Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who offered the amendment asked, ``Duke, would you like to speak in favor of the amendment?'' Not only a good guy, he has got a good heart, and I would like to talk to the gentleman on why I oppose this particular amendment. First of all, I have already spoken to why I did not believe that we should be in Kosovo in the first place. I have also spoken to why I thought that Rambouillet actually caused the war, that there was a no- win from the start, that the President did not understand that we could not have an independent Kosovo, that they would never give that up, and that they had fears that the KLA would reprise, and we could not take out other military and police, and that there had to be something in between. Well, now the new agreement said that we will have Russian and Greek troops, which I wanted in there, to separate the two sides, and there is a difference between war and potential peace and what we do support. George Bush in Desert Storm had our allies pay for Desert Storm, and I think that NATO ought to pay for this, at least 99 percent of this, and let the United States back out of it because we have been into all of the other things that we have talked about, from Iraq to other areas, as well as in the Sudan. I disagreed with my colleague on his amendment because I felt that it took money out of the military requirements when our Joint Chiefs said we need 148 billion just to come up to a low-ball figure, the President, under the Bottom Up Review and the QDR; and I understand now that the supplemental will come in and not do that. But I would still oppose the gentleman's amendment if it takes the money out, because there is never a payback in this business. And I would say that under this amendment it totally ties the hands of the President as far as our troops, and I do not want to do that. I am trying to get us out of Kosovo. I am trying to do it because I do not think that we should demonize one side or another on this because both sides have been, but at the same time I do not want to totally tie the hands of the President if there is hope for peace and we can separate those forces. And with winter coming on, there is no electricity, no food, no heat, and there are innocent Yugoslavians and innocent Albanians at the same time. How are we going to handle that? I would like NATO to pay for it all. I am not naive enough to think they are going to do that. I thank the gentleman from my heart for having given me the time, and part of me supports what the gentleman is trying to do, but overall I would have to vote against the gentleman's amendment and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak directly to my friend, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) on his amendment. He is my friend, but I thought it was unfair to characterize this as a vote against our troops. As I see it, what our original base bill did was prevent the President from taking supplemental money that the House and the Senate voted for and passed for emergency supplemental, which was going directly to take care of many of the ills our military had. The gentleman's amendment would allow the President to take money out of that fund and use it to expand Kosovo. Our position is that no money should come out of that which would detriment readiness for our military, and secondly, that it would not expand Kosovo. Now, as I see it, the situation today, and I will have the gentleman correct me, he has had a phone call from the President that says he will not take money out of readiness. Secondly, he will come back to this Congress for a supplemental to pay for this, and the money will not come out of the hide of defense. That is good. If that is the case, this gentleman would be willing to accept the amendment of the gentleman from Missouri. But I have feared, and to me there is a difference between expanding a war and being able to pay to keep people separated and prepare for the problems that we have over there, even though I think NATO ought to pay for this, not the United States. I also want to make it clear that any supplemental is going to come out of the things that both sides want to do. Those are the social issues. So if the gentleman has that guarantee in writing, and I say writing because I would tell the gentleman I know what ``is'' is. Just a verbal acknowledgment that the President has promised, this is not enough.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I did not say the word of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) was not good. I said I did not believe the word of the President without its being in writing. I totally take the word of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Actually, I had not, but I listened to what the gentleman said.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. When this whole event started, many of us fought against it; felt it was wrong. The total number of people killed in Kosovo, prior to the United States bombing, was 2,012. Not saying a single life is not worth something, but of that 2,012, one-third of those were Serbs that were murdered by the KLA. Their churches were bombed, their police were killed and kidnapped. And was there fighting there? Yes. Were both sides brutal? Absolutely yes. But was there massive ethnic cleansing? No. There are 300,000 Serbs that live where the KLA is not, mostly in Belgrade. Not a single one has left. But the KLA wants a complete separation of Kosovo. They also want Montenegro. They also want Macedonia. And they also want part of Greece. That is why the Greeks are so adamant about supporting the Serbs; they are afraid of expansionism by the KLA. And yes, there are atrocities on both sides. And I have no doubt that on both sides there have been atrocities, mostly by the Serbs. But for us to go over there and do what we have done is unconscionable. The President said this is a big win. We have killed more civilians, two-and-a-half times, over twice, the amount that the Serbs killed in an entire year prior to the bombing. Through the bombing of NATO, there have been over twice the number of people killed in Kosovo as were killed prior to our bombing. If we listen to the people, the Albanians themselves coming out of Kosovo, listen to what they are saying, they were forced out of their homes after the bombing started. And many of my colleagues say, well, Milosevic had a plan, he had a plan, and we had a plan. Well, we implemented that plan. There are hundreds of thousands of people, in my opinion and, I think, the world's opinion that would not be refugees today if we had not bombed. That is not a win. And they say there is no loss of life. Ask the crew of the Apache that were killed over there in Kosovo, the loss of 117s. Before we get out of this, conservative estimates say, $50 billion to help rebuild Kosovo and what we have destroyed. Jesse Jackson, I do not support Mr. Jackson's views most of the time, but I thought he showed some real wisdom in the fact that he said that to get into the minds of the other side, to understand what the fears are of both sides, not just the Albanians, but what the fears of the Serbs are. He also said we ought to have as much compassion for the innocent men, women and children, the Yugoslavs, as we have for the Serbs. And all I hear is that the Serbs are terrible. It is not all true. We cannot demonize an entire nation of people. The Nazis were terrible in World War II, but all Germans were not Nazis and did not commit those crimes. From the very first day, I said there were certain things that we had to do to bring peace. And if we take a look, the number one fear, put ourselves in the Serbs' shoes, where one of three of them died in World War II defending Kosovo, their number-one fear was that, under Rambouillet, Kosovo was going to become independent. There is nothing in this agreement. And I agree that is what should have been done. They may have cantonization, but it still should remain under former Yugoslavia. Second, the Serbs were absolutely petrified. Where the KLA is, they are not in mass forces, but there are Mujahedin and Hamas within that and they want independence and they are going to cause problems and they were afraid. And when Rambouillet said that all their forces had to go out and their police, and none of the laws would form under Belgrade but from the Albanian civilians, they said, hey, this is Serbia. That is like Texas falling to Mexico and then saying, hey, Washington, D.C., has no laws over that. We would not do that. But if we take a look, the Russians in there support it. The Greeks in there support it.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, one of the things I think most of us respect mostly on this floor is someone that we may disagree with but fights for principle, and I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), even though we disagree on some issues, one thing he does, he stands up for what he believes in. I respect that very, very much, and part of me understands what the gentleman is doing. But let me give you just another side of some of our feelings. I did not know what they were doing on this particular bill. I am not in the leadership. I do not have a staff. I am just a small cog in this whole membership. But each year I turn back about 20 percent of my own office budget. I try not to put in extra newsletters, do all the things that many of the Members do, and try to turn back money to the government to set an example, yet I try and take care of my staff very well. There are 13 appropriation bills, Mr. Speaker, and there are many of us that, when it comes down the line, things like Labor-HHS, I chaired a committee hearing for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Porter). I had to shut down the hearing twice because the hearing was about children that had diseases and their only hope was Labor-HHS and medical research. I had to stop. I had so many tears coming down my eyes. I will never sit in another one of those hearings. I cannot do it. Where we think there are some tough choices, it may be in our own accounts, it is a place where we can add money, things like medical research and Labor-HHS. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said the other day he said he did not think we could double medical research. I would sure like to try. I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) would too. I think where we are taking small amounts of each committee, when you have got billions of dollars out of each one of these appropriations bills, including defense we just did for peacekeeping, then I think if we can shift over some of those amounts, and many of us feel the reason we want to get out of Kosovo is I think we are spending too much, not that that is the only reason, but spending too much money. I would say to my friend that, yes, we do want to help Social Security and we do want to help Medicare. Education, I want to reform it, and I do want to increase medical research. I honestly do as a Member.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I cannot answer that, other than with a 5 vote margin, quite often it is very, very difficult to bring Members on your side to our way of thinking, and sometimes your thinking and the whip organization that tries to bring all of this together. Granted, we do not always do that in the best way.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, last week a Narcotics Eradication Task Force from the Republic of Colombia visited Washington. The Task Force included three retired Colombian Generals, a former Minister of Defense, the ex-Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, the Army's former Inspector General, journalists, academics and a Magistrate from the International War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague. They came to Washington at the request of the bipartisan National Security Caucus with an important and powerful message for all of us. I hope all of my colleagues will pay careful attention to the alarming statistics they provided: Eighty percent of the world supply of cocaine is produced or transits through Colombia, and over 75 percent of the heroin seized on the U.S. East Coast is from that nation. Over 20,000 Americans die every year from abusing illegal narcotics. Drug abuse is also the main reason America's prison population has doubled between 1988 and 1998 and our nation has to spend over $35 billion on its correctional system. There has been a 27 percent increase in drug use among 12-17 year olds, and 78 percent of American students report that drugs are bought, sold or used in their high schools. According to the most recent reports issued by the Clinton Administration, there has been an incredible 378 percent annual increase in the use of pure Colombian heroin. Heroin use has become an epidemic in almost every town, big or small, in our country. It is cheaper, purer and easier to obtain than ever before. A recent report released by the Colombian Army demonstrates that the FARC rebels have earned more than $5.3 billion over the last eight years through drug trafficking, kidnapping and extortion. Colombia has one of the highest rates of murder and kidnapping in the world. Attacks by rebel forces displaced over 300,000 people last year and 95 percent of all crimes go unpunished. The number of outstanding arrest warrants is over 150,000 and the judiciary has a backlog of over 3.5 million cases. Mr. Speaker, I believe we can win the war on drugs but it will take a real commitment. We cannot just wish it away, and education alone is not going to stop drugs. Furthermore, interdiction alone will not stop the drug lords. Almost every American family has been affected negatively by drugs, including my own, not only from usage but from the sale of drugs. I want to tell you how disappointing, how hurtful it is and how damaging it is to a family. The Narcotics Eradication Task Force from Colombia expressed sincere gratitude for the economic assistance of the United States, but they also demonstrated that we need a real and comprehensive war on drugs. The Task Force members reminded us that many brave Colombian soldiers, policemen, judges and statesmen have lost their lives in the War on Drugs. They reminded our colleagues of heroes such as Enrique Camerino, a Border Patrol agent from just east of my district. He was buried alive after being tortured by Mexican drug loads. The Narcotics Eradication Task Force met with Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and our colleagues Cass Ballenger (R-NC); Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), Joe Crowley (D-NY), Kevin Brady (R-TX), Cliff Stearns (R-FL) and Mark Sanford (R-SC). According to the Task Force, the Colombian cartels processed coca paste flown from Peru and Bolivia for over a decade. It was not until the 1990s that the cartels promoted the planting of coca in the remote and sparsely populated eastern plains and jungles of Colombia, where the guerrillas had strong influence. Initially the guerrillas were content to protect laboratories and ``tax'' the different phases of the production process. They have since moved into direct involvement in the whole production process. They provide a good share of the cocaine produced in Colombia and collect protection money for the rest. The same holds true for the more recent production of heroine. However, as their income from drugs increased the guerrillas` kidnaping activity did not diminish. Around 1,600 people were reported kidnaped in 1997 and over 2000 were abducted in 1998. The true figure is unknown but probably much higher, since families are routinely ordered not to inform the authorities and many heed this warning. Guerrillas are believed to be responsible for 60% of the kidnapping in Colombia and collect more than 200 million dollars annually from these activities. The Colombian guerrillas are thought to be the world`s richest and most powerful criminal organization. But guerrillas combatants do not operate in a vacuum. Although the various legal Marxist parties have had little success at the polls, their unarmed supporters have infiltrated many government organizations. They also have permanent representatives abroad that run, with the collaboration of the extreme left in the United States and Europe, a powerful propaganda and disinformation operation. The visit of the Narcotics Eradication Task Force was made possible by the Colombian non-profit organization, Forum Interamericano. The Task Force also expressed its concern over the excessive concessions made by President Pastrana to the FARC rebels in a well intentioned but badly planned peace initiative. As an inducement to the FARC to sit at a negotiating table Pastrana ordered the withdrawal of the Armed Forces from a coca producing region the size of Switzerland, 16,000 square miles. This has given the terrorist guerrillas a safe sanctuary where the rebel group is recruiting combatants, keeping kidnap victims and has continued to produce drugs.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, but I am old gun now. I would tell my colleagues that if I were to see a cobra, and the cobra was mounted, I might catch it and milk his venom and use that venom for good. And I think in some ways we need to, whether it is the Middle East, whether China or Russia, we have to engage them both economically and in other ways and milk that. But at the same time, I think we do not let that cobra loose where we have children playing in a room, and we do not teach that cobra how to bite. The Navy Fighter Weapons School, which is known as the Top Gun, and the Air Force has the 414th, which is their fighter weapons school, and the adversary squadrons, every single day of my life in the service I flew Russian and Chinese tactics against our fighters so we would know how to fight them. How do we defeat their jammers? How do we defeat their tactics. For example, they have high-low pairs and they have pincer tactics. They will take a pair up, up high, of MiG 23s or MiG 25s or even MiG 29s, and they will run sections of pairs, high-low pairs so that we cannot pick out the low pair or the high pair on one radar, and they want the enemy to go after the high pair. Then they will come around in a double pince or a single pince. If the high section sees that the enemy is going after them, they will turn and run and the pince will come in and shoot the enemy down. The White House allowed the Chinese and the Russians into the 414th, into Navy Fighter Weapons School in Fallon, and let them watch how we defeat their tactics and their jammers. That is wrong. That is like teaching the cobra how to bite. And I guarantee my colleagues, Russia and China will bite us if they have the opportunity. And the reason I am supporting this amendment is I do not want to give that cobra the chance to bite the kids that are up there in the air or on the ground with other things. I think that is wrong. When I was a lieutenant in the United States Navy, I was just as outspoken then as I am now. And when our government, with a Republican President, let the Shah of Iran have F-14s, I pounded my fist on the table and said I do not want to have to look down the barrel of those F-14s some day, because the Shah may not be here. And I knew the history of Iran and that someday we were going to look down those barrels. And we even trained some of their fighter pilots. And guess what? I felt like Billy Mitchell. We must not give our enemies our deep secrets or let them play in the baby crib. And that is what we are doing, and that is what the gentleman from Texas, in his amendment, is trying to stop. How more common sense can we get? We cannot give the enemy the tactics that he can kill us with. And that is the reason I support the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address my good friend the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek). I do not know of a sweeter lady in this body than the gentlewoman from Florida. But I say to the gentlewoman, because there is payback; 500 troops and $20 billion a year. Look at Kosovo. We are lucky if we are going to get out with $100 billion. Bosnia cost us $16 billion. When the Progressive Caucus comes up in the Labor-HHS bill and wants to increase money in Medicare and health care and education and not talk Social Security, if we want to do these things, the Progressive Caucus has got to support it and not want to cut defense by 50 percent of what it is now. There is a payback.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I respect immensely my friend that spoke about abortion, but that is not really what this whole issue is about. Most of the women in the military overseas are very, very young. Even someone that voluntarily wants an abortion, I can imagine there is quite an emotional scar, whether you choose to or not. The military does not want these young women having an abortion overseas. They do not want someone in a military unit overseas that is going to go through this emotional trouble that has to work with a team. There is not a single woman that has ever been forced in the military to have that abortion overseas. The military will bring that woman back, and, under Roe v. Wade, they are not denied, not one single item, and they are protected. So they are not abused, they are not discriminated against, because they have the same rights back here in the United States once they get in CONUS. But the military does not want young impressionable women to have to go through an abortion overseas.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Cox- Dicks amendment. It is one thing to spin that administration to administration had problems; it is another thing for the President of the United States to know about it, be briefed in 1996, and do nothing. That is what in my opinion is criminal. Let me give my colleagues a couple of ideas. I encourage all of my colleagues to go and get the classified brief. We had an asset, I cannot tell my colleagues what it is on the floor. We were building a countermeasure for that asset. It would not have worked. We got the asset. It not only saved the billion dollars, now we can build it. Secondly, we have an asset against our fighter pilots. Ninety percent of the time, both in the intercept and in the engagement, our pilots die. We have that asset. It also helps us design what we need into the joint strike fighter, what we do into the F-22. Doing the opposite things gives the Chinese, not only saving billions of dollars for a W-88 warhead and our technology, but it allows them to be more dangerous in the weapons that they could put at the United States. So this Cox-Dicks amendment is very very important. It is a good first step.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the gentleman from Texas again. He said the President is doing the right thing. We do not kill more civilians in Kosovo than the Serbs do and call that a victory. We do not increase the forced removal of Albanians faster than the Serbs did and call that a win. We do not cost us a hundred billion dollars in rebuilding Kosovo and the cost of this war and cut money out of Social Security, Medicare, education, and medical research and call that a win. We do not damage our relationship with Russia and China and call this a win. Yes, I am very, very proud, I say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), of our military. The gentleman knows me by now, and I support them 100 percent. But I want my colleague to take a look at this document and apply it. It says that eighty percent of the people in this country do not trust the President of the United States. Only 69 percent do not trust Milosevic.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. But let me address some of the things my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), said about the bill being pulled last week. First of all, this House had a vote and voted not to let any of the emergency supplemental spending go for the expansion of the war in Kosovo. When the President heard that we had that vote in the House, he threatened to veto the bill if that provision was in there. Many of us feel very, very strongly that emergency spending should not be used to expand the involvement in Kosovo. We are flying 86 percent of all the sorties in Kosovo. And 90 percent of the weapons that are being dropped by NATO are from the United States of America. And when I talked to General Clark, he said, ``Well, Duke, our allies don't have the standoff weapons.'' Then they need to pay for part of this war. With regard to the emergency spending dollars, the Joint Chiefs testified that we need $148 billion more over several years even to bring us up to the levels recommended by the QDR, or the bottom-up review. That is $22 billion a year, and when we add $6 billion more per year for Kosovo, that is $28 billion. And now let us look where we are. The President wants to pull away more dollars in the emergency spending to support Kosovo. Yes, we had a problem with that. We are still spending $25 million a year in Haiti building infrastructure and roads. How about the infrastructure of the United States? We are going to be lucky to get out of this with a bill of $100 billion to destroy then rebuild Kosovo. And I know the side of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) and our side as well, we do not want money to come out of Social Security. But we cannot spend $100 billion in Kosovo and take emergency money and put it in there and not touch Social Security or Medicare or medical research. My friend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) said when we wanted to double medical research that that was a fallacy. Well, we cannot double medical research when we spend $100 billion on Kosovo. The United States and NATO have killed more civilians than Milosevic killed in the year prior to NATO bombing Kosovo; there were 2,012 people killed before the bombing began. And the liberals say, well, Milosevic had a plan to ethically kill. Well, we sure implemented that plan, did we not? We drove out a million Albanians. And when we look at those kids suffering, that's right we had a problem with the bill and wanted to kill it, because the President said he would veto it if we stopped him from expanding Kosovo. I will not let him be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize to save his legacy by getting people killed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on taking all of the 5 minutes, but I rise in strong opposition. I do not have a dog in this hunt. I do not represent farmers; I do not represent ranchers. I have got mostly a city area in my district. But I want to tell my colleagues that San Diego is a series of canyons and areas where a lot of people hike, and up in the hills also. This last year we had two women joggers who were killed by mountain lions. We had requested that the Federal Government come in and help manage. Because they have not been able to hunt lions in a long time, these lions are coming into the parks, into where people picnic in private and public areas. A little child was mauled by a mountain lion, nearly died, lost an arm. Another woman was hiking, and the lion not only killed her, it ate most of her before they found her. California also has this little rodent called, a prairie-dog-type critter, a ground squirrel. We have heard about rabies, but in California this little rodent and the fleas they carry have bubonic plague. Now think of the terror that that word brings in our past history. We need those kinds of eradications, not only on public lands, but on private as well. We cannot just take care of the public lands and then go over and let that menace ride. So I rise in strong opposition to this. I have flown a jet out at Miramar. To tell my colleagues what an animal, a bird, will do to an airplane, this hawk went clear through my wing and broke the main spar of an F-4 Phantom that I was flying. The airplane was hard down. Luckily, I was able to land the airplane, but it totally destroyed the airplane, one hawk in the thing. When we talk about public health, we talk about rabies, we talk about plague, we talk about lethal predators; and for this reason, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment of the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus and District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee, I am deeply concerned about the environment in and around our nation's capital. Two years ago the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus held a monthly informational briefing on fishing in the Washington, D.C. area. Following that briefing I submitted for the record an article written by Charles Verharen, a Professor at Howard University and avid local fisherman, that highlighted threats to the Potomac River fishery. At the request of local fishermen, a study on the impact of sediment discharge on anadromous fish was initiated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin, the District of Columbia Fish and Wildlife, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The report concludes that this sediment discharge is causing a significant adverse impact to anadromous fish during the spawning season. I have attached another article by Charles Verharen that describes the impact of this environmental problem. In addition, I have enclosed the summary of recommendations from the Fish and Wildlife Service report to update my colleagues on the problems facing the Potomac River environment.***HD***JOE FLETCHER'S FISH STORY (By Charles Verharen) Joe Fletcher is tempted to cry over his beloved river. And a recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report claims he has good reason. Joe and his family have rented fishing boats on the Potomac at Fletcher's Boat House for three generations. One of Joe's favorite stories--not about a fisherman but a ferry passenger--shows why he's sad. Joe's story starts in colonial times when the Potomac was one of the greatest fisheries in the world. George Washington owned highly profitable commercial fishing rights on the Potomac near Mount Vernon. The king of all fish in the Potomac was the sturgeon, ranging up to ten feet in length and weighing over four hundred pounds. Potomac caviar was a delicacy prized around the world. In colonial Washington, the only way across the Potomac was by ferry. One time a sturgeon leaped out of the water and landed on a Georgetown passenger sitting in a small ferry's stern. The fish was so huge that it crushed the man's hip and he died from the injury several weeks later. Joe's doubly sad when he tells this story--sad about the passenger and sad that sturgeon leap out of the Potomac no more. But now Joe's got something else to be sad about. He fears that the sturgeon's fate threatens rockfish (striped bass) and shad, abundant at Fletcher's Cove even in times when the Potomac was one of the most polluted rivers in America. Ironically, Joe blames this new threat of extinction on pure water. The Washington Aqueduct drinking water treatment plant discharges the equivalent of up to twenty five dump- truck loads of aluminum and copper sulfates and other waste material into the Potomac above Chain Bridge every day as a by-product of its water purifying process. Joe fears the chemicals are damaging the spawn and fry--as well as fishing. ``Every time the water treatment plant dumps a big load into the river,'' Joe claims, ``the fish just stop biting.'' Joe can't imagine Washingtonians would sit still if they saw twenty five trucks parked on Key Bridge dumping waste into the Potomac. And twenty five trucks a day adds up to over nine thousand trucks a year. ``How many times would nine thousand trucks go around the Beltway?'', Joe wonders. A recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report on the Washington Aqueduct confirms Joe's fears. Prepared by Fish and Wildlife's Chesapeake Bay field office and a panel of area-wide fisheries biologists, the report advocates eliminating all Washington Aqueduct waste discharges into the Potomac, one of fourteen American Heritage Rivers targeted for ``environmental, economic, and social restoration projects.'' Surprisingly, the panel claims shortnose sturgeon have been found in the lower and middle Potomac, and Aqueduct waste discharge points are potential spawning habitats for sturgeon. The panel's report asks the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate the Aqueduct's potential threat to a sturgeon comeback. The EPA gives the Washington Aqueduct a permit to discharge its waste. Long past its expiration date, the permit has been ``administratively extended.'' The EPA won't renew the permit in its present form because the Army Corps of Engineers which operates the Washington Aqueduct isn't doing everything it can to clean up its waste. The Corps could truck the waste to disposal sites but a citizens group that calls itself ``CRUDD'' (Committee for Responsible Urban Disposal at Dalecarlia, the old name for the Aqueduct) doesn't want the trucks threatening their children's safety and their Palisade neighborhood's clean air. The waste could be pumped to Washington's Blue Plains waste water treatment plant through existing sewer lines, but the Washington Aqueduct would have to pay for using the lines and enlarging Blue Plains treatment capacity. The local governments that buy clean water from the Aqueduct don't feel that Washington area residents want to pay extra taxes to stop the Potomac pollution. Those same customers want to save money by paying chicken farmers and other polluters upstream to stop their discharge. The EPA allows polluters to buy and sell pollution rights from one another. But that kind of exchange wouldn't save the fish. Joe Fletcher thinks that if Washingtonians knew how dirty their clean drinking water makes the Potomac, they might want to pay a little extra so the shad and the rockfish have a chance to make a comeback. Joe even dreams about the day he might see a sturgeon breaking the water close to his boat-- but not too close!

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the de Jong family of San Diego County, California. Over the last few years, I have had the privilege of working with Arie de Jong and other members of a family that epitomizes the American success story. The de Jong's are close friends to America, which has given them the opportunity to lead and succeed. On May 26, the de Jong family celebrated 50 years of American heritage with a reunion in Poway, California. Since 1948, when Tom de Jong moved to America, the de Jong family has been an important piece of San Diego's community. I have attached an article from the online edition of the San Diego Union Tribune that explains more family history and this recent celebration. In addition, I want to extend my personal congratulations on their first 50 years in American history, and wish them health and happiness for the next 50 years. Far-flung Family Meets, Marks 50 Years in U.S. (By John Berhman) POWAY--The de Jong family is a coming-to-America success story. Fifty years ago, from their native Holland, the family--a mother, father and 10 children--traveled across the United States to a relative's sparse cattle ranch here. From that beginning, they grew into one of the most successful and well-known families in North County. The family's Hollandia Dairy in San Marcos in an institution. Family members have spread out all over California and the country, many of them working in the dairy business. Yesterday, many of them returned to their American roots, celebrating 50 years of being in this country with a family reunion where it all started. They met at Old Wyoming Picnic Grounds, the family homestead at the end of Old Pomerado Road in south Poway. They gathered around shady oak trees and three stone buildings that served as the family's first homes in this country to reminisce and give thanks. It is quite an extended family now. From 10 brothers and sisters have come 54 children and nearly 100 grandchildren, most of whom are expected during the reunion. About five family members, mostly cousins, are attending from Holland. Other family members have come from Oregon, Michigan, New Mexico and various parts of California. ``This is wonderful. This is what family and friends are all about. And, this great country. We feel so privileged to be a part of this country,'' Tom de Jong, at 73 the oldest of the 10 brothers and sisters, said yesterday at the kickoff of the event. Tom was the first of the family to come to America. That was in 1948, when he took a job working on his uncle Sam Bruinsma's ranch in what is now Poway. Bruinsma was married to Tom's father's twin sister, Tante Jet. Impressed with America and the opportunities it offered, Tom wrote to his parents, insisting they join him. The rest of the family did indeed follow the oldest son, arriving in New York on May 26, 1949. This week's reunion-- expected to draw more than 200 de Jongs and close friends-- marks the 50th anniversary of that event. ``I will never forget that day,'' Arie de Jong, 60, perhaps the best known of the clan, said yesterday. ``The Statue of Liberty and that New York skyline--and coming to America. ``America has been good to us.'' Arie, after helping his family start the Hollandia Dairy, became a millionaire in the trash-hauling business. Among the possessions he has acquired are the three stone structures in Poway that his family first lived in. The reunion, the first of its kind for the family, was Arie's idea. ``It's really for the kids and the grandkids through,'' he said. ``It's to show them where their family started in this country.'' Arie has arranged a busy schedule that included a barbecue picnic last night at the old family homestead, a trip to Catalina today and tomorrow, another barbecue and picnic Saturday at nearby Big Stone Lodge, and church on Sunday followed by final farewells.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, again it is about spending. And I would say, look at www.dsausa.Org. That is the Democrat Socialists of America. And under that are 58 of the members in this body.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They want increased spending. They want increased government control. They want increased taxes. They want to cut defense by 50 percent. And every single one of those hurts farmers. So this is about spending. And they in the minority want to increase spending. They want to increase taxes. They want to increase government control. All of those things hurt farmers. So this bill and this debate is good, because it is not about agriculture. It is about a principle of spending and taxes and whether Congress is putting us in the hole for future generations or not. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I thought one of the most interesting talks was given by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent). This is not about agriculture today, as far as what the gentleman is doing. It is about spending and it is about the future and, in the long run, farmers are going to be better. I grew up in a little town called Shelbina, Missouri, which had a population of 2,113 folk, and I want to tell my colleagues that most of my friends were farmers, and most of them are having to have second and third jobs just to hang on to their farms. And I understand that. But when I look at this body and the argument, not just with our party, but with the other party as well, on total spending for the future, it is important. Most of us could live within the budget caps, even national security. We could live under the budget caps set with national security if we did not have the Somalia extension, which cost billions; Haiti cost billions; Bosnia has cost $16 billion so far, and that is not even next year; Kosovo has already cost $15 billion; going to Iraq four times cost billions of dollars. And all of this money, every penny of this, we could put in farms, we could put in Social Security, and we could do all the other things we want to. But this White House has got us in folly all over this planet, costing billions of dollars. So there is spending there. I also look at the different things that we fight, and not just agriculture. Take a look at the balanced budget process. If I had my way I would do away with the budget process, and I think the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) would too, and I would just go with an appropriations bill. I would get rid of the authorization, and I would reduce the entire size of government so that we do not have to tax farmers so much, so that neither a State nor local nor Federal tax means more than 25 percent. That would help farmers. Look at the Endangered Species Act. Look at how that hurts farmers. Increased taxes hurt farmers. All of these things that we talk about on this floor on almost all the bills, whether it is defense or environment or other things, affect farmers negatively. The supplemental we passed, we passed a pretty good bill out of the House. It was clean but it went to the other body and it was a disaster coming back here. And that took money out from the things that we are trying to do in medical research and all the other things.

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

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