Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not demand the words be taken down, but I would ask the gentleman not to characterize.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, when a member of my own party tried to stop COLAs for our military, the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Fowler) was the first one to jump and say, ``Duke, I'll support you. Let's get a coalition together, and let's stop it.'' She cares deeply about our military and our troops. I have an article right here that they started fighting last night again in Kosovo. They are burning houses, they are burning bridges. I rise in support of the gentlewoman's resolution. Do my colleagues know who rejected it? Not the Serbs. Holbrooke, Mr. Holbrooke, had to cancel the peace talks last night. He canceled them until the 23rd because the Albanians rejected it. They will stop nothing short of having a separate Kosovo. They do not want just Kosovo. They want Montenegro, and they want parts of Greece. I said on the floor before, ``Look at Bin Laden, look at the terrorist leaders speaking openly and how they then filtrated around Itzebegovic in Bosnia, 12,000 mujahedin in Hamas. That is a threat to Europe, it is a threat to Greece, and it is a threat to this country. Bin Laden, active in Albania with the KLA; they have genocided Montenegrins, Serbs, gypsies and Jews recently, and they continue to do that. They have been fighting for 500 years. As my colleagues know, the gentleman talked about some of us fight for defense dollars. Absolutely right. Look at the emergency state that our national security is in right now. The President has not asked for one dime that our defense are going down, and helping building the roads and working our DOD and other agencies. In Honduras, millions of dollars, and I support them doing that. I mean they have made a marvelous expansion down there in helping people in poverty. But when we look at Haiti, as my colleagues know, we are still spending $25 million a year there building schools and bridges. That comes out of the defense dollar. In Somalia, billions of dollars. And look what four times going to Iraq, the billions of dollars. In the Sudan, a billion dollars did not do very much. Knocked out a pharmaceutical plant. But all of these things come out of that defense dollar, and what has that set us back to? Our kids, our men and women in the military, we are keeping only 23 percent of them because our deployments exceed by 300 percent the deployments during the height of Vietnam, and yet we are going to ask only 4000 of them. Do my colleagues know the families and what they are going through right now? We are keeping only 30 percent of our pilots. The number one issue is family separation. We are driving our military into the ground in a very balanced budget amount that we allow, and then we take 16, not 8 billion, 16 billion, if we take the cost of bringing on the reserves and we take the other costs associated with going, 16 billion just for Bosnia, and that does not include next year. That all comes out of defense, and then again we are going to have to go in here. And they were talking about giving a billion dollars to Russia to stop some nuclear weapons. Well, let Europe. My colleagues say Europe had not done it. Leadership would force Europe to pay their fair share and do what we are trying to do. Russia has offered to put more troops in there. KLA did not want that. Well, the hell with the KLA. Let the Europeans, France, run by a Socialist-Communist group when they took over the conservatives' coalition, and they refused to do their part, let them go in and do it, and let us not send our men and women in harm's way. My colleague talked about not understanding the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson). I do not expect my colleague would. He was a POW for 6\1/2\ years, and he was a war hero. He was tortured, he was shot down in Vietnam, and he knows what it is to put our kids in harm's way instead of sitting here in a soft, cushy chair saying, ``Let's send them.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, is it improper, either in the full House or in the body, to characterize the reasons for why different people vote for things; to characterize and impugn?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I will not condemn any one of the Members in here for the way that they vote on this. They do it so because they have different knowledge, they have different beliefs. But I do resent the minority leader impugning the motives of many of us. I make my statements on some very deep, rich beliefs and experience from training, of planning innovations in the defense of countries all over this world on military staff. And I hated politicians that sat in soft, cushy chairs and put our men and women in harm's way so easily, they who had never done that themselves. Kosovo is not an independent state, it is part of Greater Serbia. When we go into the full committee, I want to put in here some 1,500 shrines and sanctuaries that the Serbs have in Kosovo, the birthplace of the orthodox Catholic religion. This is their homeland. This is a map of Albania. The Albanians do not want just Kosovo, they want part of Greece, they want Montenegro, and they want Kosovo. This is a map of the massacred Serbs, Jews, gypsies that the KLA has murdered in recent times, not World War II. The KLA is supported by the mujahedin, Hamas, and even bin Laden. Get George Tenet's brief, classified brief. That is about as far as I can go. This is a list of where the Serbs established Kosovo and were ethnically cleansed and murdered and forced to flee across the Danube, their homeland, and Albanians filled the void. Yet, they are defending their own homeland right now and being murdered. Now, Milosevic is an impediment. He needs to be removed, in my opinion, much worse than that. So is Tudjman. But then we look at Itzebegovic, who has 12,000 mujahedin and Hamas surrounding him. The prime minister under him trained with Kadafi. If we want to talk about a foreign policy and we say we are saving lives, it is a powder keg when we move out of there. Let us not send our men and women to Kosovo.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the time to have this discussion, exactly the time. It may not be the time for negotiators and bean counters but it is for our troops. I remember Somalia, where the President did not come to Congress when he changed going after Aideed, and we lost 22 rangers because they failed to give armor which the military wanted; or Haiti, that we are today spending $25 million a year in building schools and roads out of the defense budget. Kosovo is like any of the United States is to Greater Serbia. It is not a separate entity. It is the birthplace of the Orthodox Catholic religion. It is their home. It was occupied by 100 percent Serbs, and the Turks and the Nazis eliminated and desecrated and ethnically cleansed Jews, Gypsies and Serbs and now the population is Albanian. Albania does not want just Kosovo. They want part of Greece. They want Montenegro. This is only a beginning. Listen to George Tenet's brief. Bin Laden is working with the KLA, the terrorists, that is going to hit the United States. If we do not want to stop this, then do not talk about it, but if we go in there, we are going to lose a great number of people. For what? They have been fighting for 400 years. This debate is well timed. Maybe not for my colleagues on the other side but for the kids that have to put those backpacks on and carry rifles. It is the time to stop this. Take a look at the number of military deployments. It was 300 percent during the height of Vietnam. We are killing our military as it is, and we have one-half the force to do it. That is why they are bailing out. This is exactly the time, Mr. Speaker, and I reject the other side.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, men like Gray Davis, our new governor, and Alan Bersin in San Diego, are trying to do the right things and get through the bureaucracy and get more flexibility into the school system. We need to support them. I heard the word ``bipartisan.'' The President will sign this bill as it is, and the saying is, ``if it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' Because by ``fixing it,'' in the way some on the other side want, we are going to increase the Federal regulations in the name of ``accountability.'' We do not want to do that. We want to help these kids. Let us go forward and let us do a good job.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the committee.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues from the other side. I came to this debate fully expecting that there would be a donnybrook and battle. I think it has been a very healthy debate, showing differences on the issues itself. It did not get personal. There was very little partisanship that went through. I think that is very, very good. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee). Of anybody I have worked with in Congress, both when he was my chairman on the committee and then when I was his chairman on the committee, there is no other one on the other side of the aisle that I have ever worked better with on education issues.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee. Mr. Chairman, this bill is about flexibility. We have had 40 years of bureaucratic control and union control of education. We are number 20, 20th in the world, for math and science. We are a Nation with the resources, more Ph.D.s, more technology, better technology than any other country in the world, but yet we are falling behind. We want to give the States and the local school districts the flexibility, not to tie them down. When we talk about accountability, in the crux of this whole debate, the gentlewoman a minute ago said, we need to control how the dollars are spent. That is the whole issue. And their statement is, that they do not trust the States to account for the students that my colleague just talked about a minute ago. We do trust the States. We do trust the school districts. Because if anyone knows about an African-American student or a Hispanic student or young women or young men, it is the local teachers, the administrators, the community that knows, not a bureaucrat sitting here in Washington, D.C. And this is the heart of the debate: when we talk about accountability, look at why most of us fought against Goals 2000 when many on that side of the aisle tried to put government regulations in a well-meaning bill that was crafted before. There were 24 ``wills'' in Goals 2000. It means to comply under legal language, and a speical board in each school district had to look at the local Goals 2000 plan. It had to go to the superintendent. The superintendent had to send it back to the board. The board then sent it to Sacramento where there was a big bureaucracy. That big bureaucracy had to send that bill to Washington D.C. to the Department of Education. The bureaucracy there had the paperwork going back and forth, and that costs a lot of money and ties people up. And that means more wasteful government control in the name of ``accountability.'' By contrast, we on this side of the aisle, just said, let us send the money to the States. Let them do a Goals 2000, without all of that paperwork, without all of that government control. Big difference, I say to my colleagues. Look at charter schools. The NEA fought tooth and nail against charter schools, which are an attempt to take off many of the burdensome regulations. Charter schools ahve been a big success. Look in Washington, D.C. We fully funded charter schools, we fully funded the public education system. We got another superintendent that wanted to make change, Arlene Ackerman. And guess what? We had 20,000 students beg to come to summer school in one of the worst school districts in the United States, because they wanted to learn, not because they had to, because we are trying to improve flexibility. But let us look at other controls. We on this side of the aisle wanted to give flexibility to the States and in this case, Washington, D.C., under the President's goal to have more school construction. The gentleman and I talked about this the other night. If we want to give the State flexibility, let them waive Davis-Bacon, which costs 30 to 35 percent more for school construction. Let the unions compete with private contractors, and let the schools save the 30 percent for other construction or to upgrade their schools. But no, there are some here that want the union control, the government control. That's wrong. That is why we are opposed to this amendment. That is why we are opposed to all of these amendments. We want the flexibility to go forward with it. I have 3 school board members that came to me along with 3 superintendents. They went to school for 8 days to see if they are in compliance just with the Federal regulations, not even the State regulations. They are going to get audited. Five phone books of regulations. They had to hire a lawyer. It costs $130,000 to see if they are in compliance. That is what we are trying to get rid of, I say to my colleagues. We want the schools to be able to have the flexibility to do it better. Look at Alan Bersin, a Clinton appointee, now Superintendent of San Diego City Schools. I am going to help Alan Bersin because he is sitting in there trying to clean up San Diego city schools. Look at Gray Davis, the new governor of California. He is trying to identify the schools that are not working within California. He has a big job, but I am going to do everything I can to help Gray Davis. But Federal regulations and the unions are trying to stop him. He wants to support the principals, make them the captain of their ship, so that they can fire or get rid of people that they do not think are performing. But do my colleagues know who is stopping that? Federal regulations and bureaucracy. Alan Bersin said, his number one problem is special education because of the regulations that are killing the schools. Trial lawyers are ripping off the money, just like they did in the Superfund, and he cannot change it. He is having a difficult time, and we need to help him.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I just a left a meeting with Secretary Cohen, Chief of Naval Operations, and General Shelton. I know people are talking about Social Security, they are talking about education, they are talking about Medicare, but I want to read something to my colleagues, and I want to quote. Quite often our military leaders have been remiss in stating what the actual needs are so that they do not get in trouble, and I would like to read this to my colleagues. This was taken from a hearing in Las Vegas, Nevada. It said, ``Displaying unusual candor, the commanders of combat training centers for the Army, the Air Force, the Marines, the Navy and Coast Guard described poor training conditions, outdated equipment held together `by junkyard parts', and an underpaid, overworked cadre of service workers who cannot wait to get out and find a better job.'' What is happening is our overseas deployments are 300 percent above what they were at the height of Vietnam. We are driving our military into the ground but not using the reinvestment into the parts, the manpower, or even the creature comforts for our military folks. This goes on to say, ``We have a great military filled with terrific soldiers who are suffering from an inability to train at every level with battle focus and frequency necessary to develop and sustain its full combat potential.'' Mr. Speaker, we are maintaining only 23 percent of our enlisted. If my colleagues go out in any military division today and ask our sailors or our troops of any branch how many of them have been there within the last 8 years, every hand will go up; about 90 percent of them. They have not seen anything else but a de-escalation of military spending and/or support, which is denied. We only have, today, 14 of 23 up jets at Navy Fighter Weapons School, known as Top Gun. They do not have engines. There are 137 parts missing. The 414th for the Air Force, the same problem. They do not have engines or parts to fly their aircraft back here in CONUS. We had 4 of 45 up jets at Oceania. What does that all equate to? Why they are down is because we are taking the parts to support Bosnia, to support our off-loads and our carriers and our air force out of Italy, to put those parts in those parts of the world. We are killing our training back home. When we only have 23 percent of our enlisted and 30 percent of our pilots in all services, that means our experience is gone. Captain O'Grady, who was shot down, was not trained in air combat maneuvering. That lack of training. When you only have four up jets in a training squadron back here in the United States, that means all your new pilots are getting limited training so when they go over, whether it is just handling an emergency or handling a combat situation, they are not trained for it. We lost about 50 airplanes this year, Mr. Speaker. We are going to lose a great number of aircraft and pilots over the next 5 years, even if we invest in those spare parts and so on today. Now, the service chief will tell you, we have just put money into the spare parts and it takes delay. But that money they took and put into spare parts came out of other military programs. The chiefs have told us we need $150 billion. That is $22 billion a year. The President's new money is $4 billion. Last year when they say they needed 150, the President said, ``Well, I'll give you a $1 billion offset,'' which means it has to come out of other military programs, which is a zero gain, zero net for the military. We are in bad shape, we are losing our troops, the economy is high, but the number-one reason why our troops are getting out, yes, pay raise is important. But the number-one reason is because they are away from their families. They are going overseas, they are deploying, they are coming back, then they have to deploy here and they do not have the equipment, the spare parts that they use or take a part off of your Chevy and put it on another Chevy. That part is not going to last you very long and we are going to lose those numbers of pilots. It is said that we have more tasks for armed services than we do people. Now, we are asking our people in all services to do this 300 percent increase of deployments. But we have one-half the force to do it with. That means that the ones that are left have to go and do twice the work than we had to do it before. We cannot sustain that kind of downsizing and leave our troops unprepared. If we look at Haiti, at Somalia and Aideed, Aristide is still there, it is still a disaster and we have spent billions of dollars. The already low budget that we have, all of those excursions come out of that low budget which even drives us further.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. It is nice to let an appropriator come over and speak. When I was subcommittee chairman, when the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) was my boss, we worked through this and actually went to the White House and had it signed. It is not just a funding problem. Alan Bersin, who was a Clinton appointee at one time, is now the superintendent of San Diego city schools. I met with Alan Bersin. I think he is trying to do a magnificent job but his number one problem is special education and he is trying to sort it out. There is a lady named Carolyn Nunes, the director of all special education in San Diego County. She happens to be my sister-in-law, but she said that teachers daily are being brutalized by trial lawyers. They are teachers. They do not go to court. They do not handle that. Especially when the Department of Education refuses to put out the guidelines, they do not know how to operate, what to do and they are getting brutalized every day, and we are losing those good teachers, those special education teachers, out of the system. So it is not just funding. It is the trial lawyers. It is the unions, and we need the attack dogs called off so we can get support for our teachers in a normal setting for the special education teachers and the families. The trial lawyers are setting up these cottage organizations and preying on the schools. It is a united front, both Republican and Democrat. If we want to help the children in all areas, then we need to do something about this.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank my colleagues. God bless America.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will, my friend. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) took Jerry Solomon's place in New York and he swore that he would carry on the fight of the great Jerry Solomon, who just retired. And there was no one, not the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), not myself or the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), who can speak with the passion that Jerry Solomon did on this particular bill. As a matter of fact, I am going to title it the Jerry Solomon Flag Protection Act when we submit this thing. We have 230 cosponsors, Mr. Speaker, and I think that is a great tribute to this body, both bipartisan. The great gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) is cosponsor on the other side of the aisle and well respected by both parties and will go forward with the message as well on his side. But with 230 cosponsors in the last Congress, we had 312 votes, well over the requirement of two-thirds to pass this. What I would like to do, Mr. Speaker, is speak of just a few ideas for 5 minutes, maybe 10, and then I will turn over the mike to my colleagues and let them have as much time as they want. We can go back and on the different issues that have come up in previous bills all the way from the sovereignty issue, to first amendment rights on the issue, and the actual flag amendment itself. What I would like to start off the debate with, Mr. Speaker, is to start off that some would say that this violates the first amendment or that the flag is merely a piece of cloth and why should there be a penalty for the desecration of the flag? Before a Supreme Court case called Texas vs. Johnson, 48 states held that it was a crime to desecrate the flag. It was a narrow Supreme Court decision by five to four that changed 200 years of policy. We think that is wrong. Eighty percent of the American people feel that that is wrong, Mr. Speaker. Let me speak to those that would say that the flag is merely a piece of cloth. I have a friend that was a prisoner of war for nearly 6\1/2\ years in Vietnam and his treatment was not exactly in the best stead. On occasion, they would be allowed to gather together. Now, this gentleman, a POW 6\1/2\ years, it took him nearly 4 years to gather bits of thread and knit an American flag on the inside of his shirt. And when they would have a meeting, he would take his shirt off, turn it inside out, and hang it above them and they would have the meeting under this American flag. Well, that was fine until the Vietnamese guards broke in, Mr. Speaker. They saw the prisoner without his shirt on, they looked on the wall, and saw the American flag. Well, they ripped it to shreds. They took it and stomped it in the floor and they took out this POW and brutally beat him for some 3 hours. When they brought him back into the room, he was unconscious. He had broken bones, internal damage to himself. He was so bad, his colleagues did not think that he would even survive the night, his wounds were so bad. So, they went about and huddled in a corner just to discuss the happenings and they comforted their fellow POW as much as they could on a bale of straw and they went back in the corner. They heard a stirring and they looked out in the center of the floor and there was that broken body POW that had regained consciousness and he had drug himself to the center of the floor and started gathering those bits of thread so that he could knit another American flag. The flag is not just a piece of cloth for all different nationalities that have come to this country and fought under the flag or served or fought for civil rights or fought battles or draped a coffin or even seen the flag fly over national tragedies. It is more than that. Mr. Speaker, the last stanza of the Star Spangled Banner asks a question and I would ask us to think about what that stanza says. I am not going to read it, but ask my colleagues to look it up. It asks a question and I think the answer is yes. That symbol is very, very important. In California we had a proposition, Prop 187. It had its supporters and it had its people that did not support Prop 187. There was a group of protesters up in the northern section of my district and one of the protesters had burned an American flag. They started pouring lighter fluid on another one. One of the protesters who was against Prop 187, which I support, he was out there protesting until the young man saw the protesters burning the American flag. He reached over and he grabbed and he protected that flag and he himself, even though once was with this group of protesters, they turned on him and brutally beat him because he was trying to save the American flag. So for many Americans, the flag has special meaning and it is not just a piece of cloth. If we take a look, I talked to one of my colleagues, the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray). The flag he has in his office draped the coffin of his father. He respects it that much. The father of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), was a veteran who I understand his sister has their flag. And that flag is more, I guarantee, to those individuals than just a piece of cloth. It is a symbol. It is a piece of love. It is a piece of honor. It is a piece of democracy and what it stands for in this country. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to my friends to speak from their heart. This is not a partisan issue. This is something that we deeply believe in, that over 80 percent of the American people support, Mr. Speaker, and we hope to pass this amendment in the House. We passed it in the last Congress, but the Senate did not have time to complete it. We will pass it in the House. This time we will pass it in the Senate. It will go the President and he will sign it. It will go to the States where they have to have two-thirds to ratify it. Mr. Speaker, 49 States have petitioned Congress, 49 State governments have petitioned Congress for us to pass this amendment. So there is overwhelming support across the aisle and in the Republican party as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the great gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), who is a Vietnam War veteran, Army special forces, who not only fought under the flag but nearly gave his life for it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I would like to go through is that there has been some arguments in past debate, and it will be a handful of individuals that feel that their first amendment rights are abridged if we pass this amendment. I am not chastising their feelings or their intent. They may believe that the first amendment is touched. But I would like to go through what some of the Supreme Court Justices have said about the first amendment rights and some other folks as well. First of all, they would say, how can you reconcile the Flag Protection Amendment with the first amendment's guarantee for free speech? It does not limit free speech, Mr. Speaker. The first amendment freedoms are not absolute. This compatibility was consistent with the views of the framers of the Constitution who strongly supported government actions to prohibit flag desecration. As I mentioned, actually 48 States had this amendment before the famous Texas versus Johnson Supreme Court decision, which was a narrow five to four decision, which overruled 200 years of history. Such leading proponents of individual rights, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) talks about Judge Rehnquist, but members such as fighters for justice and liberty and the first amendment, like Judge Earl Warren, Justice Abe Fortas, Justice Hugo Black, each have opinions that the Nation could consistently work with the first amendment and prosecute physical desecration of the flag. As Justice Black, perhaps the leading exponent of the first amendment freedoms to ever sit on the Supreme Court stated, ``It passes my belief that anything in the Federal Constitution bars making deliberate burning of the American flag an offense.'' Former Chief Justice Earl Warren stated, ``I believe that the States and the Federal Government do have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration and disgrace.'' Moreover, Justice Fortas, ``The flag is a special kind of a personality.'' I think each person that views the flag, whether it is singing the National Anthem or The Star Spangled Banner or saying the pledge, people view that differently. As one walks down the mall here in Washington and one looks at it, I have seen literally thousands of people stop and take a look at the flag and the other monuments that we have to this great country. But Justice Fortas, ``The flag is a special kind of personality.'' Its use is traditionally and universally subject to special rules and regulations. The States and the Federal Government have the power to protect the flag from acts of desecration. Mr. Speaker, another very famous individual, Mr. Thomas Jefferson, while serving as George Washington's Secretary of State, instructed American counsels to punish those that violated our flag. James Madison pronounced flag desecration in Philadelphia as objectionable in court and requested penalties for such. Well, then, when the first amendment debate was covered, they said that is fair enough, to Mr. Solomon, but. Always followed by but. Still, there is a constitutional guarantee for expression of conduct. How do you express yourself if you do not do it verbally, or if you cannot express it by burning a flag? Do you not have the right for expressing conduct? The Supreme Court has accepted the premise that certain expressive acts are entitled to first amendment protections based on the principle that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. That was Texas versus Johnson. But they go on to say that not all activity with an expressive component is afforded first amendment protection. For example, someone who opposes wildlife protections cannot go out and shoot a Bald Eagle, because it is protected. It is not only a national symbol but it is wrong. Applying these principles, the Supreme Court upheld a statute prohibiting the destruction of draft cards against the first amendment challenge. The court stated that the prohibition served a legitimate purpose, facilitating draft induction in time of national crisis, that was unrelated to the suppression of the speaker's idea since the law prohibited the conduct regardless of the message sought to be conveyed by the destruction of the draft card. Four Supreme Court Justices, Justice Rehnquist, Justice O'Connor, Justice Stevens and Justice White, dissenting in United States versus Eichman, stated that Congress could prohibit flag desecration consistent with first amendment protections. Their reasons are as follows: The Federal Government had a legitimate interest in protecting the intrinsic value of the American flag, which, in times of national crisis, inspires. It motivates the average citizen to make personal sacrifices in order to achieve social goals of overriding importance. Mr. Speaker, we have all seen films of someone carrying the flag in a battlefield and going down; and his comrade, knowing that he would be killed, would pick up that flag and charge on, because it had significance. We have seen civil rights leaders carry the American flag at the forefront of their issues; their own kind of a battle fighting for justice in this country. So I would say that under the Constitution the Supreme Court has found that this amendment is proper, it is justifiable, and that it will pass both the House, the Senate, and we feel the President will sign it and the States will ratify it and make it illegal. Now, the amendment is not self-enacting, Mr. Speaker. It will have to go through the ratification of States. It will have to have a statute which will define the actions taken with the desecration of a flag. It will be refined. So this is not a self-enacting amendment, and that process will go through each of the States so that they can ratify their own decisions, which most of us support the States' statutes. Would a flag amendment reduce our freedoms under the Bill of Rights? Would this be the first time in our 200-year history that an amendment has limited the rights guaranteed under the first amendment? No, on both accounts. The proposed amendment would not reduce our freedoms under the Bill of Rights. Rather than posing a fundamental threat to our freedom under the Bill of Rights, the proposed amendment would mature constitutional freedoms. The Bill of Rights is a listing of the great freedoms our citizens enjoy today. It is not a license to engage in any type of behavior. The proposed amendment affirms the most basic conditions of our freedom, our bond to one another and our aspirations of national unity. That is what the American flag means to most of us, national unity and what brings us together, especially in a time of need, whether it is in combat or whether in civil strife within the boundaries of these United States. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California, if he has additional comments.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman from California. Does the gentleman from New York have any closing comments?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am joined tonight by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) that replaced Jerry Solomon, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), a colleague of mine from San Diego. Before I go into what we are going to talk about, which is a flag amendment that was first brought up before this Congress by Jerry Solomon from New York, I would make a statement to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) that Republicans will join him gladly in school construction. Last year, in the 105th, we offered a bill for school construction that gave a 30 percent tax incentive for school construction for private companies to build them. The President vetoed that, and he came back with a school construction bill. We would even support that if the gentleman will waive Davis-Bacon, which is the union wage which costs 35 percent more to build those schools. What we propose is to have an amendment to waive Davis-Bacon, let the schools keep the money instead of going to the unions, let the schools keep it and develop teacher training or equipment for the schools and whatever. So, I would say to the gentleman there is room for maneuver. We want school construction, but we want the majority of the money going to the schools, not to a special interest group.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for yielding. Not many people know, I think, the heart of Bob Livingston, but he is somebody that can be ferocious but caring ferocious. I served under a lot of different commanding officers in the Navy, and we had good, bad and others. So you get to judge leadership a lot being in the service. Let me give my colleagues one instance, and Bob will remember this. I had worked four terms trying to get on the Committee on Appropriations, and I felt that I had been cheated out of the Committee on Appropriations, and I did everything I could working with the leadership, even above the Appropriations chairman, Mr. Livingston, to get on Appropriations and Defense Appropriations. Well, it was almost a no-no situation, and yet I proceeded to do just that. And when I finally got on the Committee on Appropriations and Defense, Bob Livingston, to get me on there, had to give up his slot on the Defense Committee on Appropriations. That is what he did. But, in the meantime, he took me back in a little room and put his finger in my chest and treed me for about 10 minutes. But you learn that Bob Livingston did this not in front of other people but he expressed himself man on man, directly to me. That itself shows leadership. It shows caring. It shows compassion. Bob, we are going to miss you. Godspeed. And if I can ever be the wind in your sails, let me know.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the career and record of one of San Diego's finest citizens and my friend, Police Chief Jerry Sanders. On April 15, Chief Sanders will leave the San Diego Police Department to become President and CEO of the United Way of San Diego County. During his tenure, crime rates in San Diego have fallen to 25 year lows. This tremendous achievement has been made possible only through the hard work, dedication to duty and personal sacrifice of the entire San Diego Police Department. His community policing program is recognized as a model for American police forces, and for safer communities around the world. He will take with him a remarkable ability to integrate local community volunteers into the police force structure to help combat crime. And it is this trait which will ensure his success in his new role at the United Way. I submit for the record an article from the January 13, 1999, San Diego Union Tribune which further describes Chief Sanders' outstanding achievements. While Chief Sanders will be sorely missed at our Police Department, all citizens of San Diego should take comfort that he will continue to use his remarkable talents to better our community. I want to thank Chief Sanders for his service to our fine city, and wish the best of success in meeting his new opportunity to continue serving our community through the United Way. [From the San Diego Union Tribune, Jan. 13, 1999] San Diego Police Chief Will Be Stepping Down He'll become leader of United Way here (By Kelly Thornton) It was a nagging voice inside Jerry Sanders, telling him he had lost too much time with his young daughters to 75-hour work weeks and phone calls in the middle of the night. Sanders, San Diego's beloved and nationally renowned police chief for almost six years, announced his retirement yesterday to stunned colleagues during an emotional meeting at police headquarters. The 48-year-old chief, who joined the department 26 years ago and at 42 became the department's youngest top cop, said he will step down April 15 to become president and chief executive officer of United Way of San Diego County. ``It was by far the most difficult decision of my life, bar none,'' said a teary-eyed Sanders at a news conference at United Way headquarters. The ever-affable chief, not usually one for formality, prepared remarks and distributed a videotaped message to his troops to avoid an emotional outburst. ``I got a little choked up and it was hard to read,'' Sanders said. ``I think a lot of people are in shock. There was a stunned silence after I told them.'' Sanders said his decision was not related to health problems, although he has struggled with digestive ailments and gout. ``I look forward to spending time with my wife and daughters,'' Sanders said, looking at photos of Jamie, 12, and Lisa, 15, when they were young. ``I haven't seen a lot in between.'' Sanders' decision was a well-kept secret. He called mayor Susan Golding, City Manager Michael Uberuaga and District Attorney Paul Pfingst early yesterday to inform them. He confided only in his wife and four friends. Everybody else was in the dark. Capt. Adolfo Gonzales, who attended Sanders' morning meeting, said it took a moment for the words to sink in. ``I was stunned. When he asked if there were any questions, you could hear a pin drop in the room. . . . We as captains didn't have a clue.'' Mayor Golding praised Sanders for bringing the community and police officers closer together. ``He's done an unqualifiedly superb job as police chief and I will miss him . . . He is genuinely loved within the community and by members of the police force, and that's rare accomplishment,'' Golding said. Sanders will not be able to collect retirement until he turns 50 on July 14, 2000. At that time, he will be eligible to receive 65 percent of his annual $128,004 salary--less than if he had remained with the department until age 50, said Lawrence Griffom, city retirement director. As head of the United Way, Sanders will receive $165,000 a year. Sanders was recruited by other police departments before he was approached by Untied Way in October. He interviewed for the job in December and was officially offered the position yesterday. The chance to continue working with the community outside of law enforcement was ``an opportunity I couldn't pass up,'' he said. City Manager Uberuaga was already preparing yesterday to select a recruiting firm to conduct a national search for Sanders' replacement, though he and Golding said members of the department are encouraged to apply. The city manager will make a recommendation to the City Council, which must confirm the selection. Among the most likely contenders for the job of overseeing 2,058 sworn officers and more than 1,000 civilians and reserve officers are assistant chiefs George Saldamando and Rulette Armstead, who competed with Sanders for the post in 1993, and David Bejarano, considered by many in the department to be a front-runner. Bejarano coordinated security for the 1996 Republican National Convention, the 1998 Super Bowl and the recent World Series. Whoever is chosen will have big shoes to fill. Under Sanders' tenure, crime rates fell to their lowest levels in 25 years, mirroring a nationwide trend. The ranks of volunteers swelled to unprecedented levels. The entire beat system was restructured so that areas are patrolled as 21 communities, rather than 68 arbitrarily drawn sections. But Sanders' legacy will be his work as a pioneer of community-oriented policing, the philosophy that pairs residents with officers and other city agencies, such as code enforces, to fight crime. Because Sanders implemented this strategy so successfully, the department has received millions of dollars in grants and has become an international model. ``Sanders has a national reputation as one of the most progressive, innovative and compassionate leaders in the country,'' said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, a non-profit Washington think tank. Sanders serves as treasurer and board member. The chief has been popular among officers and community members since taking the helm in 1993, even in the face of a few unpopular decisions. Sanders, a gregarious leader with an easy smile, once sued the department for declining to promote him 13 times. He began his law enforcement career at 22 in 1973, fulfilling his life's dream to follow in his father's footsteps. He was promoted through the ranks and served as SWAT commander during the San Ysidro massacre at McDonald's in 1984, when James Huberty methodically executed 21 people. After his appointment as chief in May 1993, his first speed bump was contending with allegations of institutional racism, but the problem subsided after Sanders met with black leaders. He eventually required all members of the department to attend diversity training. Perhaps his most unpopular decision was forbidding officers to moonlight as security guards. The Police Officers Association took him to court, and the group won. Still, his popularity remained constant. The chief endeared himself by occasionally riding with patrol officers, showing up whenever an officer was wounded, addressing his officers by first name, and even trading a coveted indoor parking spot for an outdoor space so he could interact with the ranks. And Sanders was beloved for reaching out to the community, often attending meetings, serving on boards and even playing Santa Claus for needy children. Sanders often revealed his soft side, appearing tearful when announcing the recent suicides of two officers or the arrests of two others for on-duty burglaries. As news of his impending departure spread through the department and across the nation, regret over the loss of a chief known as one of the country's most avant-garde law enforcers was the prevailing reaction. ``What Tony Gwynn means to the Padres is what Jerry Sanders means to law enforcement,'' said District Attorney Paul Pfingst. ``He is the same professional, day in and day out, and he has a great attitude, day in and day out. And if they're not in the lineup, there's a big hole to fill.'' Even Councilman George Stevens, who sometimes criticized the department for its interaction with African-Americans, raved about Sanders. ``He put the Police Department out with the people and managed to implement programs that banned alcohol in parks and a 10 p.m. curfew without a lot of reaction from our young people of harassment or illegal search complaints. Not one lawsuit. He get the credit for that,'' Stevens said. Sheriff Bill Kolender joined the chorus. ``I believe he is a leader not only within this county and this state, but within the nation when it comes to community involvement, problem-solving and compassion,'' said Kolender, who served as San Diego policy chief for 15 years. Sanders said it will be hard for him to leave law enforcement. But his energy was waning and he wanted to move on before burnout set in. ``It's going to be very weird to go to work without a badge and gun,'' he said. ``I think what I feel is a tremendous sense of sadness to leave something I've been doing since I was 22 years old.''

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion on the surplus, not just how to spend it but how we got here. Different people can take a different view of both, but I would like to point out some actual facts. First of all, in 1993, the White House under President Clinton, they had the House, the Senate and the White House. They gave us in 1993 what the Democrats called an economic stimulus package, which raised taxes to the highest level ever on the American people, and they state that that brought us the surplus. I would claim that that is inaccurate. Because in 1995, when the Republicans took over the House and Senate, we rejected over 90 percent of that economic stimulus package. We are not even operating under that stimulus package. And what did that stimulus package do? It increased the tax on Social Security. It increased the tax on middle-income working families. I do not use the term ``middle-class.'' I do not think there is any such thing as a middle-class citizen. There are middle-income citizens. And for the first time, in 1995 we decreased the amount of tax on Social Security that the 1993 bill did. And when people fill out their tax forms this April, for the first time, they will receive a $400 deduction per child. Next year that will go to $500 per child. They can also receive tax credits. But we repealed the 1993 bill to actually give more dollars back to working Americans instead of the Government itself. Take a look at welfare reform, when the Democrats said they were responsible for the deficit. First of all, the President vetoed the balanced budget. And I think we can all remember he said, well, it will take two years. It will take four years. It will take six. It will take eight. And finally, after the third time, he came around and signed it and gave us the same Medicare program that they put over $100 million in ads demonizing the Republicans for and he signed that. But for 40 years they took money out of the Social Security account and paid for welfare. The President just said in his State of the Union, look, we have less than one half of the welfare rolls that we did before. Now, instead of government having to pay people on welfare and take out of the budget, now the Welfare to Work program, we have people actually working and contributing to the budget and adding to that. That is more money. The billions of dollars that we gave to welfare recipients, the average, Mr. Speaker, was 16 years, the average, on welfare. That is wrong. All of those savings and the quality of life for those families and for those children that were on welfare is better. Are there people that need welfare money? Absolutely. And we do not mind giving our tax dollars to that. But 16 years is too much. But yet many of the progressive caucus would just give more money and more money and more money without managing the program. That is what led a lot to the deficits that we had in the different budgets. If we take a look at the balanced budget, the balanced budget, according to Alan Greenspan, has lowered interest rates between 2 and 8 percent. Look at what that has done to the markets and the increase in the markets, in the economy. Capital gains reductions paid for itself. If we take a look at the other tax breaks that we gave to American people so that they spent the dollars, not the government, the surpluses are due because the Republicans gave money back to working people instead of taking it away.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to extend the moratorium on oil and gas development in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the coast of California. This legislation is similar to H.R. 133 from the 105th Congress. Californians strongly favor continuing this moratorium. The State of California has enacted a permanent ban on all new offshore oil development in state coastal waters. In addition, former Governor Pete Wilson, Governor Gray Davis, and state and local community leaders up and down California's coast have endorsed the continuation of this moratorium. I believe that the environmental sensitivities along the entire California coastline make the region an inappropriate place to drill for oil using current technology. A 1989 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study confirmed that new exploration and drilling on existing leases and on undeveloped leases in the same area would be detrimental to the environment. Cultivation of oil and gas off the coast of California could have a negative impact on California's $27 billion a year tourism and fishing industries. This legislation focuses on the entire state of California, and would prohibit the sale of new offshore leases in the Southern California, Central California, and Northern California planning areas through the year 2009. New exploration and drilling on existing active leases and on undeveloped leases in the same areas would be prohibited until the environmental concerns raised by the 1989 National Academy of Sciences study are addressed, resolved and approved by an independent scientific peer review. This measure ensures that there will be no drilling or exploration along the California coast unless the most knowledgeable scientists inform us that it is absolutely safe to do so. I am proud to be working to protect the beaches, tourism, and the will of the people of California. I ask my colleagues to join me in co- sponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I am reintroducing my legislation to permit qualified current and former law enforcement officers to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction. This measure is called the Community Protection Act, and I have requested that it be assigned the same bill number as in previous Congresses--H.R. 218. The Community Protection Act provides three benefits to our police and to our country. First, it effectively provides thousands more trained cops on the beat--at zero taxpayer cost. Second, it enables current and former law enforcement officers to protect themselves and their families from criminals. When a criminal completes his or her sentence, that criminal can find where their arresting officer lives, where their corrections officer travels, and other information about our brave law enforcement personnel and their families. And, third, it helps keep our communities safer from criminals. This measure is very similar to the H.R. 218 reported by the Judiciary Committee in the 105th Congress, with one exception: this version for the 106th Congress does not address the matter of interstate reciprocity for holders of civilian concealed carry licenses. This measure affects police only. In the interest of providing Members and the public additional background information on the Community Protection Act, I have attached below some excerpts from the Committee report accompanying H.R. 218 from the 105th Congress (H. Rept. 105-819), and my testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, the details of which remain applicable to the legislation I introduce today: The Community Protection Act Selected Excerpts From H. Rept. 105-819

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to encourage my colleagues to continue supporting increased funding levels for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This funding is critical for biomedical research that benefits all Americans. It improves quality of life. San Diego County is a leader in the field of biomedical research. One of our local champions for medical research is Dr. Lawrence Goldstein, an investigator in the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a professor in the Division of Cellular and Molescular Medicine and Department of Pharmacology at the UCSD School of Medicine. I submit an article from the San Diego Union Tribune in which Dr. Goldstein suggests that biomedical research could help save the Medicine Trust Fund from bankruptcy. [From the San Diego Union Tribune, Dec. 11, 1998] Medicare Cure: Biomedical Research? (By Lawrence S. Goldstein) While not obvious, part of the solution to the impending Medicare crisis may be greater federal investment in biomedical research. This surprising conclusion was recently suggested by a series of studies from Dr. Kenneth Manton and colleagues at Duke University. These researchers analyzed the incidence of disability among the elderly between 1982 and 1994 and found that it fell steadily every year. One of the major factors driving these consistent declines in disability appears to be biomedical research, which ultimately leads to improved health care for elderly and other patients. Effectively, this means that biomedical research helps us to do a little bit better every year at keeping the elderly productive, active and healthy and often helping to keep them out of nursing homes. The story, however, gets better since keeping the elderly actively engaged in daily life not only keeps them, their children and grandchildren happier, but also saves our country large amounts of money that would otherwise pay for physical support and nursing homes. Little wonder that the federal government, with the strong bipartisan leadership and support of members of our local congressional delegation--Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Brian Bilbray and Bob Filner--increased biomedical research funding for the National Institutes of Health by 15 percent this past year. There are important long-term implications of these studies for our society and the benefits it may reap from biomedical research. Imagine for a moment that the incidence of disability among the elderly in 1994 had been that of 1982. Manton and colleagues estimate that this would have meant that 400,000 more elderly Americans would have been living in nursing homes in 1994 than actually were. This would cost $17 billion more in 1994 than was actually spent (assuming that typical annual nursing home residence cost in 1994 was $40,000). Compared to the actual 1994 Medical expenditures of 167 billion dollars, this is a significant savings, just by keeping these seniors out of nursing homes. These estimated annual savings on nursing home residence alone are also larger than the National budget for all biomedical research supported through the NIH (15 billion dollars this coming year). Imagine, on the other hand, that we could slightly improve the annual rate of decline in disability. Manton estimates that if we could increase the rate of decline from the current 1.2 percent per year to 1.5 percent per year, this small change could completely change future projections for Medicare expenditures and lead to solvency in 2028 instead of bankruptcy. Although part of the puzzle to reducing health care costs for the elderly and everyone else is by more efficient delivery of medical care, most of our physicians are already working as hard as they can. Indeed, at this point, it is not clear that additional efficiency can be wrung out of the delivery side of the medical system without sacrificing quality. A better and more cost-effective route for reducing health care costs in the long run is biomedical research. Such research is the best way to understand the causes of disease, to ensure that the most appropriate treatments are delivered and to find the best methods of support for the ill. Better understanding of the causes of acute or chronic diseases leads to better prevention, treatment and even cure. Important improvements in lifestyle and diet are also guided by research, which tells us what changes matter the most and what changes are unnecessary or even damaging. Finally, research can tell us what therapies are most valuable in each situation, and it can tell us how to apply them in the best and most cost-effective manner. Combined, improvements in health care coming directly from research can lead to significant declines in disability among the elderly. Last year, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution in favor of doubling the budget of the NIH in the next five years, even in a time when government reduction is widely supported. The House has been entertaining a similar resolution, and most of our local representatives have signed on as co-sponsors. They have done so for good reason. What these members realize is that increased biomedical research will not only help us solve our health problems and save Medicare, but, it is one of the most cost-effective long-term investments to achieve these goals. Let us encourage our representatives in this quest and make biomedical research our No. 1 priority as we enter the next millennium. Our children will thank us even as they enjoy our healthier company in the years to come. Goldstein is an investigator in the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a professor in the Division of Cellular and Molecular Medicine and Department of Pharmacology at the UCSD School of Medicine.