Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 5477, introduced by my colleague from California. Members should be aware that this legislation sets no new standards on Indian gambling. It addresses one specific problem with one specific parcel of land in San Diego County, California. I would hope that the matter before the House would be free from controversy. This legislation is supported by the entire San Diego delegation, with Mr. Hunter, Mr. Filner and myself as sponsors. This legislation prevents the Cuyapaipe Indian tribe from using land and buildings not connected to the tribe's traditional homeland and purchased with HUD Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) for the establishment of a massive Indian gaming casino. The Cuyapaipe Community of Diegueno Mission Indians recently announced a proposal to relocate an outpatient health care clinic operated by the Southern Indian Health Council (SIHC) in Alpine, California. The stated purpose of the relocation is to permit the Cuyapaipe to construct a gaming casino on the clinic property, which the Cuyapaipe claim as their reservation. The Southern Indian Health Council was organized in 1982 by seven Indian tribes in southern San Diego County to provide medical care to their members. The Council's clinic provides vital health care services to Indian and non-Indian patients in a rural area of San Diego County, serving over 10,000 patients per year, many of whom are from low income families. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has recently rejected the Cuyapaipe tribe's application to build the casino, finding the paperwork incomplete. This provides a temporary stay of construction, leaving the door open to the future conversion of the Cuyapaipe's health care center into a casino. The legislation before us today prevents the tribe from using the clinic property to build a casino. Nothing in this legislation will prevent the Cuyapaipe from establishing gaming facilities on their traditional homeland. This bill does not affect the ability of the Cuyapaipe to build a casino on their own reservation. In fact, as amended, the bill goes to great pains to avoid stepping on the sensitive question of Indian gaming. It does not amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and the amended version before us does not even deal with the question of the rights of tribes to conduct gaming operations, or the relationship between tribal and state governments. Instead, the bill seeks to resolve a dispute among several tribes, by requiring that they achieve consensus before changing the use of land taken into trust for all of them. As one additional protection, the bill sunsets in January of 2003, so the prohibition is actually a two- year moratorium

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that both sides care about education. I think that from the bottom of my heart. But the way we get there is different. My colleagues on the other side have their interests. We have ours. When my colleagues on the other side talk about school construction, for example, my colleagues on the other side want it to fall under Davis-Bacon which costs 35 percent more. We want to let the schools keep the money. My colleagues on the other side want it to go to the unions. The only interests that both sides should have here is the school children, not the unions. I had a hearing when I was chairman of the Authorization Committee, some of my colleagues were here at that hearing. We had 16 people from all over the country. They said they had the absolute best program in the entire world. At the end of the hearing, as chairman, I said; Which one of you have any one of the other 15 in your district? Of course, none. We said that is the whole idea. We want to send you the money directly to the school where the parents, the teachers, the community can make those decisions on spending education dollars, not Washington bureaucrats. That way, you get more effective results. In my opinion, that is a lot of the reason why Head Start and some of the other education programs do not work. They are underfunded, because there are too many other bureaucracies that eat up the money, and one gets very little money down to the classroom in the Federal program. Federal education spending is only about 7 percent, yet it ties up a lot of the money at the local level. We think that is wrong. So when one talks about children, we want the money to get down to children, not the unions, not the liberal trial lawyers and special education administrators, not the bureaucracy back here in Washington; but to children, to teachers, to the community. I would say to my colleagues, we care about education, and I believe you do. But let us both come together and get the maximum amount of dollars to the schools, not the special interests.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday, and I still mean it today, most of the Members at this time of the year detest what goes on. It is the silly season. It is election season. We have some honest differences. I would like to cover just a couple of those differences. I believe with all of my heart that we are right. Maybe they believe that they are right on the other side of that issue. When my colleagues talk about school construction, many of the States have elected not to support Davis-Bacon or prevailing wage because of the increased costs. In some States, it is 35 percent down to 15 percent increase in cost. This legislation would force those right-to-work States to have to use the school construction money, using the union wage. I think it is detrimental to schools because we could get more money for schools' quality. The unions control about 7 percent of the workforce. About 93 percent of all construction is done by private. And my friends would say, well, we want those workers to have a living wage. Well, the people that build 93 percent of our buildings in this country earn a good wage, and they have good quality. And our position is that, instead of allowing the unions to take the money, the extra 15 to 35 percent, let us allow our schools and I will support the additional money. Let us let our schools keep the additional money for more construction, for class size reduction, for teacher pay or training, even technology, or where they decide, where the teachers and the parents and community can make those decisions. My colleagues have said that, well, let us save taxpayers' money at the local level. I worked with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), one of the finest men in the House, when I served on the authorization committee. He was my chairman the first year and then vice versa; and we worked, I think, in one of the best bipartisan ways. And I have a lot of respect for him. I think he is wrong a lot of times, but I love him. But they say, let us save money at a local level. Alan Bersin was a Clinton appointee as Superintendent of San Diego City Schools; and he said, Duke, would you support a local school bond? I said, Alan, that is the most Republican thing you could ask me to do because most the money goes to the school and, guess what, the decisions are made at a local level, not here in Washington, D.C., with all the strings. Only about 7 percent of Federal money goes down, but a lot of that controls the State and local money. Look at special education how that hurts some of the schools and helps people at the same time. But look at title I and those rules and regulations tie up. The President wants Davis-Bacon in this. We feel it is detrimental, it actually hurts schools, and we cannot bring ourselves to do that. We have special interest groups, as my colleague says. But the Democrats, I think their special interest groups are the unions and the trial lawyers and they support those issues. But the National Federation of Independent Businesses, Small Business Association, Restaurant Association, they are not bad as some of my colleagues think. These are the people that go out and create the jobs for the people. Over 90 percent of the jobs are created non-union. And we are saying, let the union compete with small business, let the best man win, but not have the increased cost of school construction. Now, that is a big deal. This is a big difference between most of us. You feel you are right. We feel that we are right. We see that it helps the schools, our positions; and we cannot give in to that. And the rhetoric and the campaign stuff that goes back and forth, we have a solid belief, and I want my colleagues to understand that, I believe it with all of my heart, and that is why I think we are here is because of those differences. But yet, the President will veto it over that. And I do not know what we are going to do. I do not know how long we will be here, and I think Members on both sides are willing to stay until we can agree with something. Maybe it is half. Maybe it is whatever it is.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I felt compelled to react to some of the speakers that have preceded. Republicans have come in with some additional spending. Deployments by the Clinton-Gore administration, Haiti, $4 billion; $3 billion of that is in Aristide's pocket. Extension of Somalia where we had 18 Rangers killed; the United States paid for 86 percent of Kosovo. I think that is wrong. And my colleagues on the other side would say that there should be more burden-sharing from NATO countries. That has come at a great expense of our defense, of our military, of our men and our women. We have got 22 ships that are tied up to the pier because of deferred maintenance. The Secretary of the Navy just announced the descoping and cancellation affecting repair and maintenance of 26 naval ships, which means that is 26 more ships this year will not be worked on; and that the lack of funds, because we have used it, they have had to shift the ship repair money over to the CV, the carriers, and the submarine refueling because of the deployments that we have had. My colleagues talk about working bipartisan. Many of us long for that, and we have on many cases. But I want to give my colleagues an idea that, with the HMOs, when Governor Bush, and I believe that the polls are showing it, is President, we will pass a patients' bill of rights. But it will not allow lawyers to sue unlimited amounts and put a hospital, a doctor, or a health care provider out of business with one lawsuit. Then one will not be able to go down and sue the small business that hires them in good faith. I mean, that is a pretty strict difference between the two parties. When one talks about compromise, we are not going to allow one to put health care providers out of work. If one looks at the bill that is before us right now with Davis- Bacon, many States have overridden Davis-Bacon requirements. Now, their side of the aisle wants even those States that do not have Davis-Bacon to have to fall under construction. We think that is wrong. A, it adds between 15 to 35 percent to the school construction. We are saying let the schools keep the extra money instead of paying the union wage. Those are pretty big differences. The reason that we have not come forward is, on both sides, that the different positions sometimes are here or they are out here to the left. I think where we have come to the center and work together, that is the best thing that this Congress can do. That is what we are trying to do. That is why we are here today.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I will not take very much time. I would like to thank the ranking minority member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller). I read in a magazine, an outdoorsman magazine, about the practice of fishermen catching sharks, cutting off their fins just for sale, primarily in the Orient, because of their aphrodisiac effects and other issues with the fin. They were taking the shark, after they cut the fins off, and dumping it back into the water and letting it drown. I am a hunter. I am a fisherman and a sportsman, and to me I think that this was unspeakable. We have gotten support from the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and his leadership, against this practice. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) and the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink) and the gentleman from the other body from Hawaii, who wrote the compromising language to this to include it in international practices as well. I rise in strong support of this compromise language. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring before the House my legislation to ban the practice of shark finning. For those unfamiliar with shark finning, it is the distasteful practice of removing a shark's fins and discarding the carcass into the sea. As an avid sportsman, and as a previous co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I find this practice horrific and wasteful. Mr. Speaker, this is the fourth time this Congress the House has acted on this issue. Moreover, I want to especially thank Chairman Saxton, Chairman Young, and Ranking Member George Miller for their strong commitment to this legislation and their leadership against this terrible practice of shark finning. Sharks are among the most biologically vulnerable species in the ocean. Their slow growth, late maturity, and small number of offspring leave them exceptionally vulnerable to overfishing, and they are slow to recover from practices that contribute to their depletion. At the same time, sharks, as top predators, are essential to maintaining the balance of life in the sea. My colleagues are well aware of my campaign to stop the wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning. This will be the fourth time that the House has acted on this issue, and the third version of my legislation. The bill before us today represents a compromise between the House and the Senate. It is important that we pass this legislation today and protect America's fisheries. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act bans the wasteful practice of removing a shark's fins and discards the remainder of the shark into the ocean. Currently, this practice continues only in the U.S. waters of the Western Pacific. My legislation before us today will ban this terrible practice. We must also address the massive problem caused by the international trade in shark fins. Land year, the House passed my measure, House Concurrent Resolution 189, which called upon the Secretary of State to continue the U.S. leadership role in banning shark finning worldwide. The bill before us today directs the Secretary of State and Secretary of Commerce to work and stop the global shark fin trade. This will require the active engagement of more than 100 countries, and reduction in the demand for shark fins and other shark products. As my previous resolution stressed, international measures are a critical component of achieving effective shark conservation. Finally, the bill authorizes a Western Pacific longline fisheries cooperative research program to provide information for shark stock assessments. This includes identifying fishing gear and practices that prevent or minimize incidental catch of sharks and ensure maximum survivorship of released sharks, and providing data on the international shark fin trade. This important provision was included at the request of the Senate to complement our shark conservation efforts. Mr. Speaker, the United States has always been a leader in fisheries conservation and management. This legislation provides us the opportunity to stand on the world stage and demand that other countries take action to stop this wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act has broad bipartisan support. It is strongly supported by the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, a coalition that includes the Center for Marine Conservation, National Audubon Society, National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World Wildlife Fund. In addition, it is supported by the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the American Sportfishing Association, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, the Sportfishing Association of California, the Cousteau Society, and the Western Pacific Fisheries Coalition. Today, we can act to halt the rampant waste resulting from shark finning and solidify our national opposition to this terrible practice. Vote yes on H.R. 5461; vote yes to prohibit shark finning.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think this resolution speaks to the reasons that we are here today. We could come together on a lot of things, and we have over this Congress and previous Congresses, but there is a lot at stake, and that is the election of 2000. I think there has been partisanship on both sides of the aisle, and I would say that the majority of both Republicans and Democrats detest what we have to go through here on this House floor. I want to tell my colleagues that there are things like Medicare and the health care package that the gentleman from Texas just spoke about. Is it perfect? No. California has probably more health care providers than any other State. It was put there to cut and reduce the expanding cost of health care, but yet still give quality health care. Medicare was going to go bankrupt. I heard about Medicare cuts. Even when the President signed the Medicare bill, Republicans tried to expand, and did expand Medicare from going bankrupt over 27 years. There is rhetoric from that side of the aisle time and time and time again. The unions put over $100 million against our proposal to save Medicare. Even as the President signed it and now Al Gore takes credit for it, the expansion of Medicare, the leadership on that side fought against it. The Balanced Budget Agreement that I just heard about, Alan Greenspan said it is one of the key issues in why the economy is good today. Welfare reform. We have billions of dollars coming into the government from working Americans instead of billions of dollars going out. Capital gains reductions. My colleagues said, oh, that is just a tax break for the rich. But again, Alan Greenspan said it is one of the key factors that not only created jobs and expanded the economy, but it paid for itself. Listen to the debate over here. Everything that expanded the economy, the Democrat leadership fought against. As a matter of fact, not a single Clinton-Gore budget ever passed the House or the Senate from 1994 through now, but yet they claim the responsibility for the economy. And in 1993, we call it a tax increase, they call it an economic package. They increased the tax on Social Security, and we did away with that. They took every dime out of the Social Security Medicare trust fund; we put it into a lockbox, but yet they fought that. For a year the ranking minority member said, we want a tax cut for the middle class. First of all, I would ask my colleagues not to use the term ``middle class.'' There are no middle class citizens in this country. There is middle income, but not middle class. But yet, even in that package, they increase the tax on the middle income, and we are talking about the extremism of the leadership on that side. I think after November 7, they may have a new ranking minority member on the Democrat side, because the extreme measures that the Democrats have gone through have not served them well. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues on the other side want this to come together with a package that is supported by the people that we are trying to help, because the hospitals support it; the National Hospital Association supports this package. It gives them the money they needed. I have hospitals in my district, many, and because of illegals, Irish illegal immigrants, if you want, are going to emergency services, driving up the cost of health care, and the overhead and the legal liability is killing our hospitals, and they need the additional funds. The nursing homes and the rest that my colleagues quoted, those organizations support the bill. But yet, my colleagues would fight us on that side. Mr. Speaker, I would ask that yes, we will have campaign finance reform, but it will also deal with the unions, which John McCain supports, by the way, but he knows that the President would veto it. Yes, I think in the new President, I think if it is Governor Bush, that we will have meaningful and workable, and you will enjoy it, nonpartisanship.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Wisconsin was offended, I apologize. But the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) was on the floor.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. That is for the record, Mr. Speaker. That is right off the Web page.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They were, Mr. Speaker, two of them were.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) was on the floor. I looked at him face to face.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Four.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, why do we have a loggerhead? Republican fault? Democrat fault? There is a very strong difference of opinion on who should control people's lives, either people or Washington, D.C. The gentleman that just spoke in the well just talked about no Patients' Bill of Rights. Many of us feel that it is wrong, absolutely wrong to have unlimited lawsuits which would drive up health care costs and would force HMOs out of business. Many Americans like HMOs. Some do not. They have legitimate concerns on that side of the aisle and on our side of the aisle. But then the liberal trial lawyers would go down and sue the small businesses that hire those HMOs or care providers in good faith, and it would hurt small business. That is why National Federation of Independent Business, Chamber of Commerce, Small Business Associations were opposed to it. There is a legitimate concern on our side of the aisle that it hurts the economy and hurts business. So, no, we did not support it. School construction. We feel within the Labor-HHS bill, I serve on that subcommittee, that if we want to give school construction dollars, my colleagues want amnesty to 4 million illegals in the Commerce, State, Justice, we have got 43 million uninsured Americans. We agree that that is terrible. But, automatically, we are going to have 47 million uninsured Americans on health care. They petition their families, and now we are going to have over 50 million uninsured Americans. Think what that is going to do to the cost of health care. Think of what it is going to do to our overburdened schools. So, yes, we have a difference of opinion. In the school construction, we feel that, if we give Federal dollars down to the schools for construction, then it ought to be bid between the unions and private enterprise so that we can get the best quality and the best amount of construction for our schools. But my colleagues on the other side want only the union wage, the prevailing wage, which costs about 35 percent in some States down to 15 percent in some States. We are saying, let it be bid, let the schools keep the extra money for class size reduction, teacher pay, those kinds of issues. But my colleagues on the other side, the President is saying, no, I want it for the unions. I see the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Minority Whip on the floor. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) has gotten over $2 million from the unions. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), $1.7 million from the unions. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), $1.4 million. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), $1.3 million from the unions. They want to continue giving the money to the unions that goes to Democrats campaigns. We are saying we want the money, not to go to the union bosses, but to go to the schools. There is a difference of opinion. I choose the schools over union bosses and campaigns.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. One point I would like to make to the gentlewoman that said there was no money for her schools is that the Department of Education's books have been unauditable. In one year, one year, they have over $100 million of student loans they cannot even account for. All of the agencies need to be digitalized so that they can at least track the funds.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not think our side was even going to talk on this. The partisan bickering, the rancoring that goes on here, I think that the American public can see what we are facing from our colleagues on the other side. They want to stay, all right. They want to stay not over policy, but for politics. Do you know what I am most resentful about? That the other side and the last few speakers that talked about said that Democrats are the only ones that really care about education. The Democrats say they are the only ones that really care about school construction or Medicare or Medicaid or prescription drugs. I worked most of my life here on this House floor. I fight, every ounce of my survival, to make sure that those issues are taken care of, not only for our children, but for our seniors as well. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, is a teacher and a coach. In his heart and in his mind and in his soul, he cares deeply about education. I was a teacher and a coach both in high school and in college. It is one of the main focuses that I have. And for the other side to say that, we are so mean and rotten because of our policies. Well, let me tell you what the politics of this are. We will stay and fight for education. We will stay and fight for prescription drugs and for our seniors and health care. I will not allow the other side to mislead, for example, on school construction. We could have school construction today. Our schools are crumbling. For 30 years, they had control of the education process. What is the outcome? We have some very good teachers and very good schools, which I am very fortunate in my district to have, in North San Diego County. I have been to teacher awards, but across this Nation, we are last in math and science. That is a crime. Mr. Speaker, we have to hire outside people with Ph.D.s to come in to our country to take over high-level and high-tech jobs because we do not have enough Ph.D.s; that is a crime. But my colleagues on the other side would rather cater to the unions than to come out with education dollars. Let me give you an idea. Why do you think they want school construction out of Federal dollars? Their campaigns are loaded with union boss money. I was in 18 districts over the last 3 months, the minimum amount that the unions had put against any one of those candidates was a million dollars. They do not want to give up that lifeblood. School construction out of Federal dollars falls under Davis-Bacon, the union or the prevailing wage, that costs about between 15 percent to 35 percent more for those States that have it. Let us waive Davis- Bacon just for school construction. Let us let the schools keep that money and build more schools or teacher training or teacher pay or class-size reduction. But do you think my colleagues would do that? Absolutely not. We had it on the D.C. bill. Do you care about children? Do you care about schools, or do you care about your union bosses? Well, I think it is very evident, because they will not. They know that many Republicans have union districts. When we bring it to a vote, we lose it because of the unions. ``The power,'' they talk about campaign finance reform; what a joke. What a joke. I ran out of time the other day on education. But just like Goals 2000, they wanted the power for education to reside here in Washington, D.C. Goals 2000 is a good example. There are 14 wills in the previous bill. A will for a lawyer means you will do this. One of those wills, you have to establish boards to see if you fall in the guidelines of Goals 2000. They say it is only voluntary, but only if you want the money. Well, you establish a board to see if you are within the guidelines, then they send it to the regular Board of Education. The board sends it to the principal. The principal sends it to the superintendent. Then you have to send all of that paperwork, hours of labor, to Sacramento, CA. Now, think about all the schools in California. Sending all of that paperwork to Sacramento. Think of the bureaucracy you have to have in Sacramento just to go through the paperwork. Then where do they send it? They send it back here to the Department of Education. Now, think about all the schools in the United States sending all of that paperwork back here to the Department of Education. Think of the bureaucracy that they have to have back here. Then there is paperwork flow back and forth. And so what happens? We get less money for education because of the bureaucrats in Washington, DC, because of the rules and the regulations. Federal education only covers about 7 percent of the funding, but it controls much of the funding from the State and local districts, and that is what my colleagues want. They want government control of education, government control of private property. You want government control of health care. You want government to control everything. Not mean-spirited, that is what you believe. We believe in people, and we are willing to stay here and fight for people of this country and have the rights of choice decisions for theirselves. Yes, we will stay back and fight, Mr. Speaker. We will fight for the people, not the union bosses. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, Democrats have been chastised by their own leadership if they cosponsor bills, especially on Medicare. The whole partisanship in the direction instead of working together, while the President and our leadership and our appropriators are setting down with the President trying to negotiate these bills; and the President is sitting down trying to work with us, our colleagues on this side, their leadership, is so far extreme and so intent on taking back the majority that gridlock is the answer for them. I would say when the gentleman from Missouri talks about increased costs going into this bill, I would remind people that the U.S.S. Cole that just went through a terrorist attack, that incident is going to cost $150 million to repair the Cole. It is going to take $4.5 million for a company out of Norway to come and transport the Cole so we can repair that ship. The Chief of Naval Operations has put in a report, I have it and I will submit it for the Record, that says that because of all of the deployments that this administration has had us go on, $260 billion worth, which has come out of Defense, we have tired out our equipment and we have tired out our people. What they have had to do with equipment is take ship repair money and transfer it over for our submarine and our carrier refueling, nuclear refueling. We have 22 ships tied up at the ports both in the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. They cannot go anywhere because they have had two and three times deferred maintenance. They cannot go anywhere. Before, they put them out to sea, hoping that they would not be in a war. Some did not have Ra-domes, some did not have radars, some did not have crash control or damage control, but yet they have put them out just to complete the mission. Well, they are gone. Right now the CNO, and I am certain that my colleagues on the Democrat side have some ship repair industry in their districts, is $283 million short in ship repair because they have had to shift it over to nuclear refueling for subs and carriers because of all these deployments. I think that is wrong. The gentleman from Missouri talked about construction for schools. If the gentleman from Missouri would waive Davis-Bacon, which costs 35 percent more to build our schools because they have to pay the union wage, most of us would support it. The gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), in San Diego, has had $5 million by the unions before his opponent ever put in a nickel. Five million dollars. And they talk about campaign finance reform. What a joke. I went to 18 districts over the last month. I went to 18 districts, and the minimum amount spent by these union bosses was $1 million against our vulnerable candidates. Would my colleagues waive Davis- Bacon for their union bosses? Do they care about school construction, or do they care about the schools? Alan Bersin, San Diego superintendent, a Clinton appointee, asked me if I would support a local school bond. I said absolutely. It is the most Republican thing I could be asked to do, because we do not end up with only 48 cents out of a dollar going to the classroom. We end up with a 100 percent or at least 90 percent because we do not have to go through the bureaucracy of here in Washington, D.C. The leadership on that side wants to put the money here in Washington and have the bureaucracy eat up over half of it. We are saying no. Let us waive Davis-Bacon, let us build school construction, let us put it in school bonds, and let us get 90 cents out of a dollar and not pay off the union bosses and make it competitive.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Joe Baca, a Member from the other side of the aisle, for giving tribute to someone that we cherish very, very much. You know, Ron Packard was a write-in, and what a rich legacy he gave the constituents of North County. Much of the district I now represent was Ron's former district, and his legacy was hard to keep up with. As a matter of fact, when I go up there, they used to tell me, well, ``Ron didn't do it that way, Duke.'' But Ron gave me a lot of guidance. Ron Packard, Duncan Hunter, myself and Brian Bilbray represent North County, San Diego and San Diego City, both on authorization and appropriations, and I want to thank you for your leadership and what you were able to help us with. Not only from the appropriations, but Ron also knows how to breach partisanship and work with Members on the other side, as you just witnessed with Joe Baca. But he is no nonsense, and his style is that of a grandfather to a child. If you were bad on this House floor, or very partisan, Ron, through his leadership, was not above going after somebody that was partisan. He was also not afraid to call for removal of the President or a cabinet member when he thought it was within his value system, and he had the strength of a leader to carry that through. Ron loved public service. He loved his wife, Jean, and his family, but his family might be described as a covey, a herd, a flock, or just maybe a large group. Ron has seven children, 34 grandchildren and three great-grandchildren, the last we heard; and I am sure that that number is going to go up. But I think it also shows the competitiveness of Ron Packard. I would like to give a story off the Hill. Ron does love golf, with a passion, and if he loses a dime, I mean, he frets for a week if he loses a dime. He is a fierce competitor. As a matter of fact, right there where he is sitting at this moment he was sitting with Duncan Hunter one night. Now, Ron is a very good golfer, in the 70s or 90s. Duncan Hunter is of equal caliber, in the 70s or 80s. I am lucky to break 100, so I am always asking for strokes on the golf course on the weekends from these two rascals, but they will not give it. Sometimes they cave in. They were discussing something, and I was sitting behind them waiting for them to finish. Come to find out, they were plotting on Saturday when we went to the Old Soldiers Home golf course, both of them were going to show up with their arms in slings so they would not have to give me a stroke a hole that game. Well, they did not see me slip out behind, they did not know the stealthiness of one Member; and, when we showed up, I had my arms in two slings, so they had to give me a stroke a hole. But I thought I would share this letter. I thought enough of this, I got this just a couple of years ago from Ron, to show you what a competitor he is. I would like to read it. He says, ``Dear Duke, you can have my wife, you can have my children, my grandchildren, my house, my car, my good name, but never, never, never, ever a stroke a hole. Signed, Ron Packard.'' God bless you, Ron. We love you.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the Democrats controlled this House for 40 years, and what have we ended up with? This Nation, with all its resources, last in math and science of all the industrialized nations; last in literacy. Our schools are crumbling, and they need help. But what have they done? They have catered to the trial lawyers and the unions to rip off our school system. And I want to be specific. They talk about school construction. Waive Davis-Bacon. It costs between 15 to 35 percent, depending on what State, to build schools, because Federal dollars have to fall under the prevailing wage. They say, well, we want a living wage. Ninety percent of all the construction in this country are nonunion, and they earn a living wage. And, guess what? Minority contractors have a good chance at the jobs, where they do not with the unions. We can build schools. Let us not take that money away from the schools. Let us let the schools keep it. Do they want more construction, do they want teacher training, or whatever? But my colleagues on the other side, because they get most of their campaign money out of the unions, will not cross the unions. Secondly, my colleague from Wisconsin says that 93 percent of the money is controlled by State and local, and 7 percent Federal. That is the way it is supposed to work. Just look at IDEA and special education. Look at the requirements in the D.C. bill; we capped the amount that liberal trial lawyers could take out of special education, Alan Bernstein's number one problem in San Diego, the superintendent of schools. But yet my colleagues wanted to pay off for the liberal trial lawyers and oppose it. Luckily, the Senate saw through in the conference. Guess what? The city was able to hire 123 special-needs teachers. Democrats wanted to control it. We said no, let the local district do it. When I was chairman of the authorization committee, 16 programs came forward from different areas. Every one of them had the absolute best program in the world. And after the hearing, I said, which one of you have any one of the other 15 in your district? None of them. That is the whole point. We want to give it directly to the schools so that the teachers, the parents, and the local administrators can make those decisions. My colleagues want Federal control of everything. Another good example was Goals 2000. There are 14 ``wills'' in that bill, which means you will do it. They say it is voluntary. Well, it is only voluntary if you want the money. One of those wills you had to establish another board to see if you comply with Goals 2000. It then went to your school board. It then went to the principal; it then went to the superintendent. Think about it, all the schools in California sending all of that paperwork to Sacramento and the bureaucracy it takes. Then where did it go? It came back here to the Department of Education. Think of all the schools in the United States sending all of that paperwork and bureaucracy and, of course, there was paperwork going back. That is why we only get 48 cents out of a dollar to the classroom. That is what my colleagues on the other side want to continue to do is have government control of education. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference, in the two parties.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 5086. This legislation includes a provision very important to me, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act. I want to especially thank Chairman Saxton, Chairman Young, and Ranking Member Miller for their strong commitment to this legislation and their leadership to stop the barbarous practice of shark finning. For those unfamiliar with shark finning, it is the distasteful practice of removing of a shark's fins and discarding the carcass into the sea. As an avid sportsman, and as a previous co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I find this practice horrific and wasteful. Sharks are among the most biologically vulnerable species in the ocean. Their slow growth, late maturity, and small number of offspring leave them exceptionally vulnerable to overfishing and they are slow to recover from practices that contribute to their depletion. At the same time, sharks, as top predators, are essential to maintaining the balance of life in the sea. My colleagues are well aware of my campaign to stop the wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice of shark finning. This will be the third time that the House has acted on this issue, and the third version of my legislation. The bill before us today represents a compromise between the House and the Senate. It is important that we pass this legislation today and protect America's fisheries from this terrible practice. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act bans the wasteful practice of removing a shark's fins and discard the remainder of the shark into the ocean. The next step in this process is to act internationally. The bill directs the Secretary of State and Secretary of Commerce to work to stop the global shark fin trade. This will require the active engagement of more than 100 countries, and reduction in the demand for shark fins and other shark products. As my resolution from last year stressed, international measures are a critical component of achieving effective shark conservation. Finally, the bill authorizes a Western Pacific longline fisheries cooperative research program to provide information for shark stock assessments. This includes identifying fishing gear and practices that prevent or minimize incidental catch of sharks and ensure maximum survivorship of released sharks and providing data on the international shark fin trade. This important provision was included at the request of the Senate and represents the best form of compromise and action. The United States has always been a leader in fisheries conservation and management. This legislation provides us the opportunity to stand on the world stage and demand that other countries take action to stop this wasteful and unsportsmanlike practice. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act has broad bipartisan support. It is strongly supported by the Ocean Wildlife Campaign, a coalition that includes the Center for Marine Conservation, National Audubon Society, National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World Wildlife Fund. In addition, it is supported by the State of Hawaii Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the American Sportfishing Association, the Recreational Fishing Alliance, the Sportfishing Association of California, the Cousteau Society, and the Western Pacific Fisheries Coalition. Today, we can act to halt the rampant waste resulting from shark finning and solidify our national opposition to this terrible practice. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 5086; vote ``yes'' to prohibit shark finning.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, no fights, just facts. In 1993, I mentioned that the Democrats raised Social Security taxes. We did away with that. They took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund. Republicans put it into a lockbox. Al Gore was the deciding vote to take the money. Every budget that Clinton-Gore sent us stole the money out of the Social Security trust fund. Now he is saying, oh, I want a Social Security trust fund. The middle class tax that they increased, we gave it back in a $500 deduction. We gave IRAs for school education. That was a ``tax break for the rich,'' and the liberals fought against it, tooth, hook and nail; but we gave it. We gave middle class tax relief. If you take a look at the veterans' COLAs that they cut, we rescinded that. We gave back the veterans' COLAs. The military active duty COLAs, we gave back. Not a single one of the White House budgets or economic policies have passed either the House or Senate. So when they claim credit for the economy, the 1993 bill, we rescinded it, and none of their bills passed since. Those are the facts.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak as if they know the facts. I would say that the gentleman is factually challenged. Let me be specific. When the Democrats controlled the White House, the House and the Senate, they said not a single Republican voted for their tax increase, $265 billion in tax increase, $320 billion in new spending. How did they get the new spending with the tax increase? They stole every dime out of the Social Security trust fund. Al Gore was the deciding vote on that, to take the money out of the Social Security trust fund. Why did we not vote for it? First of all, it increased the tax on Social Security. That is a fact. It took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund and put it up here with new taxes for increased spending. That is a fact. They talked for a year about a targeted middle class tax cut. The leadership over here demagogued for a year. ``What we want is a targeted middle class tax cut.'' They could not help themselves, because money in the Federal Government is power to the Democrats, their ability to rain down money and spend it on their constituents. And yet they increased the tax on the middle class, that is a fact, when they had the House, the White House, and the Senate. Another one of their priorities, they cut the veterans' COLAs. They cut the military COLAs in 1993. And they ask why we did not vote for it? I would not vote for it today. They talk about the minimum wage. Did they pass a minimum wage increase in 1993 when they had control of the White House, House, and Senate? Absolutely not. Alan Greenspan said there are three issues which have stimulated the economy the most: one is the balanced budget, the other is welfare reform, and the other was capital gains. Balanced budget, my liberal Democrat leadership fought tooth, hook and nail against a balanced budget, every single time. Even when we passed it and the President signed it, the liberal leadership on that side still fought against it. Welfare reform, that was vetoed twice, and after the President signed welfare reform, my liberal friends on that side of the aisle still fought against welfare reform. Capital gains, they said, oh, that is a tax break for the rich. Alan Greenspan says that is what stimulated the economy, along with a balanced budget, that lowered interest rates and allowed jobs. But yet my colleagues on that side of the aisle fought against it. Why did not we vote for the 1993 bill? Because it was anti-economic progress. It was anti-economic progress, 100 percent. They talk about school construction. I went to 18 districts 3 weeks ago. Every district had at least $1 million from their unions put against our candidates. Why would not they vote for school construction with Davis-Bacon taken out? Why would not they vote for school construction and waive Davis-Bacon? I will vote for it if you do. It saves 35 percent, and we can allow those schools to keep the money that it takes, the extra, for the union to do it. Mr. Speaker, I would tell you, they said we need a living wage. Ninety-five percent of all construction in this country is done without the union, and they earn a good wage. But my colleagues get all of their campaign funds from the liberal trial lawyers, from the unions, and do you think that they would do that in the name of education? Absolutely not. You did not talk about quality of education for 40 years; you just put more money into it. It was the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee, that talked of quality education. Your 100,000 teachers from the last time, half of them were not even qualified. We had to say if you are going to put those teachers in, they have to be qualified and the school has got the flexibility to use the money. If they want technology, if they want teacher training, if they want class size reduction, we will do that. But yet my colleagues on that side want government to tell everything. Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friends, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan), for their efforts on this bill, and also the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), the subcommittee chairman. And what a good job that they have done. Veterans health care, when we add $1.7 billion last year and add $1.36 billion this year over last year's, it is a slight commitment to show that the veterans are important. The medical research in this bill, one may say, why do we have medical research in a veterans bill? Well, all the way back from World War II, veterans that had nuclear reactions from the bombs where we put our people in harm's way, from the Desert Storm Syndrome to Agent Orange to anthrax shots, and for example, how does anthrax shots, with more and more women in our military, affect a woman who may have a child? That medical research is very, very important within the military. I would specifically like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). There is an issue that I have been working on since 1991, and quite often when there has been a promise given by someone like General MacArthur and the President of the United States almost 60 years ago, it is difficult to get that priority in a bill. We have been able to do that with our leadership's help. The issue is this provides help for thousands of Filipino American veterans across the Nation. The language in the bill provides full dependency and indemnity compensation benefits so long denied for those who fought alongside our troops in World War II. Despite the fact that many of these valiant soldiers suffered the same casualties and wounds fighting with U.S. forces that our own troops did, they have until now received only 50 percent of the disability benefits. This bill changes that to 100 percent. In addition, the bill insures full VA medical coverage for those Filipino-American World War II veterans who are already being treated in VA facilities for their service-connected disability. Currently Filipino-American veterans may not receive care for any condition except specific to their service-connected disability. This bill changes that as well. While seemingly limited extensions of benefits, they are extremely significant to over 1,200 qualifying veterans who are living on fixed incomes. Many of these veterans are in their 70s and 80s, at a time in their lives where health care access is as critical as ever. With so few Filipino-American veterans surviving, numbers decreasing annually, the time to ensure those benefits is now. That is why I thank our leadership and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for adding this into this important bill. As one who championed the cause for Filipino Americans working with President Ramos in the Philippines first and then working with President Estrada, and the hundreds of both Filipino Americans and Filipino nationals that came all the way from the Philippines to work this initiative, let it be known that their efforts have carried through and helped this. This action has the full support of the larger veterans community and it has been endorsed by every single one. There are a couple of things that I would like to see in the next veterans bill, though, that I would like to work with colleagues on that side. I have hundreds of veterans that come up every year and say they have lost their medical records. Either they were burned in a fire or they were lost because of the old filing system. We need to duplicate those records. We also need to increase the amount again of veterans' benefits, and I want to thank the chairman. I specifically want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), who championed this bill, worked with our leadership, caused it to be effective. Without his support, we would not have this Filipino veterans' initiative.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss Angelman's Syndrome after a tragic circumstance in my district illustrated the need for greater awareness of this little known and often misunderstood disease. Denise and Kyle Marx are parents of Nicholas, a ten-year-old boy with Angelman's Syndrome. Those familiar with special needs children know the demands, but also the tremendous blessings that Nicholas has bestowed on his family. Due to recent events, the need to better understand and treat this disorder has become obvious. Today, Nicolas is in a coma and has only a few months to live after being administered medication that caused an allergic reaction. This happened, in part, because those with Angelman's Syndrome are unable to communicate pain or discomfort and Nicolas was powerless to express the effects that the medication was having on his body. Today, I am asking Congress to make efforts to provide for research so that Angelman's Syndrome can be better understood and treated more effectively. Angelman's Syndrome is a genetic disorder usually caused by a small deletion of molecules on the long arm of the fifteenth chromosome. In some rare cases, Angelman's can also be caused when a child inherits both long arms of the fifteenth chromosome from the father. The effects of this disease include speech impairment, with minimal or almost no use of words, movement and balance disorder, including a stiff gait and tremulous movement of the limbs, behavioral uniqueness, including excitability, frequent laughter and smiling, flapping movements, and a short attention span. More than 80% of people with Angelman's Syndrome have a delayed or disproportionally slow growth in head circumference and seizures that begin around the age of three. Many other cases include symptoms such as hypopigmentation of the skin and eyes, sucking and swallowing disorders, wide mouth, hyperactive tendon reflexes, sensitivity to heat, and sleep disturbances. One of the most difficult aspects of Angelman's Syndrome is that the disease is usually not recognized at birth. Diagnosis often does not occur until the child is between the ages of three and seven, when the characteristics become evident. Those with Angelman's Syndrome are born with a normal prenatal history and no major birth defects. It was only 35 years ago that Dr. Harry Angelman, an English physician, diagnosed Angelman's Syndrome for the first time. The first reports of the disease in North America did not begin to appear until the 1980's. Until very recently, many doctors considered Angelman's Syndrome to be extremely rare and some even doubted its existence. Thankfully, through the Human Genome Project, we have been able to gain a better understanding of this disease. However, we still have a long way to go until we fully understand Angelman's Syndrome. While we now know that Angelman's Syndrome affects anywhere between 1 in 10,000 and 1 in 30,000, we still have much to learn about the disease and its symptoms. Angelman's Syndrome is only diagnosed through genetic laboratory testing. However, it is often misdiagnosed and mistaken for autism. We need to work toward a better and more comprehensive understanding of the disease, its causes, and the best way to treat it. It is my hope that through research, we can come to understand and effectively treat Angelman's Syndrome and that the medical community will develop guidelines for treating patients with these conditions.