Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman to proceed since I have the right to close since there was not time received in opposition. I am the last speaker. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am going to close.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we lost two police officers here on the Hill last year defending us. This amendment would not help those officers. This amendment will help other officers in the future. The same thing at Columbine. This amendment would not help those children. We talk about law-abiding citizens' rights. The children at Columbine and other schools have rights. This amendment in the future will help those individuals. I did write this amendment with the help of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, which represents millions of police officers. Governors support this. Mayors support this. For those that support the Brady bill, Sarah Brady and handgun control does not oppose this amendment. Why? Because it is good. My colleague says, ``Well, it puts more guns.'' Who does this allow to have a weapon? It allows trained police officers. This does not mean some security guard or fly-by-night guy that sits there for 1 year in a position. These are trained individuals, who cannot have any disciplinary problems before. The day that I submitted this bill, the original bill, H.R. 218, in San Diego an off-duty policeman had a carry permit. Guess what? A bank was being robbed. This young lady, this officer, who was off-duty saw the bank robber coming out and said, sorry, Charlie. Because she had a weapon, she stopped that bank robbery. This is the kind of legislation that I think all of us are looking for. I ask my colleagues in a bipartisan way to support this amendment. It is a good amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rogan).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, yesterday, I called the Fraternal Order of Police and the Capitol Hill Police, and they are excited about this amendment. This amendment is opposed by no police organization. As a matter of fact, it is strongly supported by most every police organization in the United States. This amendment will allow thousands of equipped, trained and certified officers to continually serve and protect our communities, regardless of jurisdiction, at no cost to taxpayers. This amendment is endorsed by more than 75 law enforcement organizations, including the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Fraternal Order of Police, National Troopers Coalition, National Association of Police Organizations, Fraternal Brotherhood of Police Officers and our Capitol Hill Police. This is an amendment where you can say, ``this is something I stand for.'' It allows policemen, once they retire, to protect themselves and their families. Too often our police have to arrest some of these people that we talk about that commit crimes with weapons. This amendment allows them to protect their family from those criminals. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) and ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control that time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. She does, but is it the rules of the House that someone is to question the motives of the gentleman?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Members on both sides of this issue are well-meaning. There are 11,000 gun laws on the books. There are just as many about drugs. And yet in both areas, both drugs and weapons, the people that are the problem are the criminals. My colleagues on the other side of this issue want to stop those, as well. In all due respect to the gentlewoman from Maryland, there are not thugs and criminals but millions of people that attend these gun shows, including myself, that are law-abiding citizens. I think I am the only Member in this body that has had to take multiple life with a weapon. It bothered me so bad that I had to go to church, and at one time I even left the squadron. But I have flown in an airplane. I have carried bombs in peacetime. I never robbed a bank. I never shot somebody. I hunt. I fish. I legally have a weapon. And my daughters know how to use those weapons. I have taken them out with a watermelon and a shotgun and a rifle, and they know exactly what that weapon will do. If somebody comes in our house when I am not there, my daughters know how to use it. But I also have a trigger guard on those weapons because I am afraid that some child will come into the house other than my daughters and not know how to use that or the danger of it. And I think that a responsible parent should have a trigger guard on it and someone who does not maybe should be chastised. But the people we are talking about are law-abiding citizens, and that is who the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I and others want to protect the rights of, law-abiding people that want to bear arms. I do not think that is unreasonable. I think it is reasonable to have an instant check for a gun show, to have one for a pawn shop, to have one for any sporting goods shop that does that, and we ought to fully fund it. I think that the only way that we can get around this is to do that. I ask my colleagues, do not ask from emotion but ask from fact.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to my colleagues' attention an old Clinton-Gore Administration initiative to endanger American jobs, and raise the government's cost of doing business. This initiative is known as the Blacklisting Regulation. This old proposal has new life because a presidential election is coming, and Vice President Gore is paying back the AFL-CIO. In short, this proposed addition to the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) would ``blacklist'' employers deemed to have insufficient ``responsibility'' in relations with workers from being able to do business with the Federal Government. It does not make goods and services less costly to the taxpayers. It does not improve the quality of goods and services provided to the government. It does not streamline or improve the procurement process. No, what the Clinton-Gore Blacklisting Regulation would do is hand the union bosses the sword of Damocles over every employer in America-- and over every one of their workers. For under this dangerous proposal, an employer and its workers may be in full compliance with the labor laws and regulations, in full compliance with workplace safety laws, and in full compliance with all other laws and regulations relating to procurement, but in danger of a politically-driven and costly contract cutoff. Here is how the Clinton-Gore Blacklisting Regulation would work. Say a union is waging economic terrorism on an employer, filing frivolous complaints with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the Wage and Hour Division and the Office of Fair Employment Practices. Then that pile of complaints--not convictions, not findings of wrongdoing, but complaints--may identify the targeted employer as insufficiently ``responsible.'' Federal procurement officials would ban the government from doing business with that employer. And workers would lose their jobs. They would be unemployed. Unless, of course, they knuckled under to the union bosses' economic terrorism. As Americans, we are united in support of safe workplaces, fair treatment of employees, the right of employees to bargain collectively according to the law, and a day's pay for a day's work. Perhaps this Administration is not aware that America already has labor laws, and penalties for violating them. Perhaps this Administration is not aware that America has laws that prohibit contractor fraud, and penalties for violating them. These laws and our Constitution provide every American equal protection under the law. So what is the purpose of this regulation, if it will not provide taxpayers any more value? I would rather not characterize this Clinton- Gore Blacklisting Regulation as driven by the Administration's payback of an old political debt to the AFL-CIO, or by the Vice President's moribund campaign for the White House. But let quote from the June 12, 1999, edition of National Journal, an article titled ``Gore's Contract with Labor,'' by Alexis Simendinger: Vice President Al Gore is on the verge of fulfilling a powerful promise he made to organized labor more than two years ago. The business community views the language as nothing more than a well-timed gift from Gore to labor--a constituency the Vice President hopes to mobilize in full force on his behalf in the presidential race next year . . . some union presidents are reluctant to endorse Gore, because of differences with the Administration over trade. The Vice President is expected to meet with the holdouts before the AFL-CIO's Executive Council meets in Chicago in August. The proposal is ``not an analytically good thing to do, with clear benefits to the procurement system that will buy more for the public, or that will have any good government logic it,'' said one Administration official. AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney, in an eight-page memo distributed to national and international union presidents in March 1997, initiated a fact-finding effort to gather the kind of specifics that would justify the rule change that Sweeney sought and that Gore promised. In his memo, Sweency said the AFL-CIO needed data ``to withstand Republican and business community opposition in Congress and the courts.'' This Clinton-Gore Blacklisting Regulation is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It is anti-taxpayer, anti-worker, anti-business and anti-American. It unbalances 60 years of labor laws enacted by Congress. And in the interest of every worker in America, unionized or not, whose livelihood providing goods and services to the U.S. Government is now endangered by the Clinton-Gore Blacklisting Regulation, we must work together to stop it. For my colleagues and the public, I include a copy of this proposal in the Congressional Record. In addition, I want my colleagues to know that the AFL-CIO President John Sweeney memo referenced above was entered into the Record of April 15, 1997, page E-661, in a speech titled ``There They Go Again: The Big Labor Bosses Versus American Taxpayers, Employers and Jobs.'' Department of Defense General Services Administration National Aeronautics and Space Administration 48 CFR Parts 9 and 31 Federal Acquisition Regulation; Contractor Responsibility; Labor Relations Costs and Costs Relating to Legal and Other Proceedings Agencies: Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Action: Notice of proposed rulemaking. Summary: The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council proposes to amend FAR Parts 9 and 31 to clarify coverage and give examples of suitable contractor responsibility considerations; as well as to make unallowable the costs of 1) attempting to influence employee decisions respecting unionization, and 2) make unallowable those legal expenses related to defense of judicial or administrative proceedings brought by the Federal Government when a contractor is found to have violated a law or regulation, or where the proceeding is settled by consent or compromise. Dates: Comments should be submitted to the FAR Secretariat at the address shown below on or before [insert date 120 days after Federal Register publication date] to be considered in the formulation of the final rule. Address: Interested parties should submit written comments to: General Services Administration, FAR Secretariat (MVRS), 18th and F Streets, NW, Room 4035, Attn: Ms. Beverly Fayson, Washington, DC 20405. Please cite FAR case 99- , in all correspondence related to this case. For further information contact: at in reference to this FAR case. For general information, contact the FAR Secretariat, Room 4035, GS Building, Washington, DC 20405 (202) 501-4755. Please cite FAR case 99- . Supplementary information: A. Background FAR Responsibility Criteria The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council is proposing to amend FAR Part 9 to clarify coverage concerning contractor responsibility considerations, by adding examples of what falls within the existing definition of an ``unsatisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.'' The proposed amendment will provide Contracting Officers with guidance concerning general standards of contractor compliance with applicable laws when making pre-award responsibility determinations. Accordingly, language has been proposed for addition to FAR Subsection 9.104-1(d) and (e). A prospective contractor's record of compliance with laws and regulations promulgated by the Federal Government are a relevant and important part of the overall responsibility determination. This proposed FAR amendment clarifies the existing rule by providing several examples of what constitutes an unsatisfactory record of compliance with laws and regulations. These examples are premised on the existing principle that the Federal Government should not enter into contracts with law breakers. For example, some Contracting Officers have inquired as to whether a prospective contractor's failure to comply with applicable tax laws may be considered in making a responsibility determination. The proposed rule clarifies that such a circumstance may be considered by the Contracting Officer. Similarly, inquiries have been made concerning contractors with a record of employment discrimination, and whether this circumstance should factor into the overall responsibility determination. Again, the proposed rule attempts to clarify the fact that an established record of employment discrimination would be a relevant part of the Contracting Officer's determination because such a record or pattern is a strong indication of a contractor's overall willingness or capability to comply with applicable laws. Inquiry has also been made as to whether responsibility determinations must rest upon a final adjudication. Normally, adverse responsibility determinations involving violations of law or regulation should be based upon a final adjudication by a competent authority concerning the underlying charge. However, in some circumstances, it may be appropriate for the Contracting Officer to base an adverse responsibility determination upon persuasive evidence of substantial non- compliance with a law or regulation, (i.e., not isolated or trivial), but repeated and substantial violations establishing a pattern or practice by a prospective contractor. The facts and circumstances in each such case will require close scrutiny and examination). An efficient, economical and well-functioning procurement system requires the award of contracts to organizations that meet high standards of integrity and business ethics and have the necessary workplace practices to assure a skilled, stable and productive workforce. This proposal seeks to further the Government's use of best commercial practices by ensuring the Government does business only with high-performing and successful companies that work to maintain a good record of compliance with applicable laws. Cost Principle Changes The Council is also proposing to amend the cost principle at FAR 31.205-21 to make unallowable those costs relating to attempts to influence employee decisions respecting unionization. This cost principle change is in furtherance of the Government's long-standing policy to remain neutral with respect to employer-employee labor disputes (see FAR Part 22). It has come to the Council's attention that some contractors are claiming, as an allowable cost, those activities designed to influence employees with respect to unionization decisions. Inasmuch as a number of cost-based Federal programs have long made these types of costs unallowable as a matter of public policy (e.g., see 29 U.S.C. 1553(c) (1), 42 U.S.C. 1395x(v)(1) (N), 42 U.S.C. 9839(e), and 42 U.S.C. 12634(b)(1)), equity dictates that this same principle be extended to Government contracts, as well. Finally, the Council is proposing to amend FAR 31.205-47 to make clear that costs relating to legal and other proceedings are unallowable where the outcome is a finding that a contractor has violated a law or regulation, or where the proceeding was settled by consent or compromise (except that such costs may be made allowable to the extent specifically provided as a part of a settlement agreement). At present, the relevant cost principle generally makes unallowable legal and other proceeding costs where, for example, in a criminal proceeding, there is a conviction, or where, for example, in a civil proceeding, there is a monetary penalty imposed. It has been brought to the Council's attention that there are a number of civil proceedings brought by the Federal Government each year that do not result in imposition of a monetary penalty (e.g., NLRB or EEOC proceedings), but which do involve a finding or adjudication that a contractor has violated a law or regulation, and where appropriate remedies are then ordered. Under the proposed rule, the allowability of legal and other proceedings costs would depend on whether or not a contractor is found to have violated a law or regulation rather than on the nature of the remedy imposed. Taxpayers should not have to pay the legal defense costs associated with adverse decisions against contractors, especially where the proceeding is brought by an agency of the Federal Government. Additional Consideration In order to give greater effect to the FAR responsibility clarifications being proposed, the Council would appreciate receiving comments and suggestions concerning whether the provision appearing at FAR 52.209-5--``Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Proposed Debarment, and Other Responsibility Matters,'' should be amended to provide for enhanced responsibility disclosure relative to this proposal. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., because most contracts awarded to small entities do not involve use of formal responsibility surveys. In addition, most contracts awarded to small entities use simplified acquisition procedures or are awarded on a competitive fixed- price basis and do not require the submission of cost or pricing data or information other than cost or pricing data, and thus do not require application of the FAR cost principles. An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has, therefore, not been performed. Comments are invited from small business and other interested parties. Comments from small entities concerning the affected FAR parts also will be considered in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 601. Such comments must be submitted separately and cite 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. (FAR case 99- ), in correspondence. c. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the proposed FAR changes do not impose recordkeeping or information collection requirements, or collection of information from offerors, contractors, or members of the public which require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 9 and 31: Government procurement. Dated: Edward C. Loeb, Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division. Therefore, 48 CFR Parts 9 and 31 are proposed to be amended as set forth below:

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who has always been fair, and say that in San Diego our new superintendent is Alan Bersin. He was a Clinton appointee, prior on the border. I have met with him many times and his number one problem is the IDEA program. The lawyers are suing the teachers, and most of this was happening before Secretary Riley, who is a good friend, put out the guidelines for IDEA. It is not just that they are getting sued. We are losing good teachers. All they had to do is help special education children, but yet because of the cottage organizations and the lawsuits and them having to go before the courts, we are losing good teachers. This is an area where my friend and I and the committee should work together to protect those teachers, because they are going through tremendous harassment. It is a difficult environment in the first place and when they are subjected to those kinds of ridicule and abuse by lawyers in the field, I would give the gentleman Alan Bersin's phone number and let him talk to the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to my colleagues, and I do not think they will disagree with what I am going to say. The majority of people in our jails today, most of them is drug related. First of all, I want to thank my colleagues, including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), that when my own son was involved with it, many of my colleagues from the other side of the aisle in the Judiciary came forward and offered to help, and I cannot tell my colleagues what that meant. And I do support strong minimum mandatories, the gentleman spoke a minute ago, even though it is on my own son, and I hope that it is the most important thing that has ever happened and life threatening in his life, and I think it will make a change, talking to him, and I do not think he will ever do it again. But when we are talking about gun legislation, there are things that are reasonable. I made a statement once that I used to fly an F-14. It would put out 3,000 rounds a minute. In a half a second I could disintegrate this building, with a half-a-second burst, and I was trusted with that. I have never killed anybody outside of war, never robbed a bank, never shot anybody, and I want to protect the rights of people like myself that lawfully want to own a handgun. I went to Mr. Schumer's district, and I understand why he hates guns. They have all the projects, and they shoot each other, and they do drugs, and they kill each other, and that is bad. But the answer is not just to be negative, but to look and see what is reasonable.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let me read to the gentleman what the Sentencing Commission itself says. If Congress feels that additional measures need to be taken in this area, it should direct the commission to take them without micromanaging the commission's work. In order they have asked us to do this, and this is exactly the reason that we have gone forward. The Senate did not have time to take this bill up last time. We feel just like in Aimee's law or Megan's Law every single thing that we do to help prevent children being murdered is a plus, and this is a win, this is a win-win and a positive in a crime bill that we are trying to fight for. As my colleagues know, I wanted to call Megan's law Duke-Dunn-Deale because Jennifer Dunn and Nathan Deal were the ones that really started it, and I kind of piggy-backed on it. But they were the same things said, and I would challenge the gentleman to look on the computer. I used to think there were 1 or 2 bad sexual abusers, there are hundreds in your district. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman and I ask for the support of this amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I do not know the answer to that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would tell my friend that this is the same, actually the same language. I will not submit this for the Record in the full House because it is almost the same verbatim that the gentleman spoke to with Mr. Chrysler about the commission. I am very familiar with the commission. As a matter of fact, the gentleman here goes through 15 minutes of dialogue on how that it should not be germane, that it was political. This vote was 14 to 4, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), who wrote consenting language, actually ended up voting for it after fighting it on the floor. I would say to the gentleman this is about leadership in this House and in the body. It is not about a particular person. Whether we have Aimee or Megan's Law or whoever you have, this is an important factor. This goes after the family values of this body. It also tells people in this time of summer when people are going on vacations that our parks and recreation areas are for children, not for murderers. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Aimee Willard, Megan's Law, Polly Klaas, now Matthew's Law. Mr. Chairman, the children I just named, every Member in this House is tired of having to name bills after murdered children. I know, Mr. Chairman, this is a very bipartisan amendment. The same amendment passed by Mr. Chrysler in the House on H.R. 2974 passed 414 votes to 4. And with that, this is something that my colleagues can stand for. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard), a great leader. (Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)