Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, we went through this drill in the subcommittee, the same 10 amendments, the same increase in every single one of them, just to show that Republicans want to cut. We have increased, including Head Start, education $2 billion, increased over last year. Let me give a good idea. One of these amendments increases special education. When the Democrats had control of this House, they promised to increase special education up to 40 percent of the funding. The maximum they ever funded was 6 percent. Republicans, in 5 years, have doubled that spending for special education. This bill increases special education funding $500 million; but yet we will see an amendment come forward to spend another billion dollars without any offsets, just to say that Republicans are cutting special education. That is the logic that they use. Why? Every single one of these bills is brought forward just for the election coming up in November, to show how those mean Republicans want to cut education and cut the other socialized programs. Well, there is a party with fiscal responsibility. There is a party also that wants to tax and spend and spend and spend, just like they did when they were in the majority. Let us take a look at it. Look at education. It was a disaster when they left office. Education construction was destroyed. The infrastructure is terrible. We are last in math and science, because they put more money into it, just kept pouring more money, more money, more money, without any quality or responsibility into it. We have changed that. Look over the 5 years, test scores are starting to go up but at the same time those that are entering colleges are still having to take remedial education. That is wrong. We need to do more in education. I agree with my colleagues on that. We have increased it $2 billion. Now, how did they plan on paying for this? We will hear tax breaks for the rich, tax breaks for the rich. Well, I want to say, any tax relief limits the amount that they spend on these social programs. It will only be for the rich. We will never find them supporting tax relief. Every single bill. The same liberals fought against the balanced budget because it limited their amount of spending. They fought against welfare reform because it limited their amount of spending. They fought against the Social Security lock box because when they were in the majority for 30 years they took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund and put it up here for new spending, and then they increased taxes every year so that they could pass more for increased bureaucracy. Now every one of these amendments we are going to see they want more, they want more, they want more. Every single appropriations bill, except for defense, they will increase. They will cut defense also to pay for more socialized spending. Excuse me. I know I am not supposed to have this on the floor, but God says he does not want this amendment. I am sorry. announcement by the chairman

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In 1993, they had the highest tax possible. They stole every dime out of the Social Security trust fund, even the gas tax. Does one think they put it in a transportation fund? Absolutely not. They put it in the general fund so they could spend more money. There was no hope of a balanced budget. Debts were destined to go up. The budget went beyond $200 billion every single year, but yet we will see the exercise here tonight from my colleagues on the other side to spend more money. Reject the amendments.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I pay tribute to a friend of education and a dedicated public servant to the people of San Diego: Mr. David Gross, the budget supervisor to San Diego City Schools, who has retired from the schools after 23 years of service this past April. As budget supervisor, David exercised particular interest and expertise in ensuring that children with disabilities had the educational resources they needed to succeed in school. He had responsibility for special education, gifted and talented programs, the Health Services Billing System and major categorical programs. With this responsibility, he worked closely with teachers, administrators and families to develop budget plans that met students' needs. In fact, David was a statewide leader in this important field. He was a member of the State Special Education Fiscal Task Force and the Department of Education's Financial Reporting Oversight Committee. He assisted in the development of the California Association of School Business Officials' Training Manual, and piloted the system established by the State of California for school districts to bill MediCal and private insurance companies for health services provided in school. David served on several other state and local leadership boards important to the improvement of special education. These included service on the Special Education Task Force (1986-88), the Local Education Area Health and Social Services Advisory Committee (1994-98), Advisory Committee on Special Education (1996-99), and the AB 602 Special Disabilities Working Group. This important work is no less important to excellent education than is the day-to-day dedication of parents, teachers and other administrators; for if the school system lacked the administration of resources to do its job, school literally could not open. Even so, David took this critical financial stewardship task to a higher level by continually taking great care to ensure that his work in school system budgets was related to the real, day-to-day educational needs of students, and professional needs of teachers and administrators. For many years, he served hour upon hour as a volunteer tutor in a local San Diego area elementary school. Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States show that Mr. David Gross is a friend of education and a friend to America, and a dedicated and gifted public servant whose hard work and great talent will be honored and missed by his friends and colleagues.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I sympathize with the gentleman that is offering the amendment. I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Authorization when this bill came through for the first time on IDEA. If my colleagues have ever had a tangle where they put parent groups and school groups together, it is like putting a Persian and a Siamese cat together. It is a very difficult and it is a very complicated bill. I rise in opposition to the amendment of the gentleman. And I was the IDEA man of the year that year for pushing the bill through. And then later we had a colleague take over that position when I came to Appropriations. But if the gentlemen on both sides really want to help, and I think they do legitimately, Alan Bersin is the superintendent of San Diego City Schools. He was the appointee of President Clinton on the border. He did a pretty good job, and now he is a superintendent. His number one problem is IDEA in the schools. Why? Not so much the funding, but we are losing good teachers that want to help special-needs children. They are being forced into the courts by liberal trial lawyers that form cottage organizations and go to these parent groups and demand super Cadillac systems when they may only qualify for a small portion. We have a school in San Diego where it costs $200,000 a year for one child in special education. And the schools cannot afford that. Quite often, as we increase the money, the trial lawyers come in and steal that money. I agree with the gentleman, special education does need more money. I would like to work with the gentleman on that. But some of these programs, for example Impact Aid, do my colleagues know how negatively that affects military families and Native American families? It really impacts them negatively. And so, I would say to the gentleman, I agree with the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) that these are programs some of us feel are very, very important, Impact Aid, Galludet University. Republicans and Democrats play in a basketball game there every year just to raise a little bit of money. Howard University. I went out and visited the president. When we talk about minority education, look and see the job they are doing. Over half of the new teachers hired in the last couple of years were not qualified. And this funds the Teacher Empowerment Act, makes sure that those teachers are qualified. We have test scores that are slightly rising. But yet, when a student goes to the university, they have to take remedial education. Why? Because in many cases in our inner cities those teachers are not qualified; and unless we bring up the quality of those teachers, then our students are always going to fall behind, and they are going to be left behind. So it is with great reluctance I oppose the gentleman. I know it is in good faith. A large part of me wants to support him. But, overall, I have to oppose him.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very, very important and I think legitimate debate to see the differences between two opinions and to do that in a legitimate way without casting aspersions. First of all, I do not want Hoss and Little Joe to have to sell the Ponderosa. I saw a movie. It was about a lady that emigrated, that had a child out of wedlock, she worked in a sweatshop back in the teens. She sold jelly, she sold everything she could for 5 years and finally saved some pennies and finally when she was able to bake cakes and things, she bought a little shack and started a store. The bottom line was she ended up with one of the largest department stores in New York. A true story. That is the American dream. I do not want that gentlewoman to have to give back 55 percent of everything she owns. I support that gentlewoman and the work and the taxes that she paid. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the gentleman the differences of opinion. For 30 years, the Democrats had control of this House. Did we have a balanced budget? No. Did we have tax increases? Yes. In 1993 when my colleagues on the other side of the aisle controlled the House, the White House and the Senate, they wanted what they called was tax breaks for the middle class. But yet they gave us the highest tax increase in history. They increased the tax on Social Security. They increased the tax on the middle class. And they increased again the tax on Social Security. They increased the gas tax. And did it go into the transportation fund? No. It went into the general fund so that they could spend more money on socialized programs. And then they took every dime out of the Social Security trust fund and spent that. In doing so they drove this country into debt. Now, the Republicans, when we took the majority, we balanced the budget. Many of my colleagues on the other side opposed that because it took the ability to spend money away. We had welfare reform. Many of my colleagues on the other side opposed that, because it took their ability to rain money down, but yet I think when you talk about the American dream, I look at the children that now see their parents coming home with a paycheck instead of a welfare check. Is there reason to look at the help that welfare people need? Yes. But 20 years, average, on welfare is wrong. Yet they wanted to keep dumping money into those programs time after time like in this bill. Education, when they had control for 30 years, take a look at what we started with. Schools, construction, falling down. We are last in math and science of all the industrialized nations. We have got less than 48 cents out of the Federal dollar to the classroom. Programs like title I spent trillions of dollars in education but was there any accountability? No, just more money, more money. And we had more and more programs. Was this mean spirited? No. You had somebody that wanted a new program, but what happened was they spread it out so much that none of the programs, Head Start, IDEA, any of them got the funding they needed because everybody wanted a new program. But yet to get that, they had to keep taxing to pay for these new programs. Any tax cut we offer, they are going to fight. The mantra, and I think some of their constituencies actually believe it is only tax breaks for the rich. They say it over and over and over again. But the bottom line is they will not support any tax relief because it takes the power away from government, which they truly and legitimately believe does a better job. We disagree with that. I think that is a legitimate fact. We saved and locked up Social Security into a lockbox. That also prevented them from spending more money in bills like this, because we operate under a balanced budget and do not increase taxes like the President's budget did every time. We do not raid the Social Security trust fund, but we operate within the rules that the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter) has to operate under and classify these different programs. My colleagues want to keep spending above those amounts. That is a difference, ladies and gentlemen.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the death tax repeal. Small farmers that lose their farms or are challenged after they die to pass it on to their children are giving them up. My colleagues on the other side cannot stand any kind of tax cut whatsoever. Their mantra is tax breaks for the rich. Well, in 1993, when they had the White House, the House and the Senate, they had the highest tax increase in history, they raised the tax on Social Security, and they raised the tax on the middle class. They could not help themselves, because they wanted to spend. They even stole every dime out of the Social Security Trust Fund to put up here for extra spending. Any time we want to take away that right or that control, they fight it. They fought a balanced budget because it limited their spending. They fought welfare reform because it limited their spending. They fought the Social Security lockbox because they used that money for socialized spending. And now the mantra is tax breaks for the rich. Well, the small farmers in my district in California are not the rich.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will not at this moment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is well known that people have a right to either support national security or they do not. That does not make them a socialist. A difference of opinion does not make them categorized by a political spectrum. But over a period of time, those that oppose national security, in my opinion, have hurt the ability of our troops to fight and wage a conflict that our President and this Nation offers. This particular amendment does not make one a socialist. This particular amendment does not mean that one wants to hurt defense. But over a period of time, if historically a person opposes the advancement of defense, that is their right. But I have the right, also, to disagree with that. And in this case, I strongly disagree. It was my own self that opposed the F-22 even last year. If the gentleman would say that because I opposed the amendment last year I was a socialist, I would agree, too. That is not the case. But it is the case that I would make that our troops are hurting. They have been exposed to 149 deployments. Over $200 billion has come out of the defense bill. The White House has cut defense in the past. And all of these accumulated have caused a lack of training, older machines, poor retention, and the things that we are trying to address in this bill. And at the same time, there is a very definite threat out there. Those were the points I was attempting to make.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Some people cannot stand for the truth, and they would like to shout it down.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The words that I state are factual. The Progressive Caucus is listed under the Democrat Socialists of America, their Web page.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. On the computer program the Democrat Socialists of America have their own Web page, and on that Web page are listed the Progressive Caucus. That is a fact. And I have stated that the Democrat Socialists of America----

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. Two classic examples. The helicopters that we lost in Kosovo, the pilots were not trained. They did not get trained in night goggles. They did not get trained in combat wielded aircraft. Captain O'Grady that was shot down in Bosnia was not even qualified in combat maneuvering, because we did not have the money because of all the 149 deployments that the gentleman supported.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a couple of the statements that have been made by the proponents of this amendment. First of all, when it was stated that the cost has doubled, when one takes all the research and development money, and one spreads that over 756 airplanes, each of those airplanes cost a certain amount. If one cuts in half the buy of those airplanes to less than 336 today, all that research and development money goes over on a fewer number of airplanes driving up the cost of that airplane. We took that into account last year. I joined with the committee last year looking, because I was concerned about the cost of the F-22 and the upcoming electronics in it. I would tell the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) I am not bloody. I stood for what I believed was right and fought for that. No lobbying, nothing swayed me in what I believed. I will tell the gentleman, if he has any idea what it is like to look at tracers coming across the canopy, if he has any idea what is like to see a sidewinder coming up one's tailpipe, if he has got any idea what it feels like to be coming down in a parachute over enemy territory, then he would support the F-22. I would tell my colleagues this, why have we not had the funds for the joint strike fighter and the F-18E/F? Because the White House has delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed, and amendments like this have delayed procurement of aircraft knowing that, in the out years, they said, oh, we will give it to you in the out years, but knowing when we come to the out years, we will not have the money to fund all the different systems that we need to support national security effectively. It makes me sick to hear, well, we want to take care of the food stamp military personnel. We want to take care of those poor military that are shipped around. But, yet, when it came to Somalia and Haiti, we told you that there would be a cost associated with that. $200 billion out of the defense budget for 149 deployments. So we do not have the money for R&D. We do not have the money for procurement. There are unfunded requirements by the military because of the liberal foreign policy that does not give us the amount of money to support aircraft and equipment. I would tell the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) I flew the F-15 alongside the F-22. The gentleman's information is wrong. It does have super cruise. I could not keep up with it in an F-15. Or General Ryan could not keep up with it in the F-16. The VO, which is the stealth capability, gives us the ability to close an enemy fighter and fire before he fires on us because his missiles are better today, his radar is better, and we cannot see through his jammer. The F-22 gives us that capability. I beg the gentleman, go down and look at the simulator with the actual electronic equipment. In a dog fight, it is also helpful to know where one's wingman is. It is also nice to know who he has locked up so that one can fire efficiently at the enemy and take him out before he takes us out. The F-22 does that; so does the joint strike fighter. The joint strike fighter is going to use the same technology that is being tested today in the F-22. The F-22, I am concerned about the cost of the F-22. We need to hold that down so that we can buy in greater numbers that aircraft. Because we need to look at the threat. Mr. Chairman, if our pilots fly against the SU-27 today, both in the intercept and in the dog fight, our pilots die 90 to 95 percent of the time. But our liberal and socialist friends would tell us the Cold War is over, there is no threat. Our kids are going to die, and it is amendments like this that have stopped our military from surviving and puts us in a situation where we have got 21 ships along pier that cannot be deployed because they are down for maintenance. Our kids are getting worn out, and we are flying 30-year-old equipment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion, and I would say that the liberal left is known to fight against national security and defense for greater socialized spending. The gentlemen that support this amendment are members of the Progressive Caucus in which----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I stand corrected. And in that they are listed under the Democrat Socialists of America that want to cut defense by 50 percent.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me finish. The author of the amendment is.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) spoke about and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks). The supplemental is important. We have over 21 ships that are tied up to the pier that cannot go anywhere, and we are going below that 300-ship Navy. Yet, there are some people on that side of the aisle that would even cut defense in an emergency situation like this. I think that is wrong. I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations. When I served on the authorizing body, it was the absolute best committee to serve on. There are no Republicans and no Democrats on that committee; they are all looking forward to helping the men and women in the services. Unfortunately, when we get to this floor, there are critics of those policies that want to cut for social spending. That is wrong. We put at risk our men and women in the services. I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), the authorizers. This is a good rule. I thank especially the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, who has been tied up in another committee today. Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule and a good bill. I thank my colleagues for supporting it. We need to get the other body in line with the supplemental.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the individuals from the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), and the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). I read in a magazine where sharks had literally been caught, the fin taken off, and then the sharks dumped back into the water still alive. I am a sportsman. I love to hunt and fish. But I also like management and preservation, and I do not like horrific practices when it comes to animals. The committee has seen fit to bring first a resolution and now this bill, Mr. Speaker. This legislation before the House today will establish scientifically environmentally sound and responsible standards for all American fisheries in this particular issue. The Shark Finning Prohibition Act has broad bipartisan support. It is strongly supported by Ocean Wildlife Campaign, the coalition includes Center for Marine Conservation, National Audubon Society, National Coalition of Marine Conservation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World Wildlife Fund. It is also supported by the State of Hawaii and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which had direct interest into this issue; the American Sportfishing Association; Recreational Fishing Alliance; the Sports Fishing Association of California; the Cousteau Society; Western Pacific Fisheries Coalition. I would like to underscore, Mr. Speaker, that, according to the National Marine Fishery Service, in 1992, there was only 2,289 sharks taken. In just a short time, one can see the growth of the shark finning and the numbers that have actually been released. Over 78,000 sharks had been taken and only 982 were released. H.R. 3535 will establish America as a worldwide leader in shark and conservation efforts. I would like to thank my colleagues. When I came to Congress, I did not start off banning hunting and fishing and unsportsmanlike conduct on certain issues. But since then, the tuna-dolphin bill, protecting elephants, snow geese, the MSCP, which provides quarters for endangered species and such, this is good scientific basis for this particular bill. I would like to thank my colleagues for the support in a bipartisan support for this particular bill. Mr. Speaker, I include the following letters for the Record, as follow: Ocean Wildlife Campaign, Washington, DC, September 22, 1999. Hon. Randy Cunningham, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Cunningham: We are writing to express serious concern regarding the management and health of shark populations in U.S. Pacific waters, specifically in areas under the jurisdiction of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WESPAC). Driven by the international demand for shark fin soup, the practice of shark finning--cutting of a shark's fins and discarding its carcass back into the ocean--is a rapidly growing problem that is directly responsible for huge increases in the number of sharks killed annually and appalling waste of this nation's living marine resources. The National Marine Fisheries Service has prohibited shark finning in the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, and Caribbean. It is time to ban finning in the Pacific. Between 1991 and 1998, the number of sharks ``retained'' by the Hawaii-based swordfish and tuna longline fleet jumped from 2,289 and 60,857 annually. In 1998, over 98 percent of these sharks were killed for their fins to meet the demand for shark fin soup. Because shark fins typically comprise only one to give percent of a shark's bodyweight, 95 to 99 percent of the shark is going to waste. Sharks are particularly vulnerable to overfishing because of their ``life history characteristics''--slow growth, late sexual maturity, and the production of few young. Once depleted, a population may take decades to recover. The National Marine Fisheries Service, conservationists, fishermen, scientists, and the public have pressured MESPAC to end the practice of shark finning. Nevertheless, WESPAC and the State of Hawaii recently failed to take action to end or control finning. This issue of shark finning is characterized by a dangerous lack of management, rampant waste, and egregious inconsistencies with U.S. domestic and international policy stances. It is the most visible symptom of a larger problem: a lack of comprehensive management for sharks in U.S. Pacific waters. The history of poorly or unmanaged shark fisheries around the world is unequivocal: rapid decline followed by collapse. Sharks are not managed in U.S. Central and Western Pacific waters, and with increased fishing pressure there may be rapidly growing problems. We urge your office to take whatever action is necessary to immediately end the destructive practice of shark finning in U.S. waters and encourage WESPAC to develop a comprehensive fishery management plan for sharks that will, among other things: 1. Immediately prohibit the finning of sharks; 2. Immediately reduce shark mortality levels by requiring the live release of all bycatch or ``incidentally caught'' animals brought to the boat alive; 3. Immediately reduce the bycatch of sharks; 4. Prevent overfishing by quickly establishing precautionary commercial and recreational quotas for sharks until a final comprehensive management plan is adopted that ensures the future health of the population. Given the dramatic increase in the number of sharks killed in the Hawaiian long line fishery, WESPAC should cap shark mortality at 1994 levels as a minimum interim action, pending the outcome of new population assessments. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter. David Wilmont, Ph.D., Ocean Wildlife Campaign. Carol Safina, Ph.D., National Audubon Society. Lisa Speer, Natural Resources Defense Council. Tom Grasso, World Wildlife Fund. Sonja Fordham, Center for Marine Conservation. Ken Hinman, National Coalition for Marine Conservation. Ellen Pikitch, Ph.D., Wildlife Conservation Society.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, people are split on both sides of this, but I would like to relay a story. Hall Rogers and some of my Democrat colleagues went to Hanoi. We spoke to the Communist Chinese Prime Minister. I asked him, Mr. Prime Minister, why do you not get involved in trade? In perfect English, he said, Congressman, we are Communists. He said, If we get involved in trade, people out there will have, in his term, things, private property and property, and we as, Communists, will be out of business. At that point, I said, Trade is good. If we take a look at where China was 20 years ago, I was there, and where they are now, no, they will lie, cheat, steal. They are a national security risk. But I think the question is where do we want China to be 20 years from now. I think we have an ability to open those markets and move them to the right instead of going back to the left. I think it is in the best interest for national security and human rights to let them move in that direction.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of establishing Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Mr. Speaker, China is a rogue nation. Totalitarians and Communists rule it. These leaders oppress their people and deny the basic freedoms and religious liberties that we hold so dear here in America. China regularly fails to abide by standards of good citizenship in the community of nations. China's officials have been tied with attempts to influence the 1996 elections in the United States through contributions to the Democratic National Committee. This nation's spies have stolen our nuclear technology. It sells missile technology to Iran and North Korea and regularly threatens war against Taiwan. It is in this environment that Congress must decide whether we should continue our annual renewal of normal trade relations (NTR) for China, and forego the benefits of lower tariffs and increased access to China's markets, or grant permanent normal trade relations, (PNTR) for China. I believe firmly that this vote affects the advancement of America's national interests, including national security, human rights, religious liberty, and commerce and American jobs. With very few measures have I so deeply struggled with determining the best course of action, and with identifying what is right or wrong for America. After carefully considering all the facts, and reviewing the notes and letters and calls from my constituents, I believe that our best hope for advancing American national interests in China is fulfilled by granting PNTR to China. Moreover, failing to do so today would damage America's interests, in national security, human rights and religious freedoms, and American commerce and jobs. Let me first address the matter of American national security. I can assure you that since nearly losing my life fighting communism in Vietnam, the matter of what action best represents America's national security interests is a matter which I take very seriously. Beijing has exhibited poor citizenship in the world. It tested missiles in the Taiwan Straits on the eve of free elections in Taiwan. It has sold missiles and weapons materials to rogue terrorist nations. It smuggled AK-47 rifles into the United States, bound for Los Angeles street gangs. It increased its defense budget 40 percent over the past several years. However, in light of this current and emerging national security concern, I believe it is only through American engagement, through the extension of PNTR to China, that provides the best hope to advance America's national security interests in China and East Asia. I am under no illusion that by extending PNTR to China will work miracles in the advancement of our national security. It will not. Yet, the penalty for sacrificing our engagement in China by not granting PNTR is much worse. Denying PNTR to China will not keep China out of the WTO. Denying PNTR to China will not protect Taiwan, which is why the government leaders of Taiwan support granting PNTR to China. Rather, denying PNTR to China would bring instability to this critically important area of the world. Denying PNTR to China would force the Beijing regime away from the United States, undermine advocates for democracy in China, and drive China away from the community of law- abiding countries, into the arms of the world's terrorist nations. Thus, I conclude that it is in America's national security interest to encourage American engagement in China and support PNTR for China. Secondarily, Mr. Speaker, let me address the issue of religious liberty and freedom for the people of China. Again, Beijing's record in this field is repugnant to the cause of freedom. Its list of crimes against freedom goes on and on. Beijing oppresses the Buddhist people of Tibet, and the Muslims of Xinjiang. It strictly limits the rights of Christians from meeting or owning religious materials. It practices a population policy that includes forced abortion and sterilization. It has detained, jailed, and killed its dissidents. It severely restricts the activities of people of faith, and imprisons priests and ministers, and closes house churches that attempt to teach religion free from the reach of the Beijing regime. Given this challenge, what action advances America's national interest in this area? I conclude that our national interest for religious liberty and freedom is best advanced by extending PNTR to China. Through American engagement we advance American values, through the export of commerce and culture, directly into the lives of Chinese citizens. While I respect the views of my friends at the Family Research Council and other family organizations who strongly oppose extending PNTR to China, it is also true that several U.S.-based organizations that support Christian missionaries in China support PNTR for China. The case for greater commerce with China can, therefore, be cast favorably not just in commercial terms, but in moral terms, as an engine of liberty and freedom in an oppressed nation. This is why many of our nation's most respected religious leaders, from Billy Graham to Pat Robertson, have called for keeping the door to China open. I agree that PNTR for China will not work miracles for the people of China. It will not directly free a single person wrongly imprisoned by the communist government of China. However, Wang Juntao, the leader of the protests at Tiananmen Square several years back, has said this: ``I prefer to choose `yes' . . . Both fundamental change in the human rights situation and democratization in China will come from efforts by Chinese within China. The more the relationship between the two countries expands, the more space there will be for independent forces to grow in China. Such independent forces will eventually push China toward democracy.'' American commerce with China will give the Chinese people a taste of economic freedom, and economic freedom will pave a path toward more political and religious freedom. Lastly, I would like to address the matter of commerce and American jobs with the world's most populous nation. Companies in San Diego engage in significant exports in China. Among these are Solar Turbines, Cubic, Qualcomm, Jet Products, and several other firms large and small, which engage in manufacturing, telecommunications, television, computers, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and many other industries, employing thousands of San Diegans in good high tech, high skill, high wage jobs. Furthermore, many Americans jobs are dependent on imports from China. These include high-tech jobs in the computer hardware and electronic device industries, and hundreds of thousands of lower-tech jobs, including retailers with shops all across America. In addition, American consumers rely on the ability to purchase goods made in China. The vote before us today is about granting American companies access to China. This vote and WTO membership for China only lowers China's tariffs and China's barriers to trade. This action will allow American companies to increase distribution in China, allowing more goods to be made in America and exported. This bill will allow American financial service companies and insurance companies unprecedented access to China's markets. Our action today will benefit all Americans through greater exports, investment, and opportunity in China. I want to remind my colleagues that this vote is not a goal line. This is not the end of our duty to the American people on this issue, nor is this the last time that we must face the burden of addressing the shortcomings of China. To use a football analogy, this is another first down in our relationship with China. Since President Nixon returned to China, our relationship has been growing and China has changed. Since I was there 20 years ago, China is a better place. If we are to continue moving China in the right direction during the next 10-20 years, we must assure that certain conditions are in place to foster that development. We need a President who will not sell secrets to China for campaign contributions; A Vice-President that will show leadership and distinguish right from wrong; A State Department and Commerce Department that will fight for America's interests and not devalue national security concerns for business expediency; A Department of Defense that has a strong leadership and the support and funding necessary to defend America and protect our servicemen and women; And intelligence organizations with the assets and direction to protect our strategic and economic interests here and abroad. Right now we have none of these things. And because of the repeated failures of the Clinton-Gore administration on China policy, Congress must exercise leadership in the United States-China relationship. Here in the People's House, we must remember that America is the world's leader in human rights, religious freedoms and peace and prosperity. I want to close by sharing a recent experience I had in Vietnam. Several years ago, my good friend Rep. Hal Rogers asked me to accompany him to Vietnam to raise the flag and reopen our embassy there. My first response to him was no. I did not want to return to Vietnam. I had lost too many friends and had too many memories of my time there to return. Then Pete Peterson, now our Ambassador to Vietnam, who was then our colleague, called me. Pete said, ``Duke, I was a POW. It is tough for me to return to Vietnam, I need you to help me return there and raise America's flag.'' To Pete I said ``yes.'' So I returned to Vietnam. While I was there I toured old target sites and met with people who had led the Vietnamese Army we fought against. One of those was the head of the Vietnamese security forces. He is now the Mayor of Hanoi. He shared with us many of his thoughts and views on the United States relationship with Vietnam and his views on Communism. When our conversation turned to questions, I asked him why Vietnam was not moving to open trade with the United States. And I will always remember what he said. He said, ``Congressman, we are communists. If we allow trade with America, our people will have things. They will have property and be able to own things without our control. That, Congressman, will hurt us and weaken our control over the people.'' When he finished, I thought to myself--``trade is good.'' Mr. Speaker, expanding trade with China advances America's national interests. Expanded trade will help us weaken the hold of the dictators in Beijing, bring economic prosperity and greater stability to the entire Far East region, and carry American values of freedom and liberty into China. Mr. Speaker, trade is good.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of my colleagues the exciting, new research opportunities being pursued by the UCSD Cancer Center in La Jolla, California, and to recognize some very generous families and organizations for the extraordinary private support they have recently pledged to provide to the Center. The UCSD Cancer Center is now undergoing a tremendous period of growth and resurgence. Directed by the distinguished Dr. David Tarin, the goal of the Center is to research and help deploy the many new treatments and protocols now being developed to fight and prevent cancer. Through the leadership of people like Labor Appropriations Chairman John Porter, the Republican majority in Congress has successfully raised the bar of investment in health research and cancer research as a major national priority of the people of the United States. Now this research, in many cases, requires a next step: the testing and evaluation of treatments and medicines through clinical trials. Such trials are a major focus of the UCSD Cancer Center, so that we can bring together medical professionals, researchers and patients to the benefit of everyone. By consolidating research and treatment at the UCSD Cancer Center, we will learn more about treating and preventing this horrible scourge of cancer, in a way that preserves and enhances the dignity and peace of cancer patients, their families and their loved ones. Such cancer is not inexpensive. Conversely, though, I believe that we cannot afford not to invest in such a center. It gaining increasing recognition from the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute, directed by my friend Dr. Rick Klausner. It is the focus of a regional effort by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, to apply local tobacco settlement funds to combat and prevent cancer. I want to pay particular attention to several families who have put forth their own treasure to the improvement of this vital Center. Within the past several months, private gifts totalling $47 million have been pledged for this purpose. In thanksgiving for a gift of $20 million by San Diego Padres majority owner John Moores and his wife Rebecca, the center will be named the John and Rebecca Moores UCSD Cancer Center. Longtime investment banker and attorney Jerome Katzin and his wife Miriam have pledged another $15 million. And many more gifts large and small, by San Diego's leading families and by people whose lives have been touched by cancer, have been pledged to this Center. Mr. Speaker, this Center is gaining national recognition in its field. As a strong supporter of cancer research and of this Center, I want to bring both the Center and its private family supporters to the attention of my colleagues in Congress and to the country. I commend my colleagues to read the attached article from the San Diego Union-Tribune, describing both the Center and the gifts of its supporters in greater detail. [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, May 5, 2000] World-Class Cancer Center Planned at UCSD (By Cheryl Clark) A regional cancer center financed by gifts of $47 million from local families is to be built in La Jolla, consolidating research and treatment in what UCSD officials hope will become one of the nation's best places for care. The plan is to bring researchers, clinicians, prevention specialists and educators under one roof in an effort that UCSD Chancellor Robert Dynes called a ``bench-to-bedside approach to conquering cancer.'' ``San Diego deserves a cancer center that ranks among the world's best, and UCSD is the logical place,'' Dynes said yesterday. University officials hope the coordinated center eventually will receive the higher level and prestigious ``comprehensive'' designation from the National Cancer Institute. That label would not only attract more qualified scientists and clinicians, it would be a magnet for funding for clinical trials of cancer compounds from the federal government, private foundations and pharmaceutical companies. The announcement follows several ambitious and far-reaching developments recently in the San Diego medical community focusing on cancer research and treatment. ``We can now see on the horizon the realization of a dream,'' said Dr. David Tarin, associate dean for cancer affairs and the new center's director. ``At the moment, we are scattered at 24 sites and at two hospitals.'' The largest of the gifts was $20 million pledged by Padres majority owner John Moores and his wife, Rebecca. The center will be named the John and Rebecca Moores UCSD Cancer Center. The Moores were unavailable for comment, but in a written statement they said, ``When we lived in Houston, we observed the profound impact of a vigorous, highly regarded cancer center equally dedicated to research and patient care.'' Another large contributor was Jerome Katzin, an attorney and former investment banker with Kuhn, Loeb & Co./Lehman Brothers for 35 years. He and his wife, Miriam, pledged $15 million. Officials hope to start construction next year, following approval by the University of California Board of Regents. The facility will be built on 2.4 acres southeast of Thornton Hospital near the Shiley Eye Center and the Perlman Ambulatory Care Center. The five-story structure would house laboratories, outpatient treatment areas and conference and office space for teaching. Patients requiring acute care would be treated at other area hospitals such as Thornton or UCSD Medical Center in Hillcrest. Dynes, Tarin and David Bailey, dean of UCSD's School of Medicine, said they are halfway to their fund-raising goal. They anticipate the project will cost $75 million to build and an additional $25 million to support clinical trials and treatment programs. They said they are confident they will raise the remaining $53 million. Numerous physicians and patients have criticized the region's existing cancer treatment resources, saying some patients who want to try certain experimental chemotherapies have to travel to larger programs in Los Angeles, Houston, Seattle, Boston or New York. UCSD officials said they have long wanted to enhance their cancer program. Two years ago their application for National Cancer Institute funding received poor marks and was rejected, in part because evaluators said UCSD lacked a coordinated system by which UCSD and regional molecular biology research is translated to clinical care. UCSD also was criticized for its lack of a formal vehicle for treating cancer in children. Plans to merge UCSD's pediatric program with that at Children's Hospital have fallen apart several times. ``It was mandated by the NCI that children should be included in clinical trials,'' Tarin said. ``We want to make that a major component.'' Bailey said he is having conversations with Children's Hospital and hopes to finally have an agreement. Blair, Sadler, Children's president and chief executive officer, said such a collaboration would be ``an ideal marriage'' because Children's now has about 200 pediatric cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials and is following UCSD is in a unique position to work on all sorts of common cancers, Tarin said, especially those that are not more prevalent in the San Diego area, such as uterine and cervical cancer and melanoma, which can be caused by overexposure to the sun. ``By assembling everything in one place, in a single building, we hope that the whole of our endeavor will become more than the sum of several parts, and that delivery of care will be a model for other communities to build upon,'' Tarin said. ``We need to understand the scale of this venture,'' he said. ``Fifteen hundred people every day will die of this disease. That may not sound like a great number, but it represents about five jumbo jet planes crashing, and that would be big news.'' UCSD is not the only major medical system trying to develop a cancer center. Seven months ago, cancer experts with the Scripps organization announced plans to build one and to apply for the NCI's ``comprehensive'' designation. But UCSD appears to be the furthest along. Last week, NCI awarded UCSD's Dr. Thomas Kipps, a cancer immunologist, $16.5 million to direct a coordinated attack against chronic lymphocytic leukemia, the most common blood cancer among adults, at nine institutions around the country. Also under way is an effort, spearheaded by Tarin, to use $100 million of the $1 billion in settlement money from tobacco litigation to organize a regional collaboration of all cancer centers. That effort, advocated by county Supervisors Ron Roberts and Dianne Jacob, is in the planning stages, and a consultant was hired for $500,000 to write a report about what would be required to make that happen. Roberts, who attended the news conference yesterday where architectural plans for the cancer building were unveiled, said: ``I don't think we ever assumed there wouldn't be rivalry between the institutions (Scripps and UCSD). But our dream was that we could link them regionally in a way they'd never been before. ``Our dream was that we could compete with the Boston, Houston and New York cancer centers in providing services. But we have a long way to go.'' Dr. Ernest Beutler, head of the Scripps molecular and experimental medicine department and chairman of the new Scripps cancer center's board of governors, said he doesn't see the two cancer center efforts ``as a competitive thing.'' ``I don't think there could be too many people trying to make a dent in the cancer problem,'' he said. Beutler declined to say how much Scripps has received in donations or whether Scripps and UCSD might be competing for the same philanthropic dollars. ``There will be areas where we certainly want to work with UCSD, which has some very good people,'' he said.