks'' in the Point Loma area of San Diego, Mrs. Pike befriended a homeless woman, found shelter for her, and faithfully brought her food, blankets and clothing on holidays. In another instance, Mrs. Pike worked to bolster the career of a struggling trumpet player. She tirelessly worked to create relationships that would help small businesses in my Congressional District. Additionally, she worked quietly and behind the scenes to help many of those in law enforcement. For these reasons, and many more, I have established the Christine Pike Volunteer of the Year Award for campaign volunteers in my District. In closing I would simply like to say that Christine Pike was truly an American patriot. Mrs. Pike's multitude of friends will truly miss her. However, her spirit, her example, and her many selfless acts on behalf of others will live on in the memories of all who knew her, and now, in the Record of this hallowed hall.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart. A little over a week ago, a troubled young man committed an act of unspeakable evil, which changed the lives of all San Diegans forever. Today we consider a resolution to condemn the heinous atrocities that occurred on March 5, 2001, at Santana High School in Santee, California. I rise to support the resolution offered by my good friend and colleague from California. Tragically, today nearly 1,900 students will return to Santana High School without many of their classmates, one teacher, and one security guard. Among these students who will never return to Santana High School are Randy Gordon, a 17 year old who talked about going into the Navy after he graduated and Brian Zuckor, a 14 year old who thought someday he might become a stuntman. They went to school last week, figuring it would be just another day. Tragically, it was their last. Other students injured in this terrible incident include: Heather Cruz, Trevor Edwards, Travis Gallegos-Tate, Barry Gibson, Matthew Heier, James Jackson, Karla Leyva, Scott Marshall, Melissa McNulty, Triston Salladay, and Raymond Serrato. Also among the wounded was Tim Estes, a student teacher, and Peter Ruiz Jr., a campus security guard. This tragedy has caused us all to reevaluate and reflect on our own moral and social values and to reexamine the role that we play as parents, relatives, and family members in the lives of our country's children. This tragedy has driven many of us to work to bring not only healing, but also a reformation of our way of life. Every America felt what happened to those students. The phrase, ``it can't happen in my backyard'' is now gone for the residents of Santee. I ask that my colleagues in the United States Congress and my fellow citizens, pray for the students of Santana High School. Pray that carefree feelings that come with youth return to these students. Pray that we have the power and commitment to do our part to ensure that this horrible violation of innocence is never repeated again. Mr. Speaker, we should all hope that this never happens again, we should all work to see that it doesn't.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce legislation which would amend the Constitution to prevent desecration of the American flag. This measure is identical to H.J. Res. 33, which I sponsored in the last session of Congress, and language previously adopted by the House. It is necessary to restore protections for the symbol of our nation and all its honored traditions, which were sadly wiped away in the 1989 Supreme Court ruling on Texas v. Johnson. In that fateful 5-4 ruling, the court cast aside longstanding national laws and 48 state laws recognizing the flag's special status and honoring its place in American society--ruling that its desecration is protected under the first amendment. For those who see our flag as a revered symbol of freedom and the great sacrifices that were made to sustain it at home and abroad, that decision was a horrible affront-- and the call to action was immediate. Inspired to preserve our national trademark and unalloyed symbol of unity, Congress quickly moved to pass a law restoring flag protections. But in its 5-4 ruling on United States v. Eichman in 1990, the Supreme Court once again found that flag protections were inconsistent with free expression rights accorded under the first amendment. That ruling made it clear that restoration of flag protections would require a constitutional amendment. Since that ruling, the House four times has acted on a Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment, passing it three times with well over the two-thirds majority required. The Senate has also acted, failing to achieve the two-thirds votes necessary to move the amendment forward to the states for ratification by a mere handful of votes. With the Senate coming just three votes shy of that goal last year, and a new administration which has expressed its support for the Flag Protection Amendment, we are now within reach of victory. As a combat veteran who served 20 years in the Navy, there are almost no words adequate to convey the significance of the U.S. flag to me. But I can tell you that each color on that flag, each star and each stripe evokes emotion in me, and together they stand as a symbol of everything I believed in about this country when I fought to defend it. When I heard that some in my country were opposing my military's involvement in Vietnam, that flag reminded me of our tolerance for differences and our endurance through unity. It was a steady symbol of the liberties we enjoy--a way of life that should be protected for future generations and defended for others who aspire to it. And for POWs who endured unthinkable torture and deprivation, it was a source of hope and strength that helped them persevere another day. There have been several major incidents of flag burning since the Court ruling in 1990. These incidents tear at me, and represent a direct attack on all I hold dear about this country. The Constitution was not designed to protect actions which jeopardize others' rights, and the government has long acted to restrict speech and conduct that could cause harm to others. Those who want to express their anger against this country have options that don't involve destroying the sacred symbol that belongs to all citizens. At a time when we are faced with increasing youth violence and cultural breakdown, restoring our most recognized sign of unity would be a positive step in the right direction--providing a steady reminder that living free comes with responsibility to respect others. Mr. Speaker, the state of Israel has laws protecting not only its flag, but the flags of its allies as well. It is inexplicable to me that the United States is being told by its courts to tolerate such acts of hatred and violence against its flag when our allies go to such great lengths to protect it. Over 75 percent of Americans consistently agree: the time to restore protections for our flag is long overdue. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this constitutional amendment, and to move it back to the American people for speedy ratification.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as to the question on the budget, we have now got a President that will not only not embarrass the country but he will not hold the Congress hostage to spend money above the budget or shut down the government. President Bush will increase the budget by 4 percent above inflation and give tax relief. But even more of a joke, my friends on the other side in 1993, when they had the House, the White House and the Senate, we talk about middle class tax relief, they gave the middle class the biggest tax increase in history. They used the same rhetoric that they have here today. They talk about Social Security. They increased the tax on Social Security. They talk about, oh, saving the trust fund. They spent every dime in their budget on spending the Social Security Trust Fund. President Clinton and Al Gore every single budget spent every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund. They even had a retroactive tax increase in which the First Lady redid her taxes. Remember that? We have retroactive tax relief.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001. The plan that we are considering today reduces to 12% the current 15% tax rate on the first $12,000 of taxable income for couples ($6,000 for singles) to get money in the hands of those who need it most. The new rate is applied retroactively to January 1, 2001. This plan also consolidates by 2006 the current 5-rate tax structure (15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%) into four new rates (10%, 15%, 25%, and 33%). This legislation is an important first step in returning tax overpayments to the American people. The American people are working harder than ever, and they are spending forty percent of their income in federal, state, and local taxes. I think that it is unconscionable that families are paying more in taxes, than for food, clothing, and shelter combined, and that four months of every year, taxpayers are working to pay the federal government. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated that over the next ten years, Washington will collect a $5.6 trillion tax surplus. Taxpayers are sending us more than we need--and there is no doubt in my mind that if we don't return it, that money will be spent. It is time to return that money and let the American people spend their own money to meet their own needs. When we return this tax surplus to American families, they will see more than just the benefit of a refund check. I am concerned that our economy is slowing down--consumer confidence, capital investment and growth are down, while layoffs, energy prices and anxieties are up. We need to give the economy a boost, and any credible economist can tell you that tax cuts will do that. So not only will the American people get their overpayment back, but they will also reap the benefit of a rejuvenated economy that will enhance their prosperity. I look forward to working with President Bush and my colleagues in the House and Senate to build on this important first step to return the tax surplus to the American people. I rise today in support of H.R. 3, and also to voice my support for President Bush's other tax refund initiatives which include doubling the child tax credit, reducing the marriage penalty, eliminating the death tax, expanding the charitable tax deduction, and making the research and development tax credit permanent.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in California we have an energy crisis. We have several small businesses going out just because of the costs of energy. We have restaurants that are on a very narrow margin. Those people employ workers. My colleagues that are opposed to this are generally from a liberal philosophy of government control. If we fall out of line like the blacklisting that the union, the Clinton-Gore administration, put out last year, then we can control you. We can control your private profit. We can control education. We can control your business. If you do not comply, yes, we will send in the IRS or OSHA or EPA, and what we are saying is that, yes, that my colleagues would make people think that we do not want workplace safety, we are for the evil business. That is just not true. We support the working families, and we want to give them tax relief, but my opponents, I would guarantee that over 90 percent of them that are opposed to this do not want tax relief, and they did not want the balanced budget and they did not want welfare reform, because they want government control.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S.J. Res. 6, The Ergonomics Rule Disapproval Resolution. I am pleased that this resolution has moved so quickly to the House floor, and I hope that it will soon be on its way to the White House to be signed by President Bush. I have very grave concerns about the ergonomics regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) under the Clinton Administration. As a Member of the Labor, Health and Human Services Subcommittee, I have worked for years to prevent OSHA from issuing these rules. I support workplace safety, and I think that it is difficult to make the case that by supporting this resolution, I am an advocate of unsafe work environments. In fact, America's workplaces are safer than ever. Workplace injuries, sicknesses, and deaths have been declining for one hundred years because America's employers have market-based incentives to keep workplaces safe. Hazardous workplaces mean more lost workdays, and high workers' compensation insurance premiums. Both of these factors translate to lost profits. There is no doubt that it is in every business owner's interest to promote a safe workplace. In addition to market incentives, I am also supportive of programs like the successful Voluntary Protection Program, which promote safety through cooperative means and education. OSHA's risky ergonomics scheme is another effort to gore small business that must be stopped. This hastily enacted regulation consumes over 300 pages of fine print in the Federal Register, is accompanied by over 50,000 pages of supporting information in the docket, and has an 800-page index. OSHA gave American businesses just two months to comment (then added on an additional 30 days) on a regulation which is anticipated to cost billions of dollars to implement. I would argue that 90 days is barely enough time to read and digest the regulation, let alone provide comment. I am further concerned that the rules are so broad, confusing, and subjective that employers could never know if they are in compliance. Beyond my basic concerns regarding the substance of the regulations themselves, I am outraged by the flawed process that was used to implement the regulation. With my support, language was included in the FY01 Labor HHS Appropriations bill barring OSHA from implementing the rule. An effort to strip this language from the bill failed on the House floor last June by a vote of 201-220. The same language barring the ergonomics rule was added to the Senate bill in an amendment on the Senate floor. Congress overwhelmingly supported delay of this rule. While we in Congress knew that President Clinton would not support our position, we were confident that President Clinton would have to negotiate with us. Ultimately, Congress and the White House reached an agreement that no action would be taken on the ergonomics regulations, and that the issue would be left for the next Administration--be it a Bush Administration or a Gore Administration--to resolve. On November 14, 2000, while the Congress was in recess, President Clinton took matters into his own hands and moved ahead with the regulations, openly defying the will of Congress. This rush to implement the regulation showed the Congress that President Clinton had not negotiated in good faith. Furthermore, these rules were implemented to go into effect in January, just days before a new President would take office. The process made the new President unable to repeal the regulations. The process that President Clinton chose to put forth this regulation left this Congress with no option but to utilize the Congressional Review Act. And so I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, because flawed regulations were put forth by a lame-duck President, against the will of Congress. These regulations were not based on sound science. They will cost businesses countless dollars, and unnecessarily destroy jobs. These regulations do not protect workers from injury. Instead, the cost to implement these rules puts workers at risk of being unemployed. I am confident that no American workers will be injured as a result of the legislation that I hope will pass this House today. Congress has already received assurances from Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao that she will place a high priority on assuring worker safety and protection. I applaud her for her efforts, and I applaud the small businesses in my congressional district and across the country who have voluntarily made their workplaces safe, without the intrusion of the long arm of the federal government. I rise in support of S.J. Res. 6, and urge my colleagues to join me.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Energy Efficient Buildings Incentives Act. I am joined in this effort by a substantial and diverse coalition of my colleagues including Mr. Markey of Massachusetts, as well as Mr. Smith of New Hampshire in the Senate, and many others. This bill is supported by a strong coalition of industries and organizations. I have submitted a list of supporters below. My constituents in San Diego have been suffering from outrageously high-energy prices for nearly a year. Our citizens and city have been forced into a crisis by the State legislature's deregulation of the electricity market. While I and my colleagues from San Diego are seeking solutions to this terrible crisis, I am introducing this bill in an effort to formulate a long-term energy plan. The Energy Efficient Buildings Incentives Act will provide tax incentives for the construction of energy efficient buildings. Structures of this nature could potentially cut energy usage by as much as 50 percent. This would result in a nearly 6 percent reduction in air emissions over the next 10 years--equivalent to taking 40 percent of the automobiles off the road. The bill will offer tax incentives to encourage the production and sale of technologically advanced, energy-efficient buildings and equipment. The legislation is structured to promote the creation of competitive markets for new technologies and designs that are not widely available today, but have the possibility of being cost effective to the consumer in the future. The incentives will apply to: Efficient new residential buildings that save 30 percent to 50 percent in energy costs compared to national model codes, including a higher incentive for higher savings. Efficient heating, cooling, and water heating equipment that reduce emissions and peak electric loads by about 20 percent (lower incentives) and 30 percent-50 percent (higher incentives) compared to national standards. Efficient commercial buildings with 50 percent energy and power cost savings. Residential-scale solar hot water and photovoltaic equipment. The design and administration for these energy efficient structures is based on the track record of successful state programs over the past decade. Buildings account for some 35 percent of air pollution emissions nationwide, and cost their owners over $250 billion a year in energy costs. They also contribute to well over half of peak electric power demand. If enacted promptly the incentives in this bill will begin to mitigate electric peak reliability problems by the summer of 2001. This bill will help both families and businesses reduce annual energy costs, saving over $80 billion in present value over the next decade. Energy costs of businesses are tax deductible under current law, so reductions in energy costs means billion of dollars in saving to the Federal government. I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting the energy Efficient Buildings Incentives Act. Together we can provide for a cleaner environment and help reduce energy needs, thus postponing the need for building new power plants as well as helping to save our environment. The Energy Efficient Buildings Incentives Act Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, Consumer's Choice Council, U.S. PIRG, World Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, American Oceans Campaign, Environmental and Energy Study Institute, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation, Inc., Michigan Environmental Council, Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy, American Rivers, and World Wildlife Fund. ENRON, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, PacificCorp, Northern California Power Agency, CA Municipal Utilities Association, and Northeastern Public Power Association. American Portland Cement Alliance, Air Conditioning Contractors of America, Foamed Polystyrene Alliance, North American Insulation Manufacturers Association, Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association, American Energy Technologies, American Solar Energy, and Energy Conservation Services of North Florida. National Association of State Energy Officials, Home Builders Association of Central Vermont, Inc., Insulation Contractors Association of America, California Building Industry Association, California Association of Building Energy Consultants, National Council of the Housing Industry, National Association of State Energy Officials, and Florida Solar Energy Industries Association. Union of Concerned Scientists, National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, National Environmental Trust, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Global Green USA, Friends of the Earth, Alliance to Save Energy, League of Conservation Voters, American Oceans Campaign, Consumer's Choice Council, National Environmental Trust, and Izaak Walton League of America. Massachusetts Electric, Southern California Edison, Montana Power, California ISO, Sempra Energy, City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles Water & Power. Siemens Solar Industries, TRANE, Climatic-Solar Corp., Energy Partners, Solar Systems of Florida, AllSolar Service Company Inc., Solar-Fit, and Solar Source. National Insulation Association, California Energy Commission, Florida Solar Energy Center, Solar Energy Industries Association, California Air Resources Board, and Manufactured Housing Assoc.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing legislation that will address deficiencies in the ongoing demonstration project to assess the viability of a Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) option for military retirees. Since Congress authorized that demonstration in the FY99 Defense Authorization, I have raised concerns that the limits on it would prevent us from gaining adequate data on which to judge this option. Unfortunately, those concerns have been validated over the past years, and I am resubmitting corrective legislation to put us back on the right track. While many in Congress have been pushing for an FEHBP option for military retirees for years, that effort has been stymied because some believe that it would be too costly. That is because budget analysts made some illogical assumptions in projecting the cost of FEHBP for military retirees. For example, the budgeteers incorrectly calculated that all eligible military retirees would select this option. But that is not logical. Some people may be satisfied with their access to care under Tricare, or opt out based on cost calculations. Moreover, budget analysts did not account for the savings that would accrue in other health programs for those who participate in FEHBP. Given these unrealistic assumptions, I joined other FEHBP supporters in pushing a demonstration so that we could validate the true cost and viability of this option. Unfortunately, even the demonstration was scaled back, creating a ``Catch 22'' situation. Congress authorized a three-year demonstration limited to 66,000 participants at up to ten sites. Because the number of eligibles that could be offered this option was capped at 69,663, it has been almost impossible to attract a credible pool of participants on which to judge the viability and cost. To achieve anything close to our intent, we would have to have one hundred percent participation--something no one but the budget analysts ever assumed possible. Set up for failure, this effort could provide opponents the perfect fodder to kill the FEHBP option. DOD never began any real marketing of the option to potential beneficiaries until August 1999--two months before the pilot was to begin. And the effort that was made was completely inadequate. Notification consisted of a postcard mailer without any detailed information so that eligible participants could compare costs to their current arrangements. People who have Medicare Part B coverage were not informed that under some plans, they wouldn't have to make copayments or meet deductibles. The Department was slow to announce health fairs conducted by FEHBP insurers, leaving less than a week in most cases for potential participants to plan. The artificial limits, combined with inadequate marketing of FEHBP to military retiree, led to unusually low participation. At the end of 1999, less than one thousand people in eight sites nationwide have signed up for the FEHBP option. Fortunately, a renewed marketing effort and extension for signup last year increased participation to 7200. But almost two years were lost in getting this demonstration off the ground, and it is set to expire at the end of 2002. Meanwhile, DOD still must spend money to market to this small group of eligible participants. Those who participate in the FEHBP program are also prohibited from getting any further care in a military treatment facility. MTFs such as Walter Reed Army Medical Center need the older patients to keep up their full range of medical skills and they have the space to accommodate retirees. We should allow MTFs to bill health care plans for services--as we are now starting to do with Medicare Subvention. My bill would address these limitations by: Removing the limits on the number of people and areas of the country in which the demonstration may be carried out. Removing the restriction, which prevents participants from using military treatment facilities (MTFs), and allows MTFs to charge the FEHBP plans for retiree services. That balances cost considerations, and ensures a steady mix of older patients so that the military medical personnel are able to keep up their full range of skills. Extending the current demonstration two years so that we have the benefit of solid data and a credible program on which to judge the viability of the FEHBP option. Mr. Speaker, these fixes are no substitute for comprehensive military retiree health care reform. In my view, the time for demonstrations and patchwork fixes to the DOD health care system is over. Congress took a major step in that direction last year by authorizing the ``Tricare for Life'' benefits. But we need comprehensive action to ensure a menu of affordable heath care options for military retirees. I am confident that an honest assessment will confirm the viability of an FEHBP option for all military retirees. We cannot continue to punt on that because of budget concerns. We provide FEHBP to millions of civilian federal employees throughout their careers and in retirement. Military personnel and their families make many sacrifices throughout their careers. The least we can do is provide them with the same level of care that other federal workers have. They deserve no less.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce ``Matthew's Law.'' Aimee Willard, Polly Klaas, Megan Kanka, and Matthew Cecchi, have one thing in common. They were children struck down by killers. Mr. Speaker, I believe that every Member in the House is tired of having to name bills after murdered children. We must work to prevent the killing by severely punishing those who take young lives. In November 1998, 9-year-old Matthew Cecchi was brutally murdered in Oceanside, CA. Matthew was not a troubled runaway. He was not a child that was allowed to wander far from his parents. He was not abducted or stolen. He simply walked into a public restroom alone. While his aunt waited outside, he was brutally murdered. His killer Brandon Wilson carefully stalked and hunted down this young and helpless child. This crime shocked our community and struck fear in the hearts of parents. Even today, communities in my district are building co-ed bathrooms for parents to use with children to ensure that this does not happen again. Nevertheless, parents should not fear taking their children to the park. They should not fear letting their children go to the bathroom. Our parks and public lands should be free from crime, free from fear and free from terror. That is why I am reintroducing ``Matthew's Law,'' to ensure that those who seek to harm the helpless are met with severe punishment, and to prevent crime by increasing the certainty of justice. ``Matthew's Law,'' will increase sentencing requirements for those individuals who commit federal violent crimes against children under 13 years of age. It directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase by five levels the punishment for a crime of violence against a child. In most cases, this will result in a doubling of the punishment, and in the most violent cases increase the chance for life in prison or the death penalty. I believe that this additional punishment is important to deter violence against our children. ``Matthew's Law'' also directs the FBI to make available, when possible, assistance if requested by local law enforcement when a child is killed. In the case of Matthew Cecchi, it was not until his killer made another attack that he was captured. When a killer takes one of our children, we must mobilize our resources to stop that killer before he strikes again. Mr. Speaker, this legislation tells killers and violent felons that our parks and public lands are for families and children, not for murderers. This legislation is about national leadership. It shows the States and local communities that the Federal Government will not tolerate violence against our children. And hopefully, they will follow our lead on this issue. This legislation is supported by the National Office of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Law Enforcement Association of America, and the family or Matthew Cecchi who never wants another family to face the tragedy they have seen. Mr. Speaker, this legislation and a similar measure both passed with more than 400 votes on the House floor. On June 16, 1999, it passed as an amendment to juvenile justice, and similar bill passed on May 7, 1996. This is sound legislation that will protect our children, and this Congress should pass it right away. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting ``Matthew's Law.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce legislation to extend the moratorium on oil and gas development in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the coast of California. This legislation is similar to H.R. 112 from the 106th Congress. Californians strongly favor continuing this moratorium. The State of California has enacted a permanent ban on all new offshore oil development in state coastal waters. In addition, former Governor Peter Wilson, Governor Gray Davis, and state and local community leaders up and down California's coast have endorsed the continuation of this moratorium. I believe that the environmental sensitivities along the entire California coastline make the region an inappropriate place to drill for oil using current technology. A 1989 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study confirmed that new exploration and drilling on existing leases and on undeveloped leases in the same area would be detrimental to the environment. Cultivation of oil and gas off the coast of California could have a negative impact on California's $27 billion a year tourism and fishing industries. This legislation focuses on the entire state of California, and would prohibit the sale of new offshore leases in the Southern California, Central California, and Northern California planning areas through the year 2011. New exploration and drilling on existing active leases and on undeveloped leases in the same areas would be prohibited until the environmental concerns raised by the 1989 National Academy of Sciences study are addressed, resolved and approved by an independent scientific peer review. This measure ensures that there will be no drilling or exploration along the California coast unless the most knowledgeable scientists inform us that it is absolutely safe to do so. I am proud to be working to protect the beaches, tourism, and the will of the people of California. I ask my colleagues to join me in co- sponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Southern California Federal Judgeship Act of 2001. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my colleagues from San Diego, Representative Duncan Hunter, and Representative Darrell Issa. This important legislation will authorize eight additional federal district court judges, five permanent and three temporary, to the Southern District of California. A recent judicial survey ranks the Southern District of California as the busiest court in the nation by number of criminal felony cases filed and total number of weighted cases per judge. In 1998, the Southern District had a weighted caseload of 1,006 cases per judge. By comparison, the Central District of California had a weighted filing of 424 cases per judge; the Eastern District of California had a weighted filing of 601 cases per judge; and the Northern District of California had a weighted filing of 464 cases per judge. The Southern District consists of the San Diego and Imperial Counties of California, and shares a 200-mile border with Mexico. According to the U.S. Customs Service, as much as 33 percent of the illegal drugs and 50 percent of the cocaine smuggled into the United States from Mexico enters through this court district. Additionally, the court faces a substantial number of our nation's immigration cases. Further multiplying the district's caseload is an agreement between the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State of California that calls for criminal aliens to be transferred to prison facilities in this district upon nearing the end of their state sentences. All these factors combine to create a tremendous need for additional district court judges. I hope that all my colleagues will join those of us from San Diego and help the people of Southern California by authorizing additional district court judges for the Southern District of California.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing my legislation to permit qualified current and former law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction. This measure is called the Community Protection Act, and I have requested that it be assigned the same bill number as in previous Congresses--H.R. 218. The Community Protection Act provides three benefits to our police and to our country. First, it effectively provides thousands more trained cops on the beat--at zero taxpayer cost. Second, it enables current and former law enforcement officers to protect themselves and their families from criminals. When a criminal completes his or her sentence, that criminal can find where their arresting officer lives, where their corrections officer travels, and other information about our brave law enforcement personnel and their families. And, third, it helps keep our communities safer from criminals. This measure is very similar to the H.R. 218 reported by the Judiciary Committee in the 106th Congress. Members and the public interested in additional background information on the Community Protection Act, I encourage them to read the Judiciary Committee report accompanying H.R. 218 from the 105th Congress (H. Rept. 105-819), my testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime Tuesday, July 22, 1997, or my statement from introduction in the 106th Congress on January 6, 1999. I urge all my colleagues to support this important common sense anti- crime legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Sam Knott. Sam was a devoted husband, father, and leader in the San Diego Community. It was the tragic death of his daughter Cara that made Sam a community leader, but it was his personal commitment to translate that personal anguish into public action that made him a leader. As an infant, Sam moved with his family from St. Croix, Virgin Islands to San Diego, where his father, a physician, opened a general practice on 30th Street. Mr. Knott graduated from San Diego High School and earned a bachelor's degree at San Diego State where he majored in history and business. With hopes of pursuing a career in hospital administration, he earned a master's degree in public health at the University of California at Berkeley. He married Joyce, in August 1959. The following November, he began six months of active duty at Fort Ord in the National Guard. Mr. Knott served internships in hospital administration in Ventura and Hawthorne before returning to San Diego in 1970 to help coordinate the design and construction of Alvarado Convalescent and Rehabilitation Hospital. A few months after being transferred to the Los Angeles area as an administrative trouble- shooter, Mr. Knott left the medical field to work as a stockbroker for Paine Webber and Sentra. Later, Mr. Knott went into business on his own, which he pursued part time in recent years. Since the 1986 death of his 20-year-old daughter, Cara, at the hands of a California Highway Patrol officer, Mr. Knott has been a steadfast leader in the San Diego Community. He has championed legislation that took effect in 1988 directing police to establish a priority in responding to missing-persons reports. While concentrating in recent years on legislative efforts affecting law enforcement policies. I have worked closely with Sam on his efforts to establish a digital network management system to improve communication among public safety agencies at all levels. Also, he was a ardent supporter of the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, which represents families of victims of violent crimes. Sam died on November 30, 2000, apparently of a heart attack, near a memorial garden in Rancho Penasquitos that has been dedicated to his daughter. He was 63. He is survived by his wife, Joyce; daughters, Cynthia Knott of El Cajon and Cheryl Knott, a professor at Harvard University; a son, John of Pacific Beach; as well as, sisters, Julia Knott Fago of San Diego and Jean Thompson of La Mesa; brothers, Dr. Jim Knott of North Park and Joe Knott of Del Cerro; and three grandsons. Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States show that Sam's life exemplified commitment and service to community, and that he leaves behind this legacy for his family, friends, and fellow Americans to emulate.