Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise not to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but to address the concerns many of us have about the impact that the Colombian flower industry is having on American flower growers. I won't disagree with the gentleman that the Colombian flower industry has made progress in Colombia. However, I ask Mr. Speaker, at what cost? In 1991, Congress enacted the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) which provided for duty-free treatment, or reduced duties, on many products, including fresh-cut flowers, imported from the four South American Andean countries of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. This legislation was proposed to promote alternatives to coca cultivation and production by offering broader access to U.S. markets for legal products. Unfortunately, the act has not accomplished these goals. Since the enactment of ATPA, it is clear that Colombian fresh-cut flowers have been the greatest beneficiaries. In 1992, Colombia exported $87.7 million worth of fresh-cut flowers to the United States. By 1995, Colombian exports increased to more than $374.4 million. This represents a 427-percent increase over that 3-year period. How does the growth in Colombian exports compare with the domestic- cut flower industry? Domestic growers of roses and carnations have been particularly hard hit. In 1996, Colombia exported approximately 1.7 billion roses and carnations to the United States. Colombia now controls more than 50 percent of the United States market for roses and 80 percent of the carnation market. Overall, Colombian flowers account for about 65 percent of the United States fresh-cut flower market. Meanwhile, the total number of U.S. fresh-cut flower growers has plummeted from 932 in 1992 to 706 in 1995, a decline of over 10 percent a year. Specifically, since the passage of the ATPA, more than 52.52 percent of U.S. Carnation producers, 39.02 percent of U.S. mini carnation producers, 53.95 percent of the U.S. Chrysanthemum producers, 41.62 percent of the U.S. Pompon Chrysanthemum producers, and 41.3 percent of the U.S. rose producers have left the business. This impact on the domestic-cut flower industry has been disproportionately placed upon California, home of 58 percent of the United States cut flower growers. The ATPA provides the preferential treatment for Colombian fresh-cut flowers only--not for flowers from the Netherlands, or from any other country. This preferential treatment, however, is not serving its other intended purposes of reducing illegal drug production in the nation of Colombia. In 1996, an International Trade Commission (ITC) report found that the ``ATPA had little effect on drug crop eradication in the Andean region.'' This is a major understatement. in fact, since ATPA's enactment illegal drug crop cultivation has increased in Colombia. The number of hectares devoted to coca cultivation in Colombia increased from 37,500 in 1991 to more than 50,000 in 1995. The ITC report also found that ``[the] ATPA had a small and indirect effect on crop substitution during 1995.'' Thus, we have not achieved the intended goal of reducing drug crop cultivation by providing market access for alternative crops. We must do all we can to encourage Colombia to seek alternatives to drug protection. However, the ATPA has neither effectively reduced drug crop production in Colombia, nor has it improved the economic situation of cut flower growers in the United States. If we are going to fight drug production at its source in Colombia, Members and the American people should be informed that the Andean Trade Preference Act is not up to the task.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want my colleagues to look up in the web page www.dsausa.org. It stands for Democratic Socialists of America. In there, the Progressive Caucus, 58 Members of the Democratic party belong to that. What do they want, Mr. Speaker? This is their own 12- point agenda, not mine, but their 12-point agenda. They want government control of health care. They tried that when they had the White House, the House, and the Senate. They wanted government socialized health care. It failed miserably. They want government control of education and environmental laws. They even want government control of private property. They want union over small business. They want the highest possible socialized spending, and they want the highest possible progressive tax that they can get. The highest progressive tax, income tax. That is what the Democratic Party is controlled by, their leadership, the Democratic Socialists of America, the Progressive Caucus. Guess what, one of their agenda is also to cut defense by 50 percent to pay for that spending. We fought to save Medicare, and the Democrats fought against it, dead fought against it, $100 million of union ads against it. In 1993 when they had the White House, they had the Senate, and they had the House, they raised taxes. They promised a middle-class tax cut. What did they do? They increased the tax on the middle class. They increased the tax on Social Security. Yeah, they made some cuts, and they showed what their real stripes were because they cut veterans' COLAs, they cut military COLAs, and they increased the tax on Social Security. Now, we have a balanced budget, and we are going to have tax relief, not for the rich, as the Karl Marx-Engels class warfare Democrats talk about, but we are going to have a tax break for working Americans.

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 Chief Staff Officer in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean through 1987. In November of 1990 Captain Rollins assumed duties as Commanding Officer of the Sun Downers. He amassed over 3000 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 aboard the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, Captain Rollins performed honorably and exceptionably in Somalia, the Persian Gulf and Korea. The Navy recognized his outstanding performance by awarding him four Meritorious Service Medals, the Navy Commendation Medal, and the Navy Achievement Medal. In April of 1996, he was selected as Deputy 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. Chairman, I probably, in committee, surprised some of my liberal friends by supporting the counting of the ballots. To me, it violated the First Amendment rights of individuals who at least expressed their opinion. I also stated that I would do everything in my power to fight against legalization of marijuana. In California they had an initiative, and they have found such extreme abuse of using marijuana for medicinal purposes and medical because they could always find some doctor from the hippy generation of the 1960s or 1970s that would prescribe just to basically get around the law. They have had tremendous problems in California already with it, and I think it is wrong. I think the liberalization of family values, the liberalization of our traditions and our laws are part of the problems why we end up with Columbines and those kinds of things. I think to back off on marijuana and other drugs would do the same kind of thing, and I will fight tooth, hook, and nail against the legalization of marijuana, but not the right to express one's opinion on it. I think that part is wrong.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this issue say that everybody is united in the scientific world. That is just absolutely not true. It may be their opinion but it is not fact. Secondly, have any of my colleagues ever gone on drug ride-alongs? You go through these houses. You would not walk in there with combat boots. There is trash, there are needles all over the place. In several of these I found mattresses where the prostitutes are asking for sex for drugs, and in one I even found a teddy bear where the prostitute had their child. The child is playing around all of these needles. The San Diego police then took me into a park and said, ``Duke, look at all the needles in this park.'' Would you want your child around where they dump these needles? These addicts are not responsible people. They are going to take these extra needles, they are going to put them anywhere they want. We walked down the street. They are in the gutter. They are in the park. How would you like your child to walk along and stub one of those needles in their boot or in their sandal or in their foot? I think you would panic automatically on these things. It is not a good thing, needle exchange, and it is actually a negative effect.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. First of all, does my colleague believe that this President on any budget that he has had in the outyears, always later, always later, when he is not even going to be here, he will beef it up? We need the $60 billion now, and the President continually cuts it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, for many of us defense has been our life, supporting both in combat and in the United States Congress. It is something that we believe in, we are entrenched, and I believe, as Ronald Reagan, that peace does come through strength. We met with the Prime Minister of Israel just days ago, and he stressed that a strong United States means a strong Israel, that a weakened United States military means that Israel is at great risk. But I would extend that beyond, to all of our allies. One of the lessons learned is that in Kosovo we can little afford in the future with NATO to fly 86 percent of the sorties and drop 90 percent of the ordnance. We cannot do that and maintain our services. We have made a very difficult decision supported by the members on the conference itself, and I would say, first of all, I have got a very good friend in the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). He is an Air Force hero. He still bears the scars from his torture, and he wants the same things that we do for national security in this, and the gentleman from Texas and I may disagree on how we get there, but I want to tell my colleagues there is nobody that I have more respect for. But let me give my colleagues my side of the story on the F-22. First of all, if I was an Air Force pilot, I would say to my friends, I would look forward to flying the F-22. Why? It is because there is a threat out there that the Russians have today that are developing in the SU-35 and SU-37. This is a fighter like we have never seen before. It is deadly, and the F-22 is scheduled for the year 2010 or 2005 for IOIC, which brings it into the fleet. But let me tell my colleagues that there is a threat today, a threat today that our men and women are going to have to face. This is not a fiction; this is not a vapor. I have flown these assets. I have flown aircraft against these assets myself. This is not secondhand. If our F- 15 drivers and our F-16 drivers and F-14 and F-18 face this threat, and I cannot tell my colleagues what this asset is because it is top secret, but if I was Speaker, I would demand that every single Member of Congress go through this briefing up on the fourth floor, and I will tell my colleagues why: because in the intercept against this asset; that is, beak to beak when one is coming head on with the enemy, our pilots die 95 percent of the time. That is today, not tomorrow. In the actual engagement itself, these assets kill me three times before I can bring a weapon to bear. That is today, not down the line. Thank God that this asset was not exported to Kosovo because, do my colleagues know the standoff weapons that we had? Our aircraft were going to die; our pilots would have died. But where is that asset today? Russia is transporting this asset to China, to Iran, Iraq and North Korea, and take a look at where we are likely to get involved in the near future into a conflict today. I want our kids to be able to go up and fight. I am alive today because I had better training than the enemy, and I had better equipment. I think the F-22 in the future will be a great airplane. But it is only 5 percent tested. The cost of the F-22 is not all the fault of the Air Force. When we cut 750 aircraft to 339, our cost per airplane goes up because we pile all of that research and development. But that cost is nearing $200 million for each fighter. How many can we buy? I do not care how great the airplane is, and we have needs right now that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) have identified that our kids to fight in a war tomorrow need the A9X. When the British were in the Falklands War, they did not aim nine in Lima in the procurement to get it a year later. They needed it now. We need the A9X now to be able to fight this asset. We need a helmet- mounted site, not partially funded. We need it now. The radar that we will see through the enemy jammer so we can have some idea where he is before he kills us, we need it now, and we are taking the $1.8 million and spreading that down to those systems that are going to keep our kids alive today. I want General Ryan, who is a good friend of mine, Chief of the Air Force, to stand up and say: Mr. President, this is an emergency, and my colleague says Republicans want a cut. Well, we are there today because the President has gutted defense time and time again, time and time with Kosovo, with Bosnia, with all of the other places we have gone, have taken out of that already low budget. But the total money available for those systems is not there.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We added $36 billion; that is negative. We have added $36 billion, and the gentleman knows that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the authors of this amendment I want to congratulate in the most professional way, and I think it is a good debate. Saying the F-15 does not have the same capability as the F-22, no one disputes that. That is like saying that when I was flying the F-4 phantom it was as good as the F-14 that we were building, but I would not want to put so much money in the F-14 that it kept me from surviving in the combat that I was flying in today. The question is, I would not want to fly the F-22. I think it is going to combat the SU-35 and the SU-37 out, but I have talked to the F-15 drivers. I have also flown the F-15 and the F-16 and the Phantom and some of these assets. Our F-15 drivers are saying, ``Go Duke.'' My colleagues say that these bolt-on equipment that they are spending, the Air Force is already investing in the A9X and the helmet site and the radar that will keep up with the jammer, but they are doing it at this level because the funding is not there. What I would recommend is that General Ryan goes to the President and says, Mr. President, is this really an emergency? I talked to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) about it. We have all of these unfunded requirements. Now, these unfunded requirements mean life and death. I have a program here that is costing $200 million an airplane; and what I need is the emergency supplemental, maybe for Kosovo, to add money; but at the same time, if there is an airplane that costs $200 million here and only 5 percent of it has been tested and the cost traditionally has gone to here, can any of my colleagues justify paying $250 million or $300 million for one airplane? I cannot. I need Lockheed to come down on the price, and I need the extra funding to fund these things so that the kids that are flying today, I agree, I hated politicians when I was flying. I thought they only got us killed, and I am dead serious. They do not care about politicians. They want to survive, and that is what I am trying to do, is make sure that these F-14, F-15, F-18 drivers that are going to have to fly in this 10-year span until the F-22 comes on the line in full procurement, that they live; that they have a chance against those assets. I have told the people, I have a plant that may close down in my own district if the F-22 does not close. If it comes between jobs in my district and the security of this country, I will choose security 100 percent of the time, and the lives of these kids. This is not political for us. It is something that we believe desperately in. Yes, this is high stakes poker, and I think that costs in expensive aircraft and equipment, we need to hold industry's toe to the line so that our kids will be safe and we need the additional funds that we do not have in the defense budget.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce the Stamp Out Prostate Cancer Act of 1999. I am joined in this effort by my colleague from Ohio, the Honorable Sherrod Brown, and twenty-two other colleagues. I have also attached letters from organizations in support of this legislation, including the Men's Health Network, National Prostate Cancer Coalition, and CapCure. According to the National Prostate Cancer Coalition (NPCC), each day 507 men will learn they have prostate cancer. Prostate cancer, the most common cancer in men, is a devastating disease affecting more than 200,000 American men each year. One out of every ten men will develop this terrible disease in his lifetime, and more than 40,000 American men will die each year. This disease does not occur only in older men. Nearly one quarter of all diagnoses occur in men between 40 and 65 years old. The single best thing we can do to help more men combat this disease is to increase funding for research, education, and awareness. Currently, both the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense fund prostate cancer research. Yet, the NPCC has identified nearly $250 million in worthwhile research projects not initiated last year due to lack of funding. The Stamp Out Prostate Cancer Act will help expand research money available, much like the very successful breast cancer stamp which has raised millions for breast cancer research. This successful model will allow millions of Americans to voluntarily donate to the basic research that will help us find a cure to this terrible disease. I hope that all my colleagues will join me and cosponsor this important bill. Men's Health Network, Washington, DC, July 13, 1999. Hon. Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Cunningham, I am writing on behalf of the Men's Health Network (MHN) in support of legislation that will introduce the Stamp Out Prostate Cancer Stamp Act of 1999. We thank you and Congressman Sherrod Brown for proposing this important legislation. Prostate cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer in America, affecting about 200,000 men in 1999. Nearly 40,000 men will lose their lives to the disease this year. A man has a one in six chance of getting prostate cancer in his lifetime. If he has a close relative with prostate cancer, his risk doubles. With two close relatives, his risk increases five-fold. With three close relatives, his risk is nearly 97%. Today, African-American men have the highest prostate cancer incidence rate in the world and their mortality rate from the disease is more than twice that of the rate for Caucasian Americans. With the right investment in public education and research, prostate cancer is preventable, controllable and curable. It is vitally important to educate not only men but also their families as to the risk factors associated with this disease and the need for annual screenings. The creation of a prostate cancer research stamp not only will raise the public's awareness of the risk and prevalence of this deadly disease but also it is an innovative way by which Americans can freely aid scientific research. Thank you for creating this opportunity for concerned Americans to support the fight against prostate cancer. If there is anything we can do in the future to assist in the passage of your bill, please do not hesitate to let us know. Sincerely, Tracie Snitker, Government Relations. CaP Cure Washington, DC, July 15, 1999. Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Dear Representative Cunningham: Even though I am on the road, I wanted to assure that my office transmits this letter to you. I admire your courage and conviction to stamp out prostate cancer, and I support your efforts, and those of your many colleagues, in the presentation of your proposed legislation. The ``Stamp Out Prostate Cancer Act'' creates a simple tool to enhance research funding that will end the roll that prostate cancer takes in this country. You and your colleagues know that prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed nonskin cancer in America today, with almost 200,000 new case expected in 1999. You and your colleagues know that almost 40,000 men will lose their lives to the disease this year, creating tragedies for far too many wives, children, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters. You and your colleagues know that, despite its burden on individuals and society, prostate cancer research receives only five cents of every federal cancer research dollar. You and your colleagues know that the National Prostate Cancer Coalition, of which CaP RURE was a founding member, has estimated that $500 million of unfunded prostate cancer research should be supported this year if resources existed. Duke, you are helping to expand he opportunities for acceleration of new research--and treatment opportunities-- for the men who need them most. You have been stalwart and determined support for all those affected by this devastating disease. As the world's largest private funder of prostate cancer research, CaP CURE considers it a pleasure to support you. Cordially, Richard N. Atkins, M.D., President.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of William A. ``Bill'' Craven: a husband and father, a public servant, a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States, and a leading citizen of San Diego County, California, who has passed away. Bill Craven was a courageous political leader who represented the citizens of San Diego County for more than a quarter century. Many of us will always remember Bill as a strong leader with a tremendous commitment to public service. During his storied life he served as a U.S. Marine, San Diego County Supervisor, California State Assemblyman, Oceanside Planning Commissioner, the City Manager for San Marcos and the Chief Assistant to a County Supervisor. However, it is his many accomplishments as a California State Senator that will ensure his legacy. The crown jewel of those accomplishments was the successful establishment of California State University San Marcos. I submit for the Record a column from the San Diego Union Tribune and both an article and editorial from the North County Times, which further highlight the life of this great man. To be loved by friends and admired by opponents and to serve the people is the goal of all great leaders; it is a goal that Bill admirably attained. Speaking for all the people of California's 51st Congressional District, my heart goes out to Bill's wife, Mimi, and his entire family upon their loss. I am honored to have been Bill's friend. Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States show that Bill Craven was a tireless advocate for his constituents, and a friend of America. [From the San Diego Union Tribune, July 13, 1999] William A. Craven (1921-1999)--Cal State San Marcos Is a Lasting Legacy (By Gerry Braun and Jeff McDonald) William A. ``Bill'' Craven, the courtly North County legislator who was known for his candor and independence and for delivering a state university to the heart of his district, is dead at 78. Craven, a heavy smoker for much of his life, suffered from congestive heart failure and complications of diabetes, a family member said. He died Sunday morning at the Villas de Carlsbad Health Center. An old-school politician equipped with charm and a long memory for names and local problems, Craven represented the North County for a quarter of a century, from his election to the Board of Supervisors until term limits and failing health forced him from the state Senate last year. He was an Oceanside planning commissioner, the city manager of San Marcos and a county supervisor's chief assistant before being elected a supervisor in his own right in 1970. The lifelong Republican moved up to the state Assembly in 1973, and then to the state Senate in 1978, without losing a race or facing serious competition. In the Legislature, colleagues looked to the longtime Oceanside resident for his expertise in such unglamorous policy arenas as local government funding and mobile-home park regulation. Yet he also wielded considerable clout through his longtime seat on the powerful Senate Rules Committee and his ability to offset his party's minority status by cultivating personal relationships with his colleagues. In his latter years, Craven was one of a dwindling species in Sacramento--a moderate Republican who prided himself on his bipartisanship and his friendships with Democratic leaders such as Willie Brown, Leo McCarthy, Bill Lockyer and David Roberti, the latter a longtime Senate president pro tempore whom Craven affectionately called ``Boss.'' Craven crossed party lines without apology, and many times delivered the final vote needed to send Democratic bills to the governor. ``Before government became the enemy, in the perspective of some, Bill was one who wanted government to work and to solve problems,'' said Lockyer, who served with Craven in both houses of the Legislature and is now California's attorney general. ``He was a man with a devotion to public service and a wonderful, wonderful, giant heart.'' Craven's district underwent explosive growth during his career--he represented nearly 1 million people in parts of three counties in the late 1980s--and he battled to steer state money to its water systems, parks, highways and courtrooms, and to sustain the growth with tax credits for first-time home buyers. Pride in accomplishments He was proud of winning extra funding for Torrey Pines State Reserve; supporting anti-pollution legislation that targeted aerosol cans and vapor-recovery systems on gas pumps; increasing the size of Butterfield Park in San Pasqual; and raising from five to seven the number of judges at the Vista courthouse. But the crown jewel of his legislative career was the creation of Cal State San Marcos, the North County public university that Craven started lobbying for even before he was elected to the Assembly in 1973. The university was finally christened in 1990, and the grand opening capped one of the longest and most ardent drives of Craven's years in Sacramento. In gratitude, one of the main buildings of the growing San Marcos campus was named Craven Hall. A bust of the longtime legislator rests in front and a nearby thoroughfare was named in his honor. ``He had the vision for that university for as long as I've known him, which goes way back, I think 30 years ago,'' said banker Jim Rady, a former Escondido mayor. ``Throughout his career he put the well-being of North County ahead of politics. He was a moderate Republican in times when it was not fashionable, but people who knew him respected him,'' Rady said. ``He was an honest man.'' A man of many talents In his many and varied careers, Craven worked as a newspaperman, a salesman, an ad man and an actor. He was born on June 30, 1921, in Philadelphia and graduated from Villanova, where he earned a degree in economics. Craven enlisted in the Marines during World War II and returned to service when his country came calling at the outbreak of the Korean War. During his second military stint, Craven devised and wrote a Marine Corps radio program that aired weekly over more than 130 stations. By 1951, he had turned to television and produced a weekly program that ran for more than three years. He left the service as a major and a military buff who devoured the books of historian W.E.B. Griffin. The lessons of war stayed with him throughout his public service, as when he opposed a nuclear-freeze proposal in 1982, bluntly explaining, ``I don't trust the Russians. I never have. I probably never will.'' Between the wars, Craven turned to sales and promotion, working for a Kentucky-based company that specialized in leather and binding. After the Korean War, Craven took a sales job with Philco Electronics, roaming the Eastern Seaboard for new clients. It wasn't long, however, before he migrated west, with his young wife, Mimi, to accept a management position at a Los Angeles concessions company that sold various goods to the military. Deep roots Much of that business took Craven south to San Diego County and Camp Pendleton, where he began planting deep roots in the Oceanside community. His interest in writing was sparked by a short stint as a police reporter in his native Pennsylvania--skills that helped Craven launch his own public relations business in the 1950s. He wrote advertising copy, did market research and consulted on merchandising and sales tactics for a variety of clients. His years of public service began with 12 years on the Oceanside Planning Commission and working as an executive assistant to the Board of Supervisors from 1962 to 1969. He also served as the county's first public information officer. He spent four months as the San Marcos city manager before winning election to the Board of Supervisors in 1970, when he was named North County Man of the Year by the Northern San Diego County Associated Chambers of Commerce. But his service on the Board of Supervisors was not without its squabbles. Craven was criticized in 1971 for accepting guest privileges to a local country club, then voting on a rezoning application filed by the company when it came before the Board of Supervisors. He gave up the membership soon thereafter. In 1972, Craven was targeted for recall by a Chula Vista water company owner upset with a redistricting plan pushed by the supervisor. The attempt fizzled when the business owner was unable to muster enough support for the recall drive. Like many county officials before him, Craven also tangled with the San Diego mayor, at that time a rising a powerful Republican named Pete Wilson. As early as 1972, Craven was warning county residents that the regional planning hierarchy favored the city of San Diego over the county. ``We shouldn't have to take a back seat to San Diego,'' he once boomed at a breakfast meeting in Fallbrook, where he criticized the distribution system for regional gas tax revenue. Sacramento bound The supervisor beat out eight other Republicans--and 14 rivals overall--in the 1973 primary election for a vacant Assembly seat. Craven was the top campaign spender--reporting more than $43,000 in expenses, some $2.85 for every vote he received--and carried more than 65 percent of the vote. He served three terms in the Assembly and was one of only two Republican assemblymen to head a legislative committee in the Democrat-controlled lower house--the Local Government Committee. A self-described moderate Republican with ``conservative leanings--especially in fiscal areas,'' he opposed Proposition 13, the landmark tax-slashing initiative approved by California voters. After its passage, he pushed for a state constitutional amendment that would have made it easier for local governments to issue general obligation bonds--a key target of the 1978 measure. Craven pointed to his seniority, and key Rules Committee assignment, in 1981 when he stunned constituents by announcing that he would forsake running for an open congressional seat to remain in the state Senate. ``I've come, with some degree of experience and years, to understand that service here is something that I've become very accustomed to,'' he told supporters at a weekend fund- raiser. csu san marcos By remaining in Sacramento, Craven was able to pull off his crowning legislative achievement--the funding for CSU San Marcos. It is widely considered the product of Craven's finely honed legislative skills. Just last March, Craven donated $250,000 in leftover campaign funds to the university for the establishment of an academic scholarship with just one condition: That it go to ``average'' students with special qualities. He is survived by his wife of 55 years, Mimi, and three children: sons William Craven Jr. and John Craven, and daughter Tricia Craven Worley. In lieu of flowers, the family asks for donations to Tri- City Medical Center or to the William A. Craven Scholarship Fund at Cal State San Marcos.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the U.S. Women's Soccer Team. Once again, they have proven to be the world's best by winning the 1999 Women's World Cup tournament. Last Saturday, 90,185 spectators in the Rose Bowl and millions of Americans via-television watched the U.S. women's soccer team defeat the People's Republic of China to earn the Women's World Cup title. Their victory has captured the hearts of our nation and helped raise awareness of women's sports nationwide. As role models to millions of young women across America, the U.S. Women's Soccer Team members stress teamwork and commitment and are true American sports heroes. I want to personally congratulate my 51st District constituent, Shannon MacMillan of Escondido, Calif. Shannon plays forward and has been an integral part of the winning U.S. team. Her career highlights, which I have attached below, reminds us of her many accomplishments with the U.S. National team and her heroics in the 1996 Olympics. To Shannon and all of the women of the 1999 Women's World Cup championship team, I say congratulations for a job well done. Career highlights of Shannon Ann Mac Millan U.S. Soccer Federation U.S. Team: A member of the U.S. gold medal winning team at both the 1998 Goodwill Games and 1996 Olympics * * * Led the Olympic Team with three goals in their five matches, including the match-winners against Sweden and Norway * * * Her ``Golden Goal'' against Norway was one of the most important in U.S. Soccer history, putting the USA into the Olympic final and avenging the loss at the 1995 FIFA Women's World Cup * * * Appeared on the cover of Sport Illustrated's daily Olympic issue after her goal against Norway * * * Originally left off the roster for residential training camp leading up to the Olympics, she battled her way back onto the team and into the starting lineup * * * The youngest member of the U.S. Women's National Team that won the silver medal at the 1993 World University Games in Buffalo, N.Y., where she made her debut with the U.S. team * * * Member of the U.S. Women's Under-20 National Team from 1993-94, winning the International Women's Tournament in Montricoux, France in 1993. College: Winner of the 1995 Missouri Athletic Club Award and the 1995 Hermann Award as college soccer's top player * * * The 1995 Soccer America Player of the Year * * * Won the 1995 Bill Hayward Award as Oregon's Top Female Amateur Athlete * * * Finalist for the MAC Award and Hermann Trophy in 1993-94 * * * All four-time All-American, All-Far West Region First Team and West Coast Conference selection from 1992-95 at the University of Portland * * * Second on the team in goals scored with 22 in 1994 behind U.S. teammate Tiffeny Milbrett * * * Missed four games in 1994 due to a broken bone in her left foot, had a pin inserted into the foot and returned to the starting line-up 13 days later * * * The 1993 and 1995 University of Portland Female Athlete of the Year * * * Completed her sophomore season in 1993 as the women's NCAA Division I scoring leader with 23 goals and 12 assists while starting all 21 games * * * She finished her freshman year in 1992 as the highest scoring freshman in the nation and fourth leading scorer overall with 19 goals * * * The WCC Freshman of the Year, she was Second-Team NSCAA All-American and was voted to Soccer America's All-Freshman Team. Miscellaneous: Attended San Pasqual High School in Escondido, Calif., where she was a three-year letterwinner * * * Named as the honorary captain of the San Diego Union-Tribune All- Academic team * * * Played club soccer for La Jolla Nomads, which won the state club championship two consecutive years, 1991 and 1992, winning the Western Regionals in 1991 before going on to finish second at the national championships * * * Played 1996 and '97 seasons in the Japanese women's professional league with Shiroki Serena alongside college and national team teammate Tiffeny Milbrett * * * Majored in social work at Portland * * * Currently an assistant women's soccer coach at Portland, helping the team to the NCAA Final Four in 1998, her first year on the bench.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, while I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), on the service of our military men and women, because their efforts are laudatory, I disagree extremely with the laudatory comments about our diplomatic corps and the President in this effort. As a veteran, it is sickening to me, and I will tell my colleagues why. The total number of people killed in Kosovo prior to our bombing was 2,012. We have killed more than five times that amount in our bombing, and yet we are supposed to be saving people. There has been a forced and increased evacuation of Albanians outside of the country. The United States flew 85 percent of all the sorties and provided 90 percent of all of the weapons, and we are only supposed to pay 15 percent of it. If my colleagues will remember, in Desert Storm, George Bush actually made $2 billion. We did not have to spend $100 billion in the war and rebuilding Kosovo. Rambouillet was a joke to start with and, in my opinion, caused us to go there. Jesse Jackson said that we need to understand both sides of an issue. One, what were the fears of the Serbs? One, that the number of Serbs that were killed by the KLA was going to continue if Rambouillet existed. There are 300,000 Albanians that live in Yugoslavia that have not left, where the KLA is not. Secondly, that none of their police forces could stay and protect the Serbs. And we can see what is happening today there. Third, they were afraid that no one would protect them at all. And to me this is a travesty. Our diplomatic corps did not make this happen. If my colleagues will take a look, it was Russia. From the day we started bombing, I said, we need Russia to negotiate, we need Scandinavian and we need Italian troops to resolve this, A, to protect both sides; and, B, to have some stability in there. And yet the United States and our diplomatic corps did not. We are going to see increased interest rates. We will see us pay $100 billion before this is over. And my colleagues that want to save Social Security and Medicare, where do they think this comes out of? The surplus. General Reimer told me that we used 1 year of life in our aircraft, which were already devastated with parts, and most of those are engines and so on. If we take a look, one-half of our tankers participated, but we used all the crew. We are only keeping 23 percent of our military personnel in here, and it has been devastating. So, yes, our troops were exemplary, we did the job. But, in my opinion, the President of the United States and the whole diplomatic corps, through their failure, caused the war in the first place.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, where do we have to go from here? First of all, NATO nations have got to upgrade their own military so that we do not have to fly 85 percent of all the sorties and drop 90 percent of the bombs in the future. We cannot afford it, to take the lead in all of these. Tudjman's ethnic cleansing is 750,000 out of Croatia, is a war criminal, should be attacked. Izetbegovic according to the Mujahedeem and Hamas should be a war criminal right along with Milosevic. A supplemental check, our next supplemental, should be a check from NATO paying for our fair share. We are supposed to pay for 15 percent, not an 80 percent of a war that happened. When we talk about 300,000 Albanians and Yugoslavs that live peacefully, how about the 200,000 Serbs that are now evacuated. My colleagues do not think that those men, women, and children are innocent victims, that we have a great victory on our hands and we ought to take care and have as much compassion for them as well. Efforts to repay and the relationship with Russia has got to be a priority. Now Russia, in my opinion, is our enemy, but we have made great gains with Russia, and unless we continue in that direction, then all is lost. I think we need to take a look at the Progressive Caucus in this House listed under the web page: Democrats Socialists for America, and their last of their 12 point agenda is to cut defense by 50 percent should remove that from their agenda because it does disservice to our men and women in military and disservice to the national security of this country. We need to take a look at how we are going to conduct ourselves in these wars, and when the gentlemen say this is partisan; no, there is a disagreement on what victory is and that we should not have been there in the first place. Not partisan, but a fact that we should not have been there in the first place and expend the resources of this country when there was only 2,000 people killed and we killed over 7,500.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the School and Library Construction Affordability Act to make high-quality construction and repairs less costly for our nation's communities, schools and citizens. This measure would exempt public schools and libraries from the inflationary and costly effects of the federal Davis-Bacon prevailing wage laws. I am offering this legislation specifically to address three issues. First, 22 States have chosen not to impose state Davis-Bacon laws or have specifically exempted schools from coverage, so it is wise for us to make the federal laws to be more harmonious with state laws in this area. Second, it is well-known that the AFL-CIO wants to use the President's school construction bond initiative as a vehicle to expand federal Davis-Bacon laws over a much larger number of local public schools than must abide by it today. At this time, the federal Davis- Bacon Act applies to public school construction in cases where the public school receives federal funds as general revenue. Impact Aid, for example, is such a general revenue program. By contrast, ``categorical'' programs like Title I, designated for a specific purpose, are not general revenue to a school, and do not trigger Davis- Bacon coverage of school construction and repair. Rather than to add to the immense federal regulatory burden on our schools, we need to work to reduce that burden so that they can focus their scarce resources on educating their children. And third, Davis-Bacon increases construction cost 5-38 percent. Each year, the General Accounting Office makes note that eliminating the federal Davis-Bacon Act would save federal taxpayers billions of dollars. The federal Davis-Bacon Act is also well-known to be prone to extensive waste and abuse. With this legislation we will help ensure that each citizens' school bond dollar buys a dollar's worth of building and repairs. The School and Library Construction Affordability Act allows schools and libraries to get more school buildings, and more school repairs, for their scarce taxpayer dollar. It respects the right of states and localities to establish their own labor practices, without imposing unnecessary regulations from Washington, D.C. It is neither pro-union or anti-union, for under this measure everyone will be able to compete fairly and equitably for school and library construction and repair work. It may not be construed to diminish the high quality of construction and repairs that the purchasers of these services--our communities and our local taxpayers--always and rightfully insist upon. This bill is simply in the best interests of America's children. This legislation is supported by the Associated Builders and Contractors, and the National School Boards Association. I have attached below the texts of their letters of support. In introducing this measure, I am joined by a dozen original cosponsors from across the country. I hope my colleagues will join me in support of our local schools and public libraries, in support of regulatory relief for our communities, and in support of our children by cosponsoring the School and Library Construction Affordability Act, and moving to enact it. Associated Builders & Contractors, Rosslyn, VA, June 15, 1999. Hon. Duke Cunningham, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Cunningham: On behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), and its more than 20,000 contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and related firms across the country, I would like to express our strong support for the ``School and Library Construction Affordability Act.'' This is much needed legislation to exempt public schools and libraries from the inflationary and costly effects of the federal Davis-Bacon Act. By eliminating Davis-Bacon requirements for school and library construction, Congress will help lift outdated burdens and federal restrictions and help improve local control and flexibility in leveraging education dollars. It will give local school districts the ability to spend resources where they will most effectively meet students' educational needs. As you know, Davis-Bacon inflates the cost of construction anywhere from 5 to 38 percent, thus hurting those who fund, provide, and receive public education by forcing school districts to pay more to provide students with less. Davis- Bacon siphons tax dollars which could be better spent on real efforts to help education--such as additional school repairs, more facilities, books, computers, and other services that actually improve classroom learning and benefit school children. Twenty-two states have recognized the waste associated with federal restrictions like Davis-Bacon and have chosen not to have similar state restrictions on schools. Ohio, for example, exempted school construction and repair from the state's ``little Davis-Bacon Act'' in 1997, and has since found preliminary savings have averaged 10 percent lower costs. Davis-Bacon serves as an ``unfunded mandate'' on those states, by forcing them to work under a Depression-era labor law that mandates inefficient practices and inflates construction costs. Additionally, eliminating Davis-Bacon restrictions will help give local residents entry-level job and training opportunities on projects in their own neighborhood, by allowing contractors to hire ``helpers,'' as they do for schools not hindered by Davis-Bacon. This will be an important step toward ensuring job opportunities for many low-skilled minorities, at-risk youth, and displaced workers to ``earn while they learn'' in their community. ABC applauds your leadership in introducing the ``School and Library Construction Affordability Act'' to help improve use of our nation's tax dollars and ensure real educational improvements. Sincerely, Jennifer Boucher, Director, Government Affairs. National School Boards Association, Alexandria, VA, June 14, 1999. Hon. Duke Cunningham, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Cunningham: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed legislation that would exempt schools and libraries from federal Davis-Bacon prevailing wage provisions. We strongly support the intent of your legislation to keep federal support for school and library construction free from the constraints of Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. The National School Boards Association, representing 95,000 school board members through its federation of 53 states and territories, believes that in both direct federal funding for school and library construction and indirect support through federal tax credits must be unencumbered by the inflationary factors associated with the Davis-Bacon law. Throughout the United States public school students find themselves coping with intolerable conditions in school facilities. Many students attend schools with overcrowded classrooms, obsolete equipment, classrooms not wired for current computing technology, and other structural obstacles that impact student safety and learning. According to a 1996 General Accounting Office report, 38 percent of urban schools, 30 percent of suburban schools, and 30 percent of rural schools have at least one building that needs extensive repair or total replacement. More than one- third of all public school students attend classes in school buildings that need serious repair or replacement. The estimated costs of these repairs and replacements are $112 billion. Several proposals have been introduced, such as America's Better Classrooms Act of 1999 (H.R. 1760) by Congresswoman Nancy Johnson of Connecticut, to help local municipalities obtain funding to build desperately needed new schools and renovate outdated and unsafe classrooms. This legislation will provide tax credits for the interest of $25 billion in new public bonds for school construction and renovation. NSBA believes that this and similar legislation begins to address the magnitude of the school construction crisis. However, we are concerned that the inclusion of Davis-Bacon would severely undermine the real impact of such initiatives. For instance, if Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements were explicitly applied to this tax provision, it would impact 38 states that either have no state prevailing wage laws, or have prevailing wage requirements substantially less intrusive than federal requirements. That means, for the most impoverished rural and inner-city school districts, construction and renovation costs would increase as much as 15 percent over current costs minimizing the assistance provided by the underlying tax credit. In this light, we strongly support the intent of your proposed legislation to explicitly state that federal Davis- Bacon prevailing wage requirements will not be applied to school construction tax credits or direct funding for construction of schools and libraries. We appreciate your support for our America's children. Sincerely, Anne L. Bryant, Executive Director.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas) for arranging this special order tonight, to focus on the importance of doubling America's investment in health research over the next five years. I am honored to be an original cosponsor of H. Res. 89, to double our national investment in health research. This research is the gift of America's hard-working taxpayers to this generation and the next--not just to Americans, but to the world. Furthermore, for us to take fullest advantage of this investment, we must take care to invest it wisely. So in addition to increasing our work in basic health research at the National Institutes of Health, we should treat in a similar fashion our investment in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and in the programs of the Health Resources Service Administration, which are vital to putting in practice the things we learn through basic health research. As a strong fiscal conservative, and as a member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, I am committed to working with my colleagues to achieve these goals within a limited federal budget. Rather than to address this issue myself, I have asked several of my constituents and leaders in the field of health research to address this issue themselves. With the consent of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), I would like to insert in the Record at this point several letters, emails and notes that describe in further detail the importance of doubling our investment in health research. San Diego, CA. Dear Congressman Cunningham: I am writing in support of your efforts to double the amount of funding to medical research in the next five years. As a person who has suffered through the pain of seeing a father slowly and but surely fade away from the ravages of Alzheimer's disease and as one who is now in a higher risk category as a result, I can only hope that there is a cure or effective treatment by the time I reach my seventies (which is not that far away). I know that the incidence of Alzheimer's disease in this country is supposed to double or triple in the next fifty years. Can we afford to wait any longer to get a handle on this dread disease? I think not . . . Additonally, my son Pete was struck with grand mal epilepsy four years ago at the age of 24. Needless to say it has drastically changed his life. His seizures, thus far, have not been controlled by any of the medications presently on the market. His wife recently said that when he leaves in the morning she worries whether this will be the last time she sees him alive. He has recently told me he doesn't think he can have children in his uncontrolled state. He said it wouldn't be fair to his wife or the children. He is losing hope . . . Your proposal to double medical research funding is something that is very personal to me and my family, and I whole heartedly endorse your efforts. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help. Thank you for caring, Ron Hendrix.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to share with my colleagues the perspective of the Investor's Business Daily newspaper on the Clinton- Gore scheme to blacklist certain U.S. employers, threaten the jobs of U.S. workers, and increase taxpayers' cost of the government buying goods and services. Does Rule ``Blacklist'' Business? Contractors May Be Presumed Guilty Under Gore Plan (By John Berlau) Al Gore's official campaign for president has just begun. But he's already upholding a pledge to organized labor that has business groups fuming. Gore made his promise when House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-MO--a union favorite--was considering a White House run. In February 1997, Gore told the AFL-CIO Executive Council that ``the Clinton administration will seek to bar companies with poor labor records from receiving government contracts.'' If a company wants to do business with the Federal Government, Gore said, it has to ``respect civil, human and union rights.'' Fearing that this promise could become a regulation that favors organized labor, groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Associated General Contractors of America have been worrying ever since. Their fears may be justified. The rule is now circulating around federal agencies and lawmakers' offices. It's expected to be published in July. It would give bureaucrats power to deny government contracts to companies that are merely accused of violating labor, antitrust, health, consumer or environmental laws. The charges don't have to be proved in court; allegations alone may be enough. The rule could affect the $180 billion spent on federal contracts with private companies each year. It's estimated that companies doing at least some business with the Federal Government employ more than 25 million people and account for more than a fifth of the work force. The rule is ``much, much worse'' than expected, said labor lawyer Hal Coxson, who's executive director of the National Alliance Against Blacklisting, a coalition of business groups opposed to the rule. ``This is huge,'' said Randy Johnson, vice president for labor and employee benefits at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. But Steven Kelman, head of the White House Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) from 1993 to 1997, said the rule represents ``a common sense point of view: If you violate the law, you can't do business with the Federal Government.'' Kelman says it's not that different from existing rules contractors must obey. Gore spokesman Christopher Lehane told National Journal that the vice president ``has paid a great deal of attention to (the proposal) because it will help labor in its efforts to continue organizing.'' Attempts to get comments from Gore's campaign, his office and OFPP were unsuccessful. A copy of the regulation obtained by Investor's Business Daily shows how far it could reach. It says bureaucrats should deny a government contract if there's ``persuasive evidence of the prospective contractor's lack of compliance with tax laws, or substantial noncompliance with labor and employment laws, environmental laws, antitrust laws and other consumer protections.'' In some cases, violations don't have to be proved. According to the rule, ``final adjudication'' isn't needed if the contracting officer finds ``persuasive evidence of substantial noncompliance with a law or regulation.'' A fact sheet White House officials provided to lawmakers gives specific examples of when contracts could be denied. These include complaints filed by: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission involving ``alleged employment discrimination.'' The National Labor Relations Board for ``an alleged unfair labor practice.'' The Labor Department ``in a matter involving alleged violations of OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration)'' rules. Because the government could deny contracts based on suspicion and allegations, rather than proven charges, critics call this the ``blacklisting regulation.'' This could drive a wedge between Gore and one industry he claims to champion--the high-tech sector. Nancy Saucier, manager of domestic policy for the [American Electronics Association], high tech's biggest trade group, said fighting this regulation is one of the [AEA]'s ``top three'' issues this year. The Defense Department ``is the largest purchaser in the world of high-tech products,'' Saucier said. ``If (companies suddenly) found that they're winning only 50% of the contracts that they won before, due to these arbitrary determinations, it's going to affect their bottom lines incredibly.'' The rule will probably affect companies' share prices as well, she adds. Saucier and others worry the rule will give perverse incentives for companies to dig up dirt on their rivals. Coxson notes that consumer and environmental groups and disgruntled employees could also present complaints to agencies in order to deny companies contracts. Former OFPP head Kelman, now a professor of public management at Harvard, said he thinks the power to bar companies for suspected violations will only be used in ``extremely egregious'' cases. He confidently predicted that ``a contracting officer, given his lack of expertise, is going to be extremely reluctant to make a determination that's not based on a final adjudication.'' He also notes that companies can sue if they feel they've been wrongly denied a contract. Attorney Karen Hastie Williams, head of OFPP under President Carter, strongly disagrees. The rule ``can be the camel's nose under the tent in terms of coming up with arbitrary criteria to be used (against contractors),'' she said. A company unfairly denied a contract would have to go through costly lawsuits and still couldn't win back its bid, Williams says. These delays would end up costing companies and taxpayers. Williams, who now represents companies that have contracts with the government, says contracting officers already have the power to review a company's legal history if it's relevant to the contract. But this rule would open the door to punishing technical violations of complex rules, Williams says. In labor law, companies are often found guilty when they haven't followed procedures correctly. ``Often there hasn't been any harm to anybody,'' she said. The White House and Kelman call this rule a clarification of existing law. Williams and Coxson believe ti does much more. They say the rule substantially amends procurement law and other statutes by adding a new penalty--denying contracts. Coxson notes that in the 1970s and 1980s, lawmakers couldn't get provisions banning contracts for labor law violations through a Democratic Congress. Prospects for getting this through a Republican Congress are even lees likely. Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., who heads a subcommittee of the House Education and Workforce Committee, strongly opposes the rule. An aide says Norwood may try to get lawmakers to overturn the rule. Coxson says it may be unconstitutional, because Congress hasn't delegated this power to the White House. He and other lawyers also say it could violate the Constitution's ``due process'' provisions. Business groups also worry about a part of the rule saying that contractors must have the ``necessary workplace practices'' addressing ``worker retention.'' They say this could bar contracts to companies that lay off workers or hire striker replacements. ``Gore promised this,'' the Chamber's Johnson said. ``He can tell organized labor he went forward, and then, if it dies, he can blame the Republicans.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. But many of us disagreed with the gentlewoman, not because of special interest groups but because we have a strong belief in the second amendment, and we thought it would be violated. In the same vein, my friend feels that the first amendment would be violated. We disagree. Two hundred years of Supreme Courts disagree with my friend. I am not worried if God is on the side that we are portraying, because God is always on the right side. I think we need to ask ourselves, are we on the side of God?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, this is a very difficult issue for many of us. I would like to thank my friend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), and he is my friend. I would also like to thank Mr. Solomon who I am just the torch bearer of a long evolution, as well as Major General Patrick Brady who is President of the Citizens Flag Alliance that put most of this whole effort together in the grassroots. I would say to my friend that I laud him. It would be very difficult for me to represent David Duke or the KKK or anybody of that kind, but I would support him in the same manner on the first amendment. Nothing in this amendment prevents anyone from expressing themselves in writing, speech, or any other way except for the desecration of the flag. For over 200 years, all the Supreme Courts in the United States, the Congress and the American people agreed. It does not violate the first amendment. That is why 48 States had laws to protect the flag from desecration. One bad, in my opinion, Supreme Court voted against 200 years of tradition. My friend's amendment would throw this whole amendment back to that pack of wolves, that particular Supreme Court, and it would destroy this whole process, or the amendment. We think that is wrong. The Massachusetts' 54th Regiment, a regiment of African American soldiers who fought for the Union for freedom. Among its leaders was Frederick Douglass. The movie ``Glory'' was produced about this whole episode. It was a suicide mission, these African Americans knew it, but they were fighting for freedom and their country, and the Constitution of the United States. Colonel Robert Shaw, commander of the 54th asked these men, he said, ``I will carry the flag into battle, but when the flag falls, who will carry it for me?'' There have been people given the Medal of Honor specifically for protecting the flag. Article 5 of the Constitution allowed us to have the first amendment to give us the freedom for speech. I was amazed at my colleague from California (Mr. Bilbray) that brought up the fact that article 5 also used in the Dred Scott decision that said African Americans were only property, they could not be citizens of this great country. The Supreme Court ruled that. And quite often, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) pointed out, the Supreme Court has been wrong. Fortunately, Congress enacted the 14th amendment which protected those rights. I would say to my friend, if I felt the first amendment was abridged, as much anger as I felt for Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War when she wanted to open a sports store, I was there protecting her right to do that. I think she stepped over the line in that particular issue. But I would support every issue and my friend, but to support this amendment would kill everything that we are trying to do as far as this bill that the gentleman from North Carolina has offered. Many of us were moved by the speech of the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy) last week, deeply moved, because we knew that she was speaking from the heart. But many of us disagreed on that issue because of a second amendment right.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague that if he thinks he was opposed to the Ku Klux Klan, my opposition was to those that protested in a war that many of my friends lost their lives, but yet I would fight for the right for them to protest. Many of us felt that the Tom Haydens, the Jane Fondas, and the Bill Clintons went too far by protesting in the enemy's camp. That was different. But I would also say that 90 percent, 90 percent, of the Supreme Court justices through history have supported this amendment. It was only one Supreme Court in 1989, the same Supreme Court that in 1990 by one vote overrode 200 years of tradition. That is why 85 percent of the American people, 120 organizations, say that this is the correct thing to do and disagree with my colleagues on the other side of this issue. They also support the First Amendment. When I went into the camps of those anti-war protesters and sat down with them, disagreed with them, I supported their First Amendment rights to do that. In this amendment, it does not take away from those rights. This particular amendment does not enfranchise the First Amendment. They still have full ability to speak, to express themselves in any legal way outside of the desecration of the American flag. Forty-eight States had this prior to that one Supreme Court vote. It is wrong, Madam Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank not only the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for his candor, but my colleagues on the other side as well for the way they have conducted themselves on this particular issue. I feel they are wrong, and that is why I am offering the amendment. Mr. Pete Peterson was a good friend of mine. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) asked me to go to Vietnam and raise the American flag for the first time over Ho Chi Minh City. We used to call it Saigon. I refused the gentleman from Kentucky. It was too hard. Pete called me personally and said, Duke, I was a prisoner for 6\1/2\ years. I need you to help me raise this flag over Vietnam. Both of us cried because of what it means, not only to us but to the people that we buried, the people that we fought with, and to the people that believe from the deepest part of their heart that this symbol should be protected. This is not a matter of freedom of speech. There is free speech. There is nothing in this amendment that prevents someone from speaking or writing or doing any of the other things, but just the radical burning of the symbol that we hold dear. It is despicable. I had plane captains cry when their pilots did not come back overseas. My plane captain, Willy White, grabbed me by the arm one day and said, Lieutenant Cunningham, Lieutenant Cunningham, we got our MIG today, didn't we, because of his involvement in that team concept. And we talk quite often about what we do, whether it is Kosovo, or what message we give to our men and women under arms. Can Members imagine what message we would send to our men and women if this goes down, the symbol that they fight for? It is more to them than just an inanimate object. It is very, very important. The gentleman knows that there is not a political motive in my body on this particular issue. It is something I believe deeply, from the bottom of my heart, and feel emotionally about. We have over 282 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle on this. We expect to have well over 300 votes on this and pass it in the Senate. It is because the American people also feel this. My colleagues talk about the Supreme Court and their decisions. Look at history. Over 200 years of Supreme Courts have held that 48 States could rule that desecration of a flag is wrong, and have penalties. Only one Supreme Court in the history of the United States in 1989, by a narrow vote of one vote, changed 200 years of history. The American people are saying that is wrong; that we believe that this flag, this dimension, the support of unity for all the things that both sides of the aisle fight for, is very important. I would ask, I would beg my colleagues to vote for this amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. My point is made. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would address my colleague that just spoke in the well. Is it not true that the gentleman votes ``no'' on over 90 percent of the issues and finds reason not to vote for issues on this House floor? Is that true?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would say that even though I am the author of this amendment, I am not the author of this amendment. I was just flying close wing on Congressman Solomon, a Marine Corps who always hates to hear that the Navy owns the Marine Corps. Jerry Solomon since 1990 has persevered on this particular issue. When he retired, he asked myself and his replacement to push the issue, to bring it before the American people and have a constructive dialogue. In 1989, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court wiped out 200 years of tradition. In 1990, there was another vote but just for a resolution. The Supreme Court acted again with the same five individuals. The Supreme Court has told us that this is the only way to proceed, and many legal scholars agree. Mr. Speaker, I would say from the onset, some of my colleagues have a difference of opinion on this issue. This has won by over 300 votes every time it has come up and we will pass this here today with over 300 votes. But I would chastise anybody that would characterize an opponent of this particular issue as nonpatriotic. As a matter of fact, I would stand side by side with that individual, because people have different beliefs on this issue. Fortunately, they are in a minority of those. Secondly, that 85 percent of the American people feel that those individuals are wrong that oppose this particular amendment. Forty-nine States have asked us to pass this amendment, and their legislatures and the governors. The 50th State has actually passed this in the House and the Senate but not in the same year, and they plan to do it. Some people will say that this is an unnecessary Federal statute, but yet the Supreme Court told us that this is necessary. I would ask my colleagues not to bring a circus event, of bringing bandanas, underwear, those kinds of things with the American flag on them. That is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the desecration of an American flag. There would be those people that say it abridges the first amendment. Legal scholars again disagree, that this is expressive conduct, not actual speech; that no one is prevented from expressing themselves on an idea such as the flag through speech, or any other manner, except for the desecration of a flag. We are not talking about burning handkerchiefs or underwear as some of my colleagues have brought forward or other things. We are talking about the American flag. This amendment is supported by 120 different organizations. The Flag Alliance has put together a grassroots. Eighty-five percent of the citizens, 49 States, and prior to the Supreme Court decision, by one vote, 48 States already had laws in which they did not feel that the first amendment was abridged. In 1995, this House passed this 312-120. We lost it by three votes in the Senate. Since that time, we have had a change in the Senate to where now we can pass this bill in the Senate. This bill can go forward. In 1997, we passed it in the House but we got tied up with other judiciary legislation and it was not taken up in the Senate. Mr. Speaker, this is the opportunity that we have been waiting for since 1989, not only in the House and in the Senate, the American people, but every State legislature in this country that disagree with the minority dissenting views on this particular issue. The Citizens Flag Alliance has put together a good coalition. Jerry Solomon, the original author of this, has put together a coalition. And for those that would chastise us saying this is a political issue, I would beg difference with them. For many of us, and including my friend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), this is a deeply reserved and caring issue for us, important to the core, to the heart, and to the mind and the soul. If anything, this brings unity to people, it brings freedom and the idea of what the flag stands for, and for those reasons we go forth with this amendment with hope and prayer that this amendment will pass in the House and Senate, it will be ratified by three-quarters of the States, which we agree that it will be. I thank the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) of the subcommittee and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the support of this amendment.