Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Chairman, if anybody should know the merit of this bill, it is the originator of the bill and what it stands for and what we can and cannot do with it. I want to use part of the subvention in whatever we go forward with. But my fear is if we go ahead with this, we may prevent an overall support for a bill that is going to help all veterans. I want to tell you something. We told you that when you voted to go into Somalia, we have spent $2.4 billion into Haiti. We went to Iraq, we went to Sudan and bombed an aspirin factory with the White House, and all of these things, $200 billion. We could have more than paid for all of this. But yet, your liberal left on the Democrat side, oh, we need to go into Haiti, we need to go into Somalia, we need to go into all these other places. We said there would be a cost. I do not care so much about the cost of this that I want to take care of the veterans, but there is limited dollars in what you do.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I take a back seat to no one as far as veterans and trying to help them, whether it is FEHBP, subvention, or other programs. I fought for their COLAs and I fought for their funding. I am a veteran. I am a combat veteran. I have health care needs because of that combat. And I understand the need. I have gone into hospitals where a general running a military hospital said, ``Duke, I'm losing two or three veterans a week from World War II, and they're not getting the health care that they need.'' And I understand what the gentleman is doing probably more than anybody in this room. My veterans in San Diego wrote the subvention bill, the original one. I fought it through this body and through the Senate, and the White House limited it to a pilot program. And the whole idea of it was that you could use Medicare at a hospital, a military hospital where you do not have large overheads. I am giving you the other side of your position, which is good, because I am trying to show you where my heart is. That because you do not have to pay for illegal aliens and children born out of wedlock and all of those things at a military hospital, you actually save Medicare dollars. I do not think they take that into account when they talk about, my side, talking about the expanded cost of it. We save Medicare dollars. It costs the military, but there needs to be a change in that. But I want to tell you something. TRICARE, when you talk to the veterans is a Band-Aid. Subvention is a Band-Aid, even if it is expanded. Because instead of having to drive hundreds of miles just to fill a prescription, if you have a military hospital close to you, then it is okay, it is good, in the advancement of subvention. But if you live in a rural area, then you are left out. What I want to do is work with the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Mississippi and the rest of you to bring about a program of FEHBP where if you have a civilian working along with a lieutenant, the civilian at the end of the 20 years will get FEHBP supplement to Medicare and the military does not. If we will provide subvention along with that, but I do not know what that mix is.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I understand that. But I want to tell you, if we jump off into this, we may prevent in the future with this commission looking at what we could do to help everybody, not just the people that live next to a hospital. And that is my goal. I want to fight for that, and I want to work with the gentleman. But we cannot on this basis.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to recognize six students from San Diego County, California, who have been selected as finalists competing for National Hispanic Youth Awards. These students are among sixty finalists nationally. One of the six is a student in my 51st Congressional District, Milenka V. Meneses of San Marcos High School. These outstanding Hispanic young people have been identified for their superior academic achievement, their leadership in their schools and their communities, and for their promise as positive role models for us all. If we believe that in America, every young person, from every ethnic background, deserves a fighting chance to achieve the American Dream, we need young people from every ethnic background to take the initiative to lead the way. Young people like Milenka Meneses are such leaders. They deserve our recognition, our honor, and our encouragement. I commend to my colleagues to read the following article from the San Diego Union-Tribune describing the recognition given to these fine young men and women. They are more than promising young leaders to the Hispanic community; they are young leaders for us all. They represent the best of America. Six Local Students Chosen as Latino Leader Finalists Six San Diego County high school students have been selected as finalists in a nationwide search for top Latino youth leaders. They will be among 60 students from across the nation competing for six National Hispanic Youth awards. The winners will be recognized at the Hispanic Heritage Awards annual gala Sept. 7 at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. The six county residents selected to compete for the national awards are: Seidy Gaytan of Sweetwater Union High School; Laura Dawn Berumen of Montgomery High School; Abel Aramburo of El Cajon Valley High School; Milenka V. Meneses of San Marcos High School; Jose Barraza Jr. of Hilltop High School; and Danika Marie Lacarra Markey of Helix High School. Because they were named regional finalists, each student received a $1,000 educational grant, a personal computer from CompUSA and a $500 donation to a community service organization of their choice. The Hispanic Heritage Awards Foundation was established 14 years ago to provide a greater understanding of the contributions of Hispanic Americans in the United States and to recognize and honor role models who inspire Latino youth.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help America's seniors take better care of themselves. This legislation will direct the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) to give Medicare beneficiaries coverage of Augmentative and Alternative Communication Devices (``AAC devices''). AAC devices provide individuals who are unable to speak, use sign language, or write because of cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, stroke or ALS, the ability to communicate--and therefore to lead safer and more productive lives. I am joined in this effort by my colleagues from California and New York, the Honorable Ron Packard and Jerrold Nadler, and several other colleagues. In addition, full Medicare coverage of AAC devices is urged by a broad range of the professional medical community, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Neurology, and 13 of America's leading disability organizations, including the United Cerebral Palsy Association. For over a year and a half, I have been working with other Representatives and Senators in hopes of accomplishing administratively through HCFA this goal of AAC device coverage. On Dec. 30, 1999, these 13 leading disability organizations filed a formal request to HCFA for Medicare coverage of AAC devices. On April 26, 2000, the HCFA, after missing its own earlier 90-day deadline for a decision, took only an incomplete and partial step. It withdrew a prior, inexplicable national non-coverage decision of AAC devices, issued in the 1980's, which was an obstacle to granting coverage. However, HCFA failed to take the needed step of granting Medicare beneficiaries coverage of AAC devices. The legislation we are introducing today will accomplish that goal, and secure AAC device coverage for America's seniors through their Medicare health benefits. For many of the people who need these devices, the ability to speak and interact with society though a communications device has a profound and positive impact on their lives. One of the most prominent users of these devices is the famed physicists Dr. Stephen Hawking, who suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) or Lou Gehrig's disease. Dr. Hawking's story of how his disease forced him to communicate through an augmentative communication device is best told in his own words: In 1985, I had to have a tracheotomy operation. After this, I had to have 24 hour nursing care. This was made possible by grants from several foundations. Before the operation, my speech had been getting more slurred, so that only a few people who knew me well could understand me. But at least I could communicate. I wrote scientific papers by dictating to a secretary, and I gave seminars through an However, a computer expert in California, called Walt Woltosz, heard of my plight. He sent me a computer program he had written, called Equalizer. This allowed me to select words from a series of menus on the screen, by pressing a switch in my hand. The program could also be controlled by a switch, operated by head or eye movement. When I have built up what I want to say, I can send it to a speech synthesizer. At first, I just ran the Equalizer program on a desk top computer. However David Mason, of Cambridge Adaptive Communication, fitted a small portable computer and a speech synthesizer to my wheel chair. This system allowed me to communicate much better than I could before. I can manage up to 15 words a minute. I can either speak what I have written, or save it to disk. I can then print it out, or call it back and speak it sentence by sentence. Using this system, I have written a book, and dozens of scientific papers. I have also given many scientific and popular talks. They have all been well received. I think that is in a large part due to the quality of the speech synthesizer, which is made by Speech Plus. One's voice is very important. If you have a slurred voice, people are likely to treat you as mentally deficient: Does he take sugar? This synthesizer is by far the best I have heard, because it varies the intonation, and doesn't speak like a Dalek. The only trouble is that it gives me an American accent. I have had motor neuron disease for practically all my adult life. Yet it has not prevented me from having a very attractive family, and being successful in my work. This is thanks to the help I have received from Jane, my children, and a large number of other people and organizations. I have been lucky, that my condition has progressed more slowly than is often the case. But it shows that one need not lose hope. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Hawking's story is one of triumph over a terrible disease. But he is not alone. More than 30,000 Americans suffer from ALS, another 30,000 from cerebral palsy and untold others from various diseases that rob them of their ability to speak. Fortunately, modern technology is making these augmentative communication devices smaller, easier to handle and affordable for many individuals. However, for those who cannot afford these devices, they are already covered by every state Medicaid program as well as by TRICARE, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and hundreds of commercial health providers. They are not covered by Medicare. The Medicare program remains alone among federal government health care providers in choosing not to cover AAC devices, despite numerous attempts to secure this needed coverage. We believe that HCFA can and should grant coverage of these devices to Medicare beneficiaries. Our legislation will accomplish that goal. Further delay is a great disservice to Medicare beneficiaries--seniors who often simply cannot speak for themselves--who need access to AAC devices. The challenges suffered by the greatest physicist of our time, Dr. Hawking, made clear to us through his own words, are likewise shared by thousands of other seniors around this country, who, without these devices, cannot speak for themselves. At the most basic level, the ability to communicate with a doctor, pharmacist, or care worker could save a senior's life. Moreover, securing Medicare coverage for seniors to use AAC devices gives voice to Americans who are kept silent, improving the quality of their lives immeasurably. Attached are letters from the United Cerebral Palsy Association and Sunrise Medical, a communications device manufacturer, supporting this legislation. I urge all my colleagues to join me by co-sponsoring this timely and important legislation to achieve Medicare coverage of AAC devices. United Cerebral Palsy Associations, Washington, DC, May 9, 2000. Hon Randy (Duke) Cunningham, Attn: Tim Charters, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515. Dear Rep. Cunningham: UCP, the nation's largest health charity, is pleased to endorse your forthcoming bill to require the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a Medicare National Coverage Determination for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices. Many people with severe speech disabilities, such as those due to cerebral palsy, need these devices to communicate, but requests by UCP and other organizations for Medicare to issue a national coverage determination have not been heeded. Medicare has failed to act in spite of the compelling case for the efficacy of AAC devices, in spite of physicians who determine these devices are medically necessary for many Medicare beneficiaries with severe speech disabilities, and in spite of the policy of every other health insurer to pay for them. As a result, some Medicare beneficiaries are unable to communicate because they cannot afford to buy these devices themselves. Thus we believe Congress should enact your bill at the earliest possible time. We look forward to continuing to work with you as this proposal is considered by Congress. Sincerely, Kirsten A. Nyrop, Executive Director.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, there are no better committees that one can serve on than the authorization or appropriations defense committee. Once we get to the floor, that is different, because there are those people that do not support national security. Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about the health care issue. And if the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) would listen, this is important. The subvention bill is my bill, my original bill. I put it through to get 100 percent of coverage for the subvention that the gentleman from Mississippi wants to do. But I want to tell my colleagues that, even though it is my bill, and I have the most to gain, I would love to have the veterans saying, ``Duke Cunningham's bill is out there and it is 100 percent,'' it has its limitations. If someone lives close to a hospital, then subvention is good, but it is just a Band-Aid. I put it in because we were not doing enough for our veterans and we could not get movement. Tri-Care is the same thing. We could go ahead and make that 100 percent right now, but I want to take care of those veterans that are in the rural areas who do not have access to Tri-Care or subvention. If we do this, we could mess up the whole program and what we are trying to do to help veterans. Do not demagogue the issue with the Democrat leadership. And those people that support what the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) is doing are mistaken.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the bill that my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), was talking about with regard to subvention was written in San Diego by my veterans. It was actually written before I became a Member of Congress in 1990, and we support that particular bill. The gentleman from Mississippi has got good intentions on this. There are many of us that would like this bill to come forward, and we have talked to both the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and to the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert). But let me tell my colleagues something. Before we shut this House down, I would say to my friend, it is important that we move forward. Subvention, Tri-Care, FEHBP, we have promised our military veterans too long that we are going to take care of them. We are losing thousands of World War II veterans every month. If we wait and keep on delaying, those veterans are not going to get the care that was promised to them. We looked at the subvention bill itself. When I originally introduced the subvention bill, we had it as 100 percent. Because of the cost analysis and different reasons, the White House said no, we want to make it a pilot program. They were going to limit it just to two, one in the Senate and one here. It was my bill and my hospital was not even going to get in the subvention mix. I fought tooth, hook, and nail, and we were able to get that expanded. But even then we were stopped. And if my colleagues will look at why subvention and some of these others have not passed, the White House itself did not push. DOD did not push these bills. Matter of fact, they told people if they got involved with subvention or FEHBP, they may not get back onto the regular program. So the numbers were very, very deficient. And they put out outlandish numbers; that the cost would reach out too much. I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Mississippi, that I will work with him. But he is also aware that whether it is Tri-Care, whether it is FEHBP, and I personally think FEHBP, which a civilian has, is better than my original subvention. The same thing that a civilian Federal worker has that will guarantee subsistence beyond Medicare will actually be better. But the commission, Republicans and Democrats, were put together and tasked with what do we need to put together to really keep the promise of our health care promises to our veterans. I remember in 1993, when the other side of the aisle increased taxes, increased spending and they cut military COLAs. They cut veterans' COLAs and they increased taxes on Social Security. So what we are saying, there is fault on both sides. Do not try to demagogue the veterans issue. Work with us in providing this health care plan. We are well aware that the White House came over to the Democrat leadership and now every single bill the minority leadership is going to try to stop, to show a do-nothing Congress. Every one of these bills, whether it is riders, whether it is this issue, the Democrats are going to try to shut down the House or delay and end up with a monumental appropriations package at the end because the White House wants $20 billion more. Will they get some of that? Probably, yes, because we cannot control the Senate. But what the minority wants is to where they can get the whole $20 billion and work in taking the majority. I think that is disingenuous. I support the gentleman from Mississippi, and I think he is very, very caring in what he wants to do for veterans. But look at the big picture and help us work through this process. Support this rule. Let us push on forward and let us work for the betterment of the American people.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. We have bipartisan support in opposition to this bill. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) spoke eloquently about some of the pitfalls of the existing conditions of the bill as it exists right now. My friend, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), talked about exchange of power and that our people do not care. Well, the framers of the Constitution understood that too much power in the hands of a single source will corrupt, and it will. I want to tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is a very frustrating process, both for them and for us as well, but I think the framers of the Constitution understood that, and it should be difficult to pass things, because if too much power on the left is there, too much power on the right is there, then it is going to be lopsided, and the framers understood that it should be difficult so that no single group can tilt the scales. Is it frustrating? Absolutely. But the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) talks about in-house, he says ``Republicans are our adversary; the Senate is our enemy.'' That is because a single Senator can stop legislation over there. That is too much power in one hand. This body is going to attempt to do the same thing by shifting the power to the White House. Imagine, the President's budget failed 425 to 2 in this body, and 94 to 6 in the Senate because it was a political bill, too much power. Can you imagine what would have happened if we had given that power to the White House? The Constitution, under Article I, says that Congress shall initiate spending bills. By that, the President has two whacks at it. As has been mentioned before, that is a spreading of power, and that is good. What this bill attempts to do I believe is wrong. I would support the Gekas amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 3616, the Impact Aid Reauthorization Act. As a co-chair of the bipartisan House Impact Aid Caucus, now over 120 members strong, and as an early cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 3616 today. Let me take a moment to describe for my colleagues what education Impact Aid is, and why this legislation is important. Impact Aid represents the fulfillment of federal responsibility to local public education. Local public schools are chiefly funded by a combination of state and local income, sales and property taxes. Some 93 percent of local public education funding is just that--local, not federal. However, the presence of federal facilities such as national security installations and Indian reservations has a negative impact on local property tax collections. Such federal property is not locally taxed. This impact reduces the locally-generated revenues to our local public schools--the very same local public schools attended by the children of military personnel or Native Americans. Simply put, Uncle Sam does not pay local property tax for local public education. So until the federal government pays local property tax, the federal government has a responsibility to provide education Impact Aid. Most of the funding for Impact Aid is paid as general revenue to local education agencies to compensate for federal impaction, which each local school district calculates by formula. Other Impact Aid programs pay to local school districts involved in special circumstances, such as a high presence of children requiring special education, sizable tracts of federal property ineligible for private development and taxation, a large percentage of student population that is federally connected, the presence of Native American children, and other factors. Each one of these is important. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Impact Aid has been under unprecedented and continuous attack from the Clinton-Gore Administration. Year after year, Clinton-Gore budgets cut and gut Impact Aid, some years by hundreds of millions of dollars. This year's budget submission for Fiscal Year 2001 is no different; the Administration has for FY 2001 proposed a risky scheme to slash Impact Aid by $136.5 million. This astonishes me for several reasons. First, military families are under more stress than ever, with parents being sent on longer and more frequent deployments thanks to this Administration's foreign policy and its failure to budget adequately for our basic national security needs. Military recruitment is a challenge, and retaining quality soldiers, sailors and Marines is more difficult every passing year. Yet, President Clinton and Vice President Gore are once again cutting and gutting direct funding to the schools attended by these families' children, which is clearly a federal responsibility. Secondly, the economic and social challenges on American Indian reservations continue to be most grave, with unemployment and other measures of social stress far above the national average. Their school buildings are falling apart. They have no ability to raise more local property tax revenues for education. The federal government has a specific responsibility to these communities. Yet, President Clinton and Vice President Gore have annually cut the funding for their schools, by cutting funding for Impact Aid. Thirdly, the Clinton-Gore Administration's callousness toward this responsibility has extended to the Department of Education's historic misadministration of this important program. Through FY 1999, schools and observers of the Impact Aid program could count on schools' payments being made later and later, requiring local schools to take out loans and pay interest just to meet regular budget obligations. As late as mid-1999, the Department was as much as five years late in making certain Impact Aid payments. I am pleased to note that after several years of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS and Education bringing this to the Administration's attention, the Department has finally, after seven years of Clinton-Gore, been making Impact Aid payments on a more timely basis. There was never any valid excuse for them to be made so late in the first place. Given all this, it is not surprising that the Administration's own proposal to reauthorize Impact Aid would have eliminated Impact Aid payments to hundreds of schools that have legitimate federal impact within their borders. I am pleased to inform Members, however, that the House Appropriations Subcommittee that funds the Impact Aid program has rejected the mean, extreme Clinton-Gore cut of Impact Aid, and recommended an increase. Why is this legislation important? First, H.R. 3616 renews and improves the administration of the Impact Aid program. Without making drastic changes in the legislation since the 1994 authorization, or to the 1996 Impact Aid Technical Amendments which I authored, H.R. 3616 nevertheless addresses challenges that have arisen in the Impact Aid program, and makes needed improvements. Among these are several important incremental improvements to Impact Aid that in recent years have been carried by the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, HHS and Education as legislative language. These improvements have successfully simplified schools' application process, and accelerated payments to eligible schools. Second, and most important, it demonstrates the commitment of the people's bipartisan representatives in this House to Impact Aid as a federal responsibility to America's public schools, to their teachers, administration and students, and to the families who serve our country in the military and to Native Americans. Mr. Speaker, in closing I want to thank several people who have helped to develop this important legislation. The bill's sponsor, Representative Robin Hayes, Republican from North Carolina, has done a tremendous job with this bill. Congressman Hayes is a friend of education and a friend to America. I also want to recognize House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Bill Goodling, House Education Appropriations Chairman John Porter, and all of the members of the bipartisan House Impact Aid Coalition, for the contributions they have made to this legislation. Good work does not happen in a vacuum. Thus, I also want to single out for special thanks the following people: Ms. Lynn Selmser of the Education Committee Staff; John Forkenbrock, the executive director of the National Association of Federally Impacted Schools and his staff and membership; and my constituent Rick Knott, comptroller of the San Diego City Schools and chairman of the California Association of Federally Impacted Schools. Their specific efforts for Impact Aid help children, and have made this a better bill. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote for schools, for children, and for our military and Native American families, by voting for this bill, H.R. 3616.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Madam Chairman, I strongly support a permanent ban on the tax of the Net. We need to free the Net. If we look at the Internet, e-commerce and technology today, it has stimulated the economy. There is an explosion of the stimulated economy. In the year 2000, we need not to go back to an analogue system of government or an analogue system of business. Some of my colleagues have said that jobs will be threatened in small business. Small business can join the Net just like anybody else. Many already have. And the smart ones will in the future join the Net. It will benefit them and free them from unnecessary taxes. Because I want to tell my colleagues, Madam Chairman, if we increase taxes, government at State, at local and at Federal will spend it. I absolutely guarantee they will. An increase in jobs due to the Internet actually stimulates growth and has increased tax revenue of existing taxes. The increase in production of goods produces an increase of existing taxes. But my friends on the other side of this issue want a brand new tax. Think of the bureaucracy alone that it would take to regulate this new tax. Some of my friends like big bureaucracy. Small business will actually benefit from taking off and freeing the Net. I would take a look at the other side of this issue and the spin. There is a group here in Congress that has never found a tax that they do not like, never; and any tax relief that we want to give, it is only for the rich. Whether it is for a marriage penalty, whether it is for the death tax, whether it is for capital gains, whether it is for education relief and scholarships, it is only for the rich. Well, let me tell my colleagues, the same group, my colleagues on the other side, let me put it in perspective. In 1993, when the Democrats controlled the White House and the House and the Senate, they increased the tax on the middle class, they increased the tax on Social Security and said it was good for the country. They increased the gas tax. They even had a retroactive tax. And that was supposedly good for the country because, if we did not have those taxes, we were going to have to cut education, we were going to have to do this. But, at the same time, they increased spending. The Vice President was the deciding vote on all of those tax increases. And yet, they will spin this that a new tax is always good for the country. I reject that, Madam Chairman. In essence, we need to go forward in this country in the year 2000. There is another group here, Madam Chairman, that further supports my contention that there are groups that will spin anything to increase or support a new tax. That is a group called dsausa.org, Democrat Socialists of America. It is on the Net. This is their Web page. Under that Democrat Socialists of America, there are 58 Democrats that belong to the Progressive Caucus that are listed under this. Now, the Democrat Socialists of America support government control of health care, government control of education, government control of private property and, number four, the highest tax possible so that they can have the highest socialized spending. My contention is that there are those in this body that would increase taxes at any cost, prevent tax relief at any cost, and increase spending in the Government, which has driven us into a debt of nearly national oblivion. I rise in strong support of the underlying bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as a lead House sponsor of H.R. 4182, I rise in strong support today of this identical Senate counterpart, S. 2323. Originally, we came up with an idea based on the 1938 language, and thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), the subcommittee chairman, and the ranking minority member, they had hearings with an attempt to match this not only with the Senate, but with the Department of Labor and with the White House in a very bipartisan way. Mr. Speaker, I think the outcome in the Senate of 95 to 0 vote shows the work that went forward on this bill, not only from Republicans but Democrats, the White House and the Labor Department as well. Why would we do this? Well, when the 1938 legislation first came about, they did not know that every day you pick up a newspaper that there is jobs wanted in there that offer stock options; whether it is medical benefits; whether it is stock options or safety programs within the workplace, workers look at these things when they select those jobs to help their families. This bill provides for that. This will affect over 65 million Americans, union, nonunion, private individuals, public individuals. They want a piece of the rock, and I laud those individuals who have helped with this. Profits from stock options have been taken to account for too long, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank personally the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall); the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis); the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose); the gentleman from California (Mr. Ballenger), chairman of the committee; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran); on the Democrat side, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley); the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer); the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo). And I say to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) there is not but a handful of issues that we agree on in a year, but this is one where we come together in support of it. I would like to thank the gentleman as well. Mr. Speaker, I want to also thank Senator McConnell on the Senate side that drove this. In an election year, it is not important who takes credit for this thing, it is the workers and the families that benefit from this bill. I want to thank those individuals. This will help protect the dot-coms of America. Another issue is where for example, the biotechs, we have had to bring in Ph.D.s for biotech industries from other countries. I think that is a crime to where our education system does not provide for our people to take those jobs, Americans to take those workers, but yet when they brought in other doctors and Ph.D.s, there is a group that wanted to tax that as real income, because they did not have the cash flow to do that, it prohibited those companies from helping with medical research. This is a good bill, Mr. Speaker, a lot of good people worked on it on both sides of the aisle, the White House, and with the Department of Labor. Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall), for his effort in this; the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger), who worked tirelessly on this, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), my seatmate down in San Diego. Washington, DC, April 27, 2000. Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Cunningham: The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is the nation's largest, broad-based industrial trade group. Our membership includes more than 14,000 companies and subsidiaries, including approximately 10,000 small manufacturers and 350 member associations, located in every state. On behalf of our member companies, we ask you to cosponsor and support H.R. 4182, the Worker Economic Opportunity Act. H.R. 4182 is a bipartisan bill, sponsored by Representatives Cunningham (R-CA), Jim Moran (D- VA), Cass Ballenger (R-NC), Tim Roemer (D-IN) and many more of their colleagues, which simply ensures that non-exempt (hourly) workers can continue to receive stock options and other equity-participation programs. H.R. 4182 is needed because of a February 1999 compliance letter by the Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division that placed stock options and other equity- participation programs for hourly workers in jeopardy. It required employers to recalculate overtime pay based on profits realized when an employee exercises the stock options. In response to the letter, many companies have already put their programs on hold until there is legislative clarification. If hourly employees are to continue to receive these options, the House needs to act swiftly. This bipartisan bill has already passed the Senate by a 95-0 margin and enjoys the strong support of the Department of Labor. On behalf of our members and their employees, the NAM thanks you in advance for your support of H.R. 4182, The Worker Economic Opportunity Act. Sincerely, Patrick J. Cleary.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, last year I went to Vietnam with Hal Rogers, chairman, at the behest of Pete Peterson, who is the ambassador, and was asked to raise the American flag over Ho Chi Mihn City for the first time for over 25 years. On that trip, I met with the prime minister, Communist prime minister in Hanoi, and I asked the prime minister, ``Why do you not get involved in trade?'' In perfect English, the Communist prime minister said, ``Congressman, we are Communist. If we get involved in trade, we will be out of power as Communists.'' At that moment, I said trade is good. If we take a look at whether there are problems with the trade with China, whether it is humanitarian or whether it is with national security issues, it is in our best interest. That is why Taiwan supports trade with China. They want China in 20 to 30 years to move in a direction of pro democracy, not back to a totalitarian Communist State. Regardless of how one feels on the trade issue, both human rights and national security, it is in the United States' best interest to support the trade with China.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I honor the late Judge Edward J. Schwartz, who in his life brought honor to his country through distinguished public service in the U.S. Navy and as a judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. Judge Schwartz graduated from San Francisco Law School and practiced for one year before joining the Navy in 1942. He fought in both the Pacific and European Theaters of war and was released as a Lieutenant Commander in 1945. He was appointed to the bench by President Lyndon Johnson in 1968 and became chief judge in 1969 where he presided over one of the busiest caseloads in the country. Judge Schwartz possessed the ideal qualities of a judge--wisdom, intellectual curiosity, an incisive mind, integrity, common sense, and a full measure of compassion. His career marks a time of great change in San Diego, from its past as a quiet Navy town, to its present as a dynamic multicultural high-tech community. He is survived by his wife, Martha Monagan-Hart, his three children, and three grandchildren. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the family of the late Judge Edward J. Schwartz. He will truly be missed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, remembering the genocide of the Armenians, but I would like to add this: that there are Armenian children dying today in Armenia. While other nations brutalize Armenia, the White House and State Department cut funds for Armenia. They are not the only White House and State Department to do so, but there is enough of us, instead of making just a resolution, to make a binding resolution for the White House to do something about it. Also, I should speak to another event I had not planned on speaking to tonight, but I actually resent some of the statements made earlier tonight. My wife and daughters attend Catholic mass at Saint James Parish, and the speaker of this House took the well and shamed those Democrats that would use religion for political gain. I heard this again tonight. I ask the minority leader to ask to put an end to their side of using religion for politics. It does not belong in this Chamber. I have attended events at synagogues, at parishes and churches, but what I would not attend is a fund-raiser at a Buddhist temple. The real reason I came tonight, Mr. Speaker, was to talk about PNTR for China. I would like to present some thoughts. China is a rogue nation. The issue generates strong-held opinions on both sides and both Republicans and Democrats are split on this particular issue. Even myself, I personally struggled, knowing what a rogue nation that China is, the human rights violations, the national security threats, and what does it mean applying PNTR to China. Communication is the shortest distance between two points of view, and I know that my mother, my children and many Americans, if they never hear some of the positive points, they are most likely not going to support trade with China. I would like to present a couple of those ideas. I recently traveled to Vietnam with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and some of my Democrat colleagues. We were there at the request of Pete Peterson, a fellow member that used to reside in this House, is now the ambassador to Vietnam. I was asked to help raise the flag over North Vietnam for the first time in 25 years. It was very difficult; but while we were there, we stopped in Hanoi, and we had a chat with the Communist minister, the head of Vietnam. I asked a question. I said, Mr. Minister, why will you not engage in trade with Vietnam? And his answer was pretty forthcoming. He said, Congressman, trade to a Communist means that people will start privatizing and having their own things; and if trade is followed through in Vietnam, then we as Communists will no longer have power. At that moment I said, trade is good. What do we want China to be 20 years from now or even 50 years from now, Mr. Speaker? I was in China some 20 years ago, and I want to say they have come a long way in 20 years, and it is not the same China as it was before. One sees democracy sprouting up. One sees things like Tianenmen Square and people fighting for democracy. Democracy and freedom are viruses to the Communist Chinese. The more that we can inject that into China, the more that their leaders go along with a better economy. China is riding a tiger. There are still those that want, by totalitarian rule, to control with national defense and hold people under the state command; but also the dictatorship there today understands that the economy is important to China. Taiwan supports trade in PNTR. Why? Taiwan knows that it will bring China more toward the United States and more toward a democracy instead of more toward Communism. It is in their best interest, and Taiwan supports it. We just attended a brief, many of us, by Brent Scowcroft. He said there are no downsides to PNTR; that this is about U.S. products going to China. China's products already come to the United States, and there is a trade deficit. What do we want 20 years from now if we do not trade with China? It will be a negative, and we foster Communism instead of a good economy for both.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to lend my voice to this important debate remembering the Armenian Genocide. While Turkey's brutal campaign against the Armenian people was initiated almost a century ago, its impact lives on in the hearts of all freedom-loving people. That is why we must continue to speak about it. We must remind the American people of the potential for such atrocities against ethnic groups, because history lessons that are not learned are too often repeated. After suffering three decades of persecution, deportation and massacre under the Ottoman Turks, the Armenian people were relieved when the brutal reign of Ottoman Turks Sultan Abdul Hamid came to an end in 1908. But that relief was short-lived, as the successor Young Turk dictators were working on a far more aggressive plan to deal with the Armenian people. By 1914, they were laying plans to eliminate the country's minorities--starting with the Armenian people. Segregating Armenians in the military, the Turks were able to work these people to death. That year, the government also organized other military units comprised of convicts for the express purpose of annihilating Armenian people. By the spring of 1915, the Turkish dictators were ready to execute their final solution: they began ordering massive deportation and massacres of Armenian people. April 24 marked the fruition of this plan, with the murder of nearly 200 Armenian religious, political and intellectual leaders--which set off the full scale campaign to eliminate the Armenian people. Men, women, and children alike were subjected to torture, starvation and brutal death--and every kind of unspeakable act against humanity--in the name of Turkish ethnic cleansing. 1.5 million Armenian people perished at the hands of this brutal regime. The U.S. has some of the most extensive documentation of this genocide against the Armenian people, but there has been no shortage of corroboration by other countries. The Armenian genocide has been recognized by the United Nations and around the globe, and the U.S. came to the aid of the survivors. But perhaps we were not vociferous enough in holding the perpetrators of this genocide accountable, and for shining the light of international shame upon them. For it was only a few decades later that we saw another genocide against humanity: the Holocaust. That is why we must continue to tell the story of Armenian genocide. It is a painful reminder that such vicious campaigns against a people have occurred, and that the potential for such human brutality exists in this world. We must remain mindful of the continued repression of Armenians today, and challenge those who would persecute these people. If we do not, future generations may be destined to relive such horrors against humanity.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate my friend and constituent, Dr. Irwin Jacobs. America is well aware that Dr. Jacobs is the founder and CEO of Qualcomm, home of the CDMA wireless telecommunications standard. In addition to his work with Qualcomm, however, Dr. Jacobs is very active in San Diego's technology community. Dr. Jacobs was named scientist of the year by the San Diego Chapter of Achievement Reward for College Scientists. Ms. Toni Nickell, the president of the San Diego chapter, said that Dr. Jacobs was given this award ``because of his great contributions to technology''. Specifically, Dr. Jacobs, as the CEO of Qualcomm, has been conducting research that would expand the use of cellular phones and make them the personal computers of tomorrow. Irwin Jacobs deserves our congratulations for a job well done. Thanks in no small part to him, San Diego County is the global headquarters for CDMA wireless telecommunications technology. I commend my colleagues to read this attached article from the San Diego Union Tribune of April 6, 2000 describing this most recent honor for Dr. Jacobs. [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Apr. 6, 2000] Qualcomm Chief Named Scientist of the Year by Women's Group (By David E. Graham) Technology is emerging now that will blur the distinctions between a cellular phone and a desktop computer, Irwin Jacobs, the CEO of Qualcomm, said last night at an awards banquet in his honor. The leader of the San Diego wireless telecommunications company was named scientist of the year by the San Diego chapter of Achievement Reward for College Scientists. The women's group raises money for scholarships for university students studying science. While celebrating the need for talented students to fuel innovation, Jacobs said his company is interested in expanding the capabilities of digital cellular phones. ``That device is able to do many, many things for us,'' Jacobs said. The company's code-division-multiple-access technology is a standard technology for transferring information to the phones. Soon, however, cellular phones will be able to tell users that location in a city or within a building, using a global-positioning technology. Other changes likely will include the ability to connect to the Internet and download and store great amounts of information--and even download and play back music. Holding a cellular phone, he told the audience: ``I believe for many people it will be their computer.'' When someone needed a larger keyboard for writing and a screen for large display of information, the phone could be dropped into a device at a hotel or airport, for example, where work could be done. The information could be used from within the phone set or against plugged into another larger display at another site, he said. Many consider Jacobs a voice not to be ignored. Buoyed by the CDMA technology used in portable phones and by other business moves, Qualcomm has been a darling of Wall Street, its stock having soared last year. Jacobs said he also is interested in the distribution of cinematic film to theaters digitally rather than on traditional film. Jacobs was chosen for the Achievement Reward for College Scientists award ``because of his great contributions to technology,''said Toni Nickell, president of the group's San Diego chapter. The chapter provided $425,000 in scholarships last fall to 49 graduate and undergraduate students at UCSD, SDSU and The Scripps Research Institute. Since the chapter was organized in 1985, it has given more than $2.4 million in scholarships to 375 students.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, as a conservative Republican I rise in strong support of the Shays-Nadler-Crowley-Morella amendment. I am a member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education of the Committee on Appropriations, and we recently went to NIH. We saw a young man that had contracted HIV in 1989. Because of medicines, he has bought a home, he has hope in his life, he has bought stocks and bonds, but he still has a difficult time. I think this is a noteworthy amendment, and I think fiscal conservatives and people that care about people will realize this is a well-intentioned amendment. I strongly support it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I am honored to introduce the Worker Economic Opportunity Act, the House companion identical to S. 2323 introduced in the other body by Senators Mitch McConnell and Christopher Dodd. This legislation, supported in the House and Senate, by Republicans and Democrats, with the involvement of the private sector and the Labor Department is being introduced for one reason: to protect the dot-com American Dream. It will secure the opportunity for 65 million Americans, union and non-union, who are hourly and non-exempt employees to be awarded stock options and other equity arrangements, without fear that a ``piece of the rock'' will hurt their overtime pay or expose employers to bizarre and unintentional liability. Recently, the Labor Department ruled that one part of one old, very important law--the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938--effectively and quite unintentionally endangered the New Economy practice of awarding stock options to line employees. The writers of that law never imagined that anyone but the most senior executives could be awarded stock options. Under the FLSA, profits from stock options would have to be taken into account when computing overtime, an impossible task that endangered both stock options and overtime pay for hourly workers. But today, workers demand them. And employers are offering them. The Sunday San Diego Union-Tribune, the Washington Times and Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and most every major metropolitan daily newspaper employment section is packed with job after job that offers stock options, stock options, stock options. That's good for workers, and good for America, and part of the dot-com American Dream. This bill is straightforward. It exempts these stock options and equity-sharing benefits of the New Economy from affecting people's rightful overtime pay yesterday, today and tomorrow. It's supported by Republicans and Democrats, the House and Senate, and the Administration, and the private-sector Coalition to Promote Employee Stock Ownership representing over 100 associations and employers.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I laud the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) for this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I grew up in a little city called Fresno, California. I had 11 uncles that taught me how to hunt and fish. As a matter of fact, one time I threw a gum wrapper down in the woods, and my grandfather picked me up and threw me in a stream. I did not do it again. The opportunity to enjoy the woods, to enjoy the fish and game that our forefathers have is very, very important. We have had legislation on this floor like the tuna-dolphin that allowed us, not only to save dolphin, but to preserve our fish species and not destroy our bycatch. We have had bills on shark finning to preserve, even things that I do not like because I am a diver, sharks. But it is science based in its nature. People that most use the resource are the ones that are going to pay for it. The Sportsmen's Caucus, made up of Republicans and Democrats and conservationists and environmentalists, support this legislation. We have a vision, not just for right now, but 100 years from now so that my children and my grandchildren will be able to use these resources. Organizations like Ducks Unlimited that have put billions of dollars into habitat to bring about the restoration of ducks and geese across this country. Accountability, effectiveness, responsibility, and science based are some of the things that go into this particular bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my colleagues on a personal note. Drugs have hurt many of us, our own families, including my own, including my own son. I have two beautiful daughters. My youngest scored 1600 on her SATs. She is a National Merit Scholar. And my oldest one helped to start a club of some 35 high school kids that do not drink; they do not smoke; they do not do drugs, and it is a marvelous group to watch. But it is called family. I have a son who is 30 years old who got involved using drugs in his early years, and he went through drug treatment. On a lieutenant's pay, it was not easy to put him through that treatment, so I understand where the gentlewoman is coming from. But then later on in life, when he was 30, he got caught selling marijuana that came across from Mexico. So we individually have a lot of pain with drugs. It has been devastating to our family having my son in the situation he is in, knowing that he could have had much better in life. So to my colleague I would say, is there enough money in drug treatment? No. I do not disagree with the gentlewoman. But it is a series of a war. We have not really had a war on drugs in this country, with Republicans or Democrats, because if we did, we would stop them at the border. The Noriegas of the world, we would not only throw in jail but we would stand them up in exhibition to the world to let the world know we are not going to stand for those drugs coming in. Our border patrols would stop the money that is coming in from China on our cargo ships. And then on the streets, if someone gets caught selling drugs, that person needs to know they are going to go to jail, and they are going to go to jail for a long time, including my own son, who I love very much. And then if someone does get hooked on drugs, and thousands of our children have, and we heard the Speaker say that 52,000 people die every year in our country from drugs, then, yes, we treat that. I think we do not have an adequate amount, but we do have it, and we need to spread out the money on all of these endeavors. I would rather have my son or my daughters, if I knew they were going to get the mumps or the measles, I would rather prevent them from getting the mumps or the measles in the first place, as I would like to stop our children from getting drugs. So we need to spread out the money across the gambit. I think it is difficult to do that when we say, well, we need more money here, we need more money there. I agree we need more money everywhere on this to really have a war on drugs. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is not wrong. I had a very difficult time voting against his amendment. Actually, in the committee, I voted for it, because I do not know in my own mind, having not supported Haiti, and I know that we put $2.4 billion in there and I look at Haiti today, and I look at Somalia, so I do not know if Colombia has the infrastructure to handle the money that we give them or if it will end up in Las Vegas, and so I struggle with that very much. But I would ask my colleagues not to berate saying, well, one side or the other does not want to give money for treatment. I think when we lay out the whole plan and the whole war, it is very, very important for us to come together on this.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am a combat veteran and a veteran. I support the Republican budget, and so do other veterans.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, higher fuel prices have some common denominators: diplomatic efforts, foreign policy, support of the military, environmental extremists. First of all I would ask you to look at Ronald Reagan. Strong diplomacy, strong foreign policy, strong on the military, and a conservationist. Let us go to Jimmy Carter. Look at the long gas lines we had with a weak diplomatic effort, even weaker foreign policy. He destroyed the military, an extremist on the environmental scene. We had long gas lines. Let us look at George Bush, Sr. Remember Desert Storm where we supported OPEC, and what happened to the fuel crisis? Now let us go to the Clinton-Gore administration. Weak foreign policy in China, Kosovo, Sudan, Mexico, and the Spratleys. I take a look at the presidential candidates that we have coming up. Who is going to be strong on the military? Who is going to be strong on foreign policy? Who is going to be strong in a conservationist versus an environmentalist extremist? But the bottom line is, who is hurt from this? Our truckers are having to stall their trucks. People and goods are going up. The folks that you fight for for LIHEAP in the Northeast, the higher costs. But how dare Saudi Arabia, how dare Kuwait and Qatar, after we had men and women die for them. Yet the President has not had a foreign policy. That is what we are asking the President to do. We feel that there has been a weak foreign policy and even weaker support of the military. Our allies laugh at us. If you look at the DNC and the China policy, from giving coal, giving coal to Riady and cancelling Utah, and guess where they have that produced? In China. Look at NAFTA. I would tell the gentleman that weak foreign policy, weak military, is not going to hack it; and we want the President to report on what he is going to do to change these around, because he has not done it so far.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues on both sides, the Department of Energy that is caught napping and retired on active duty should be eliminated; that an energy policy where they said we were in the majority, I would like to remind my colleagues that the President vetoed our energy policy. The President vetoed our bill when we wanted to open up ANWR, and we are asking him to change that policy and to review those kinds of policies. I would ask the President, when he took over the Utah coal, who was his direct competitor? It was a guy named Mr. Trie. And guess what? He doubled the price of coal that he sells to China, and yet the DNC gets millions of dollars from Trie and Huang and Riady, and yet when we look at the Spratly Islands and China and the oil reserves there, fighting both Japan and the Philippine Islands, there has been zero taken care of and we are asking the President, any foreign policy to take a look and to change that. I think that is legitimate. I would say that I am just as upset at OPEC as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. We had men and women die to support the freedom for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, and I think it is outrageous what they are doing. I agree with the gentleman, we in San Diego have seen price-fixing even during normal times. I agree with the gentleman. We ought to do something about that as well. In the meantime, I think it is legitimate to ask the President to come forward and review those policies, both the ones that he has supported and those that he has not; that we have supported. We will join with the President because like my colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) talked about, it is the farmers, it is the truckers, it is the consumers that are paying the bill. It is the people in the Northeast that demand heating oil. So I ask my colleagues to support this resolution and bill.