Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman), from the home of Thomas Jefferson and William and Mary, which he attended.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan) where Thomas Jefferson did not go to college.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friends, the issue of whether we want to end up in space or not is a valid issue. But we are ready to go with this system. The gentleman talks about cost, but this Space Station has been redesigned and redesigned and redesigned each time because of cuts in funding that has increased the funding. It is just like if we want to buy a system and we have to redesign it, then we have to almost double the cost. This would also kill the entire program. I, unlike my colleagues, believe that the spin-offs are going to be very important. Whether we are looking at the world and the temperature controls or the different environmental concerns that we have on Earth, I think we are going to look at those from space; and there has been good evidence to do that. In space, we can look at a cell from four different angles. On Earth, we can only do it in one dimension. The scientists at NIH and other areas have said that this kind of research is going to lead to the cure of AIDS and those different things in which they cannot even look at the cell division. So I would rise in opposition to my friend. And though his goals are noteworthy in the areas that he wants to increase, I think for us to turn our heads away from a program that is ready to go with all the other nations that are involved not only sends a poor message to the leadership of this country but to what we will be able to achieve in space itself.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a yes vote on the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, again I thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh). I know what a difficult time he has had. We happen to disagree on this issue; not only myself, but take a look at the supporters we have on this particular amendment. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs disagreed with the last speaker. The Secretary of Defense disagrees strongly with the last speaker, as does the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), chairman of the defense authorization committee, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), ranking member on the Subcommittee on Defense, opposes it. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, opposes, which is very difficult, opposes his subcommittee chairman on this particular issue; not the bill, but on this particular issue. Also, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), and the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek) opposes, and I could go right on down the line with the bipartisan support. This is a controversial issue. This is the first time this has been debated. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has a full right to believe like he does. The independent view, however, is not the view, and the gentleman votes 99 percent against everything on the House floor. I expected no less. I would almost let him speak more because I think he makes our case. This is a time-proven event. If we have a chemical or biological weapons attack on the United States, with the selective service the President designates those health care workers, and then the Selective Service System would go in and select those people that are necessary to protect American citizens. Any delay in that would be foolhardy and would be very, very dangerous. The GAO said if we cut this program it would take up to an entire year to establish a system. I would tell my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), I hope we never have to go to a subscription program. I hope that that emergency and the conflict against the United States never happens to that point. I do not think it will. It could in the future. If that is necessary, then we have to provide that backup. Think of the consequences if we do not. Millions of people, American citizens, their lives would be lost. This is a better insurance policy than we can have in almost any bill that we vote on. It is very important. It is the third tier to our active duty and our reservists. Peace and freedom is elusive. It is very fragile. In the history of the United States, in the history of the world, there has been conflict. Is there any Member here in this body that says that we will not be in another conflict in the next year? And with the threats out there that we have, we dare not not support this particular amendment.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I reclaim the balance of my time. I said the gentleman has the right to do so very much. I respect that. I just happen to disagree with the gentleman on this particular amendment. Mr. Chairman, to seek compliance in this, we are trying to let the potential registrars know what their requirement is so they do not break the law. President Carter in 1980 asked Congress if we would allow women to register. The Supreme Court found that Congress could restrict that because at that time we did not have women in combat. This issue has been debated five times, Mr. Chairman. Each time we have restored the Selective Service. We will restore it today, I am sure. I would also tell my colleagues who are opposed to this that in conference we will be happy to work off the different dollars in funding out of the different areas. I am not hard and fast on any of the offsets. The more important factor to us is the reselection and readministration of the Selective Service System.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we thought very carefully when we went through the list on potential offsets and tried to minimize. For example, the FEMA funding of $5 million, the most it has ever been funded is $10 million each year. This year it still leaves $105 million, still an increase, but reduces it $5 million. It is still more than the actual request. The $1.5 million from the chemical safety board, the board was funded at $9 million. OMB only requested $7.5. So this falls at level funding. The $5 million for EPA science and technology leaves $640 million left in that particular account. We feel that the deficit or lack of national security overrides the small offsets that we have in this particular bill. I would also say to the gentleman, this gentleman is not hard on any one of these cuts. In conference I would be happy to work with the gentleman in the reduction in different areas. To me the reduction areas are not as important as saving Selective Service. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) has had a difficult job operating under a balanced budget just like every other chairman. It is difficult to gauge where one is going to reduce spending for veterans or space programs, science programs and others, and I understand that; but I think it is even more difficult, if we do nothing, for our children and our grandchildren. Day after day, people on both sides of the aisle will stand up and say, well, I supported the balanced budget, but yet many of those same people will stand here in the well and say in every one of the 13 appropriations bills, they want more spending, want more spending, want more spending, which will drive us to the 40 years of irresponsible spending when the Democrats controlled this House. We do not want to return to that. I would love to increase more spending on veterans. They have been denied health care, and they have been promised that for years. We cannot do that under a balanced budget. And the space programs, I believe that our mission and our future is in space, but it is more important for us to maintain that balanced budget, to take a look at our priorities, and I think the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), with one exception, has done a good job at that. I would say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), who spoke a minute ago, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense strongly support the selective service system, but it is in our children's best interest to support not only this bill for the tough decisions that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) made but for the future and the balanced budget and living within those constraints.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), our famous doctor.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, again I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh). The gentleman has had a difficult time finding different offsets for different programs. Although we operate under a balanced budget and we feel for our children and grandchildren, it is best in the long run to go through this process. The amendment that I have restores the funding for the Selective Service program. We have done so with the support of the committee staff in going through what those offsets are. Each program is minimally impacted to the point that it does not affect their operation. I would like to thank both sides of the aisle for the bipartisan support. The Secretary of Defense, Secretary Cohen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff, and all the service chiefs, along with all veterans groups, support this amendment to restore the Selective Service System. It is time-proven. Since World War I, we have had a strange dichotomy that our men and women fight our wars, and then we scale down. Then we have had to gear up, with dissipating effect. Active duty and reserves make up the primary source of our Nation's military. Selective Service is a third tier to prepare our sources and our military to gear up in time of national emergency. The words ``Selective Service,'' for example, if we have a nuclear, chemical or biological attack similar to those that they have had in Japan and other countries, which, in my opinion is imminent, then the President can designate those healthcare workers, and that list would be used for those specifics. With that, I rise in support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution to congratulate and commend my constituent from Poway, California: Tony Gwynn of the San Diego Padres, for his achievements on and off the field. Mr. Speaker, on August 6, 1999, Tony Gwynn hit the 3,000th base hit of his career. As many baseball fans know, this was not an easy accomplishment. In the history of Major League Baseball, only 22 other ball-players have hit 3,000 or more base hits. This achievement places Tony Gwynn in the pantheon of baseball legends including: Roberto Clemente, Lou Brock, and Hank Aaron. In 18 seasons, all with the San Diego Padres, Tony Gwynn has been the master of putting the ball into play. In the Padres' 1998 National League Championship season, Tony had almost as many home runs as strikeouts, and struck out looking only three times. His hands are lightning-quick and he's able to wait until the last millisecond before connecting with the ball wherever it is pitched. He goes after the first good pitch he sees and almost always hits it, so he rarely walks. And Tony is renowned for his ability to hit balls through the left side of the infield. Tony has batted over .300 in 17 of those seasons and in the strike- shortened season of 1994, batted an amazing .394. His career batting average is an astounding .338. Furthermore, off the baseball diamond, Tony has been a tremendous asset to the San Diego community. Tony, along with his wife Alicia, have given their time and effort in philanthropic efforts. He doesn't like to talk about his community efforts, but the Gwynn's are involved in more than two dozen organizations--San Diego Police Athletic Leagues, Sickle Cell Anemia Foundation, Padres Scholars, the Casa de Amparo, Neighborhood House, the Jackie Robinson Family YMCA to name a few--that benefit from his time, attention and money. In 1998, Tony led all Padres players in community appearances and joined seven-time American League batting champion Rod Carew for a historic youth batting clinic in Culiacin, Mexico, in March 1998. In addition, Tony was named the Individual of the Year at the 1998 Equal Opportunity Awards Dinner. He also was the 1995 Branch Rickey Award winner, and 1998 Padres Nominee for Major League Baseball's Roberto Clemente Man of the Year Award. These days kids, children often must pay to get a professional athletes' autograph, picture, or signed memorabilia. Tony Gwynn has no part of this. Tony stays late at events to sign autographs; he's nice to young people; he's nice to everybody. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring this tremendous individual for his multitude of accomplishments. Also, I want to thank my former staff members, Jeannette Shields and Chris Hayes for their work in drafting this resolution.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Southern California Federal Judgeship Act of 1999. I am proud to be joined in this effort by my colleagues from San Diego, Rep Ron Packard, Rep. Duncan Hunter, and Rep. Brian Bilbray. This important legislation will authorize four additional Federal district court judges, three permanent and one temporary, to the Southern District of California. A recent judicial survey ranks the Southern District of California as the busiest court in the nation by Number of criminal felony cases filed and total number of weighted cases per judge. In 1998, the Southern District had a weighted caseload of 1,006 cases per judge. By comparison, the Central District of California had a weighted filing of 424 cases per judge; the Eastern District of California had a weighted filing of 601 cases per judge; and the Northern District of California had a weighted filing of 464 cases per judge. The Southern District consists of the San Diego and Imperial Counties of California, and shares a 200-mile border with Mexico. According to the U.S. Customs Service, as much as 33 percent of the illegal drugs and 50 percent of the cocaine smuggled into the United States from Mexico enters through this court district. Additionally, the court faces a substantial number of our Nation's immigration cases. Further multiplying the district's caseload is an agreement between the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the State of California that calls for criminal aliens to be transferred to prison facilities in this district upon nearing the end of their State sentences. All these factors combine to create a tremendous need for additional district court judges. I hope that all my colleagues will join those of us from San Diego and help the people of Southern California by authorizing additional district court judges for the Southern District of California.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, for 2 years the gentleman from California, tried everything that he could to kill the tuna-dolphin bill along with the gentlewoman in the other body from California. We thought that was wrong, and we still do. For the gentleman to claim that this is a fiscal responsibility issue is laughable. They have done everything that they can to kill this, and it is bipartisan opposition they face. In the Senate I talked to the Senators. They said the B-2 should have such stealth. They came in, they did not know this killed the tuna- dolphin bill. We had not had a chance to gear up for the letters, and no wonder it passed. They did not know that it was going to hurt the tuna-dolphin bill which they voted for overwhelmingly I would say, Mr. Chairman, the President, the Vice President, the State Department, bipartisan Congress, Center for Marine Conservation, Green Peace, Scripps Institute of Oceanography and 11 other nations, they said build it and they will come. Eleven other nations, build it and save the dolphins, save all marine mammals, and 11 nations will come. And they did come. Mr. Chairman, I would say: ``Shoeless George Miller, tell me it is not so. Please, Shoeless George Miller, tell me it is not so, that you would offer this anti-environment amendment. Tell me, please, George Miller, that one of the groups that oppose this was a group that wanted in California to stop trout and bass fishing because it hurt the fish. Tell me it ain't so, shoeless George Miller. Tell me that the other group that opposes this of all the environmental groups is the group that the unibomber supported. They spike trees to kill loggers. Tell me it ain't so, Mr. George Miller. Tell me it ain't so.'' For them to say that this is a fiscal issue is just wrong. Let me give my colleagues some letters. Clinton-Gore administration State Department: ``The amendment would seriously jeopardize important programs being undertaken by the IATCC.'' The President highlighted this. He had a Rose Garden signature, and the gentleman is trying to kill that. He tried to kill it for 2 years. This is his way to do it and claim fiscal responsibility. The Center for Marine Conservation, Green Peace: ``It will result in the death of dolphins, sea turtles, sharks and other bill fish.'' Here is the Director of World Wildlife Fund: ``IDCP program works. Consequently it should not be the target of Mr. Miller's, quote, `anti- environment action.' '' We hear all the time that we support things for special interest groups. Well, the groups we have are about 90 percent of the environmental groups, and we have got two groups, two special interests, that want to kill this bill. Do not let that happen. This is one of our most shining moments working together in a bipartisan way. Here is the vote: overwhelming here in the House. Here it is right here. Do not throw that away. We always talk about when we can work together as a body, when we can support each other, when we can work on the environment together. This is one of those shining moments that the House did come together, the Senate did come together, the President signed it, the Vice President; he supports our position and against this amendment. Please come back and help us. We have our sports fishermen. This is tied to Mexico as well. Our sports fishermen work with Secretary of Mexico Carlos Comacho. Mexico has been part of this for 4 months, and guess what? They are already kicking in a share of the payment. The act itself says that all the payments will be addressed, and they are under that auspices as we speak. So this is an amendment with an attempt to kill the tuna-dolphin bill which the gentleman from California tried to kill for 2 years. Now he has that right. He felt it was wrong. But the overwhelming majority of this body, the other body, and all the other environmental organizations disagree with my friend from California. We do not pay too much. I would ask my colleagues not to turn their backs on a program that has saved over 97,000 dolphins, 97,000, each year. The group that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) is espousing controls the tuna-dolphin label. They stand to lose millions of dollars. Do we allow a group, a special interest group, to pocket money at the expense of the environment? And that is why the letter of this anti-environment amendment. I would ask my colleagues, reject the Miller amendment. Stand for the bipartisan tuna-dolphin bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I would say to my friend I rise against the Hall amendment, and I will give my colleagues a few reasons, and I think even some of my colleagues on the other side of the issue would agree. First of all, I have got the two absolute best daughters in this body; but when they are bad, I do not reward them, but when they are good, I give them an incentive; and when we are talking about the reforms, these long overdue reforms, they have had years to do this, and they will not do it. The U.N. needs the United States when we are talking about losing a vote. We pay the lion's share; with all the different countries in there, we pay the lion's share. We only get one vote, and the U.N. votes against the United States the majority of time because we only get one vote; and as my colleagues know, the other Communist countries are in there that always put us down. Let me give my colleagues a couple of examples of the U.N. In Somalia we lost 18 rangers because U.N. troops had armor there. India, for example, had T-64 tanks. They would not commit them. This was when butt Butros Butros Gahli was there. Our own President denied armor, and so there was none for these troops; and under U.N. leadership in control of our troops, we lost a bunch of people. Second example. Some of my colleagues may remember when we bombed Iraq for the first time. Neither the President nor the Vice President nor the Secretary of Defense knew that the United States had gone to war. Our troops are bombing, but yet not even our President knew that we were in a war time, and I think that is wrong. It is not just the U.N.; it is the other organizations as well. For example, NATO. Can we afford still that every conflict that we get into with NATO for us to pay for 86 percent of the sorties of the flights and to pay for 90 percent of the weapons dropped? I think we need a reorganization in NATO. Either they need to upgrade their capability, or they need to pay the United States. Our next supplemental ought to be a check. In the U.N. just the cash is counted. When we deploy troops, when we have our carriers, when we have our assets there, none of that is counted against our 22 percent. I think that is wrong, and when they make those concessions, then I am willing to help my colleagues, but I think that gives a good incentive first to do that, and I think the way that we do it now is wrong. If we look at the U.N. members, the limousines, let them stay in the Quality Inn. But do they? No. One was quoted: ``No, we deserve to stay in the Ritz because it is to the standing of a U.N. member.'' Well, I beg to disagree. So those kinds of reforms, I think, Mr. Chairman, are very, very valuable before, and we pay our arrears, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the exceptional services which Captain Bryan L. Rollins, U.S. Navy, has performed for the United States and for the county of San Diego. Captain Rollins' selfless devotion and patriotic performance make him a truly admirable American and one deserved of recognition by this body. It is for his outstanding service to our Nation and its citizens that I wish to congratulate and thank Captain Rollins. Captain Rollins has had an impressive Naval career with each assignment more demanding and more impressive than the last. He served aboard the U.S.S. Constellation as the chief staff officer of Carrier Air Wing 14 with deployments to both the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean through 1987. In November of 1990 Captain Rollins assumed duties as commanding officer of the Sun Downers and was deployed once again to the Indian Ocean and to the Western Pacific. He amassed over 3,000 hours and more than 800 carrier landings aboard the U.S.S. Carl Vinson and the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk. While serving as navigator, and later as the executive officer, aboard the U.S.C. Kitty Hawk, Captain Rollins performed honorably in Somalia, the Persian Gulf, and Korea. He was awarded the Legion of Merit, four Meritorious Service Medals, the Navy Commendation Medal, and the Navy Achievement medal. In April of 1996, while serving as the commanding officer of Naval Air Station Miramar, home of the famed Top Gun aviation aggressor school, he was selected as the Chief of Staff for Commander, Navy Region Southwest. It was there that he was instrumental in the formulation and implementation of a regionalization plan which involved over 65,000 personnel and four full-scale Naval bases. In addition to consolidating and incorporating commands throughout San Diego, he established the Navy's first regional business office and developed business strategies which have become standard throughout the Navy-wide regionalization plan. His effective and efficient tactics have saved the Navy countless millions of dollars as it undergoes drastic changes nationwide. His management skills, foresight, and exceptional communication skills allowed him to gain widespread support for Navy operations throughout the community. Captain Rollins remarkable contributions to San Diego County, the United States Navy, and our country speak to his intellect, his professional drive, and his relentless pursuit of excellence. I wish him the very best success as he starts a new chapter in his life. Congratulations and, as always, ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, for some of us this issue is very, very difficult, when heart, economics, pain are all tied up into one. I understand the version of the gentleman from New York (Mr. McNulty) of this, and I understand the gentleman's, and what I would do is point out a couple things on each side because I still do not know how I am going to vote on this issue. When one lives through Private Ryan, it is very difficult for something like this, and one side we see economics, like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) talked about for his constituents, and on the other side, Mr. Speaker, I went with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) to Vietnam. He asked me to go four times, and I said no, it is too hard, and then he said, Well, Pete Peterson asked you to come and help raise the American flag for the first time in 25 years. I saw American children there, Eurasians, that can not be helped by this on one side, but yet I saw very strong Communism. As a matter of fact, the Communist premier told me, he said, Duke, we don't engage in free trade. I can't do this quickly. He is very open, he said, because it will put us out of a job, which meant Communism. To me on one side that says, Hey, American involvement is good because it hammers away at Communism; but yet on the other side I see where not even Pete Peterson can be there when an American citizen is tried in their courts, and it is difficult, Mr. Speaker. I had a young lady in my district named Foo Lee, had to work a year. Her whole family escaped in a boat, lives in my district, and the mom had to stay behind because they knew that if they were caught, they would be put into a reeducation camp, and not many people survive; and it took a year to get her back into the United States and rejoined with the family. And on that side it is very hard for this. I look at that we cannot go in with intellectual property rights, but on the other side we have the same problem with China, and I voted for trade with China, so why not for this? And it is one of the more difficult. For most of my colleagues it is not, but for us, and Sam, and I understand both sides of this issue. I see my friend Pete Peterson spent 6 years as a POW there, and it is very difficult to look at heart, to look at logic, to look at economics. Mr. Speaker, I will not chastise anybody for either side of this vote.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) says that the Democrats are for working people, for working men and women, but yet every piece of legislation that they had out of here in support are against 90 percent of the working people. But if it is for the union bosses, they will support it. In 1993, they put the highest tax on the American people possible and increased the tax on middle- income workers, and this year they are trying to stop tax relief for those same workers. Salting for the unions where the unions go in and just destroy a small business, not even looking to overtake that business. That is wrong, but yet our union brothers over here support it. Davis-Bacon, that increases inflation 15 to 35 percent of construction for school buildings, but yet will they waive for the children? No, they will support the unions. Now we are asking for a scientific study, and I would say that even Republicans, we need to go one step further because when colleagues say based on science you need to look at who pays for the science. Is it the Republican groups or the Democrat groups, and people need an individual peer review to be fair, a nonpartisan independent review. Sometimes that does not exist, and I will give into that and we need that. As my colleagues know, in the office the people that work with computers all the times, they have carpel tunnel. There is good scientific basis that we need to help those people and provide the pads and make sure there is rotation and lights, and we have some pretty good science on it. But the problem is our colleagues want to go in without a study or agenda instead of science, and we are saying, no, let us back it up with the science to show so there will not be a big input on it, and I brought up yesterday www.dsa/usa. Democrat Socialists of America, progressive caucus, has a 12 point agenda: government control of health care, government control of education, government control of private property, and guess what? Union over small business and cut military by half, by 50 percent, and it is to support the union. That is their working men and women, but not the 90 percent of the people that have all of the other jobs. My colleagues should put their mouth and money where their rhetoric is. Support the people, the working men and women. Who is for this? The union bosses. Who is against it? Chamber, NFIB, every small business group out there because they know that the only thing that my colleagues are focusing on is the union bosses who give them their campaign finance money. Admit it. Why do they fight against 90 percent of the small businesses and workers every single bill that we have? They do not support the networking men and women in this country; they only support the union members. As my colleagues know, I take a look at the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) who gets up here and says, Oh, the poor lady in the red dress, not again, and he talks about the working men and women and the class warfare, only the rich versus the poor. Well, cut out the rhetoric. Do things based on science; the environmentalists, the same thing. We want environmental changes. Do my colleagues think we want bad environment, the Republicans over the Democrats? We just want it based on good science, and then we want a peer review. The same thing with ergonomics. We want a good science and peer review so they do not destroy the 90 percent of the jobs that are out there in favor of their union bosses. And that is what we are asking, Mr. Speaker. We are tired and tired and tired of the Democrats' rhetoric trying to make points for the year 2000 where they get their campaign money, and that is what they support. If colleagues really support the working men and women, support the Republican position on this.