Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell Members one of the best committees we have in Congress and works in a very bipartisan way is the Committee on National Security on authorization and also on the Committee on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on Defense. Republicans and Democrats focus on a general area and they work in the same direction, and that is national security for the United States of America. I would like to make a statement that I would like my colleagues to listen to, and that is that even at a low funding rate, under the balanced budget, defense of this country could survive under the balanced budget figure. Would we be strong? No, but we could survive. Could we do 2 MRCs starting now? I do not believe that is the case. But what the problem is is that the President has us operating at 300 percent above what it was in Vietnam, if we take an already low defense budget and then we pile on top of that $40 billion because the White House has us deployed all over the world. Some of those places I supported, like Iraq, that the President tried to fight. But we have to pay for those things. That mostly comes out of our operation and maintenance funds. We find ships that are not repaired, we find sailors that are not going. Mr. Speaker, we are going to lose, and I want my colleagues to listen to this on both sides, between now and over the next 5 years, even if we invest, we are going to lose a great number of aircraft and pilots in our services. Operation Tempo being 300 percent above, the number one issue for sailors and pilots getting out is family separation. Our sailors are getting worked to death. They are away from their families. They are hurting so bad that we are only maintaining 24 percent. When we say we need to recruit, we need to keep the experienced people that are in the service and not kill them through working them 20 hours a day every day and being away from their families. Mr. Speaker, 24 percent, which means our experience level is going. We are only maintaining 33 percent of our pilots. The gentleman talks about, well, the Pentagon did not ask for it. In an already low budget, that is one of the things that is kind of smoke and mirrors. The Pentagon does not ask for it. If we ask the Pentagon what they really need and they will tell us they need these things. I talk to them almost every single day and I know most of them by their first names. Let me tell my colleagues about some pork in my district if we want to call it pork. Captain O'Grady was shot down by a SAM over in Bosnia. When we were in Vietnam he shot a Shrike at a missile site and then they went to standard arm. Those weapons only have a 10 percent, we call it PK, kill probability to take out that weapon. In my district we have a 7-inch tube that uses GPS that will take out that site 95 percent of the time. Now, some call that pork; I call it survivability of our men and women in our services, and that should be a priority. The training. Oceana just announced that they normally have 45 F-14s to train their pilots, and the gentleman talked about training. They only had 4. So the capability to train the brand-new pilots coming into the Navy, and then they go overseas with a lack of training, that is all a degradation. We could do it with the balanced budget figures, but we cannot continue to pay for this White House extravagant overseas deployment. Bosnia. Bosnia, $12 billion that comes out of the defense budget. I would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, there are national security needs. We need to provide for those, and we are deficient. Just listen to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yes, they have to speak the words of the President, such as morale is good. We are near disaster, but when we talk to them, we are in a hollow force. GAO says we are $150 billion short.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, in a way, I am going to talk about health care, but I am going to talk about personal health care. The reason is that I am a prostate cancer survivor. Three weeks ago I had prostate cancer and it was removed out of my body. I would like to go through the process and describe how many men and women, both with breast cancer and prostate cancer, can have a good diagnosis. That diagnosis is based on early detection. Many HMOs do not offer a PSA, which is an indicator for an antigen produced by prostate cancer. TRICARE for veterans does not necessarily offer a PSA. Let me tell you why that is important. First of all, about a month ago Dr. Eisold here in the Capitol, who is the attending physician, gave me my annual physical. I have had an annual physical for the last 30 years. Every year for 20 years in the military they demanded it as a pilot, and then, after that, I know the importance of an annual physical. This time they wanted to do a prostate check. I am over 50 years of age, and it should be checked every year. Well, they did the regular prostate check, and they found nothing. There was no cancer, there were no lumps, there were no lesions, and there was no metastasized area. Then the doctor looked at a blood test, which was painless, and in that blood test, a PSA, which, again, is a check for an antibody that prostate cancer produces, and I had a slight elevation in the level; not real high, but just a slight elevation. Now, normally you would do the physical check and that would be it. You would think you were cancer-free. So the doctor ordered a sonogram, which takes a look at the internal aspects of the prostate itself, and in that they found no tumors as well, no cancer. So then they did an MRI through the whole pelvic region and found no tumors, no cancer. Another reason I am alive today is that the doctor, besides having a good health care system, besides having a doctor that was thorough, that not only just gave you a blood test, but he read the results and was insistent upon going through and analyzing all the different aspects of the diagnosis, said ``Duke, we want to perform a prostate biopsy.'' Now, I would rather fly over Hanoi again than get a shot, so you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, the dismay the night before. I imagined a needle this long that they were going to take and stick in my prostate and take out these core cells. When I got out to Bethesda, the doctor and the clinician prepared me, and they said, ``Duke, this is not going to be real painful.'' And I said, ``Yeah, right.'' It is like sitting in a dentist's office, and you are just waiting for that drill to hit a nerve. What it is is they take six core cells each time out of your prostate, and there is a little needle with a mechanism that fires and takes out a core cell. The first one he said it is going to sound like a cap gun goes off. So you are sitting there waiting for this immense pain to happen, and you hear the snap and you flinch, but there was no pain, not even a prick. At that point you are sitting there waiting; okay, I have got 5 to go, I know the next one is going to hurt. Well, they did each and every one of those core samples, and there was no pain. The point I want to make is that for the men, Mr. Speaker, if you are asked to get a biopsy and you think it is going to be painful, and I almost myself said ``Hey, you have given me a regular check for prostate, you have given me a sonogram, you have given me an MRI, I don't want to go get a biopsy,'' because of the fear. Thank God that the doctor insisted, and I went and got it, because in two of the core cells of the six in the right lobe they found cancer cells. There is a Gleason number, and what Gleason is, it is a number between two and ten, but a Gleason rate of two to ten gives the amount or the characteristic or the aggressiveness of the cancer. A Gleason ten is the highest. For example, a Gleason of eight to ten, I have read, and you become an automatic expert on this and you read as much as you can, you have about five years until the cancer metastasizes, which means it spreads into the bladder area or into other areas, into the lymph nodes and so on. Originally the doctor told me, Duke, you can probably go to eight to ten years, because my Gleason rate was so low, and not have a problem, or at least have the symptoms, because the symptom is when you actually get a tumor and the tumor presses on the urethrae in the GI tract, and it presses and you have urinary problems. By that time, the tumor has spread and there is a big problem. By that time, it can metastasize, go to other areas, and the prognosis is not good. But the doctor, because of the low Gleason rate, because they only found cells, they found no tumors whatsoever, said, ``Duke, I am going to go through the cycle with you and I am going to give every option there is.'' Next comes, I think, Mr. Speaker, probably the most important phase of cancer. My family flew back here and were very supportive. We made the decisions together. I told my wife, I said, ``Honey, it was like the time when I was shot down in Vietnam just south of Hanoi, and coming down in a parachute thinking I was going to be a prisoner or die, hanging in a parachute, the thought, it is always the other guy that gets shot down; it is not you. It does not happen to Duke Cunningham.'' But it did. And when a doctor looks you in the face and says, ``Duke, I have got bad news; you've got cancer,'' the first reaction I had was no, it is impossible. That does not happen to Duke Cunningham. It is about all those other people that you read about that have cancer, or have diabetes, or have that, but it cannot happen to me. The doctor looked and said ``Duke, you do have cancer. The good news is we think we have it early and that the prognosis should be very good.'' He went through the different steps. Radiation is one of those. With radiation they actually can focus the radiation almost pinpoint now because of the increased techniques that they have, but, still, the radiation treatment that you can have can cause side effects just as bad as if you have a radical prostatectomy, which is taking out the prostate through surgery. With that, one is incontinence, in which you cannot control your urinary tract, and the second is impotence. And with the radiation they said there was a high percentage, and I say high, about 15 to 20 percent, that the cancer would come back. By having the cancer removed, especially at an early age, they said ``We can go in, and instead of making an incision across the stomach, we can do one called,'' I can't remember the name of it right now, I will think of it in a minute. But it is down in the lower area instead of across the stomach. ``By that way, we can go in and remove the prostate. We will not have to cut a bunch of nerves, we won't have to cut blood vessels, and most of your functions, all of your functions, can be normal after this, if we do it early and we do it right.'' So rather than sit with myself and make a decision that there is a 20 percent chance that the cancer may return, my election and my family's election was we did not want me to sit there for the next eight to ten years and think maybe I have a time bomb inside of me and this could come back. Plus if you have radiation surgery, it is more difficult to do actual surgery because of the tissue damage on the internal organs. At the same time, we made the decision to go ahead and have the surgery. Now, there are alternative methods, Mr. Speaker, and this the reason I am encouraging both men and women to have their yearly checks. Because of the research that we have, if you catch it early, either with breast cancer or prostate cancer, the success rate can be very, very high, up to 95 percent. The doctor also told me that women quite often will do the self- examination or breast check. They will have a doctor check it, they do the mammograms, blood tests and throughout, but in the self-check, that they will quite often find a lump and not do anything about it because they are afraid to see the doctor to find out what the results are, the fear. By the time that they go to the doctor because there are other problems, complications, then the prognosis is not good, and it will be a mastectomy or even death. And the doctor said, ``Duke, what you can do is get out the word for early checks and have men and women do the self-checks and get the word early.'' But some of the research, they even have cryogenics, where they can take the prostate and insert a tube that basically freezes the prostate. It looks rewarding. All the numbers are not out on that. They also for quite a few years have been able to implant nuclear rods within the prostate itself. Now, that did not sound too neat, but it is not that big, I guess. But before, they did not have guidance control, so that many of the surrounding areas were damaged in the prostate by inserting the nuclear. Now with the sonogram, they can precisely pick the area of where they want to go in and place the rods to kill the cancer cells. Still, there is a percentage, you have got to get 100 percent of the cells, and they cannot, of course, guarantee that, and there are figures and numbers that you can check to see what the different things are. Another point is that the Speaker of the House has said that we want to invest money in NIH for medical research. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a few figures here. This is a chart that shows prostate cancer issues, and they need your support. This is from the surgeons. The message is that prostate cancer is the leading cancer diagnosed and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in American men. The second-leading cause of deaths of American men is prostate cancer. Per diagnosed case, research for prostate cancer is one of the least funded priorities. I would like to submit this chart, Mr. Speaker, because on this chart you can see way down here in the bottom, $450 million, where breast cancer is funded at $2.3 billion, and AIDS is funded at $23 billion. Now, what are the mortality rates in this? If you look, AIDS accounts for 44,000 deaths in the United States, 44,000 deaths in the United States per year. Breast cancer is 43,900, almost 44,000. Prostate cancer, 42,000 men will die of cancer every single year in the United States. Over 250,000 men in the United States will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, yet the proportion of funding is so low that cancer research is not carried out in a degree in prostate cancer, but yet it is second only to AIDS and breast cancer. That is a disaster, and we need to change that. Prostate Cancer Issues Need Your Support Did you Know Prostate cancer is the leading cancer diagnosed and the second leading cause of cancer related deaths in American men. Per diagnosed case, research for prostate cancer is one of the least funded priorities at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Medicare does not reimburse for all FDA approved prostate cancer treatments, such as oral hormonal therapies. What you can do? The American Foundation for Urologic Disease is dedicated to increasing awareness and research funding for the urologic diseases and disorders through various state and national advocacy efforts. You can help ensure that prostate cancer issues get the attention they deserve in Congress by contacting your state and national legislators by: Meeting with them in their local offices; inviting them to address your local support group and other organizations; writing and calling their local and national offices. The Message Prostate cancer is the leading cancer threat to American men. Estimates show that in 1997, 210,000 men will be diagnosed with it and 41,800 men will die from it. Federal research allocations for prostate cancer must appropriately reflect the incidence and mortality of the disease. Good News Through increased advocacy efforts, $45 million was allocated to prostate cancer research through the Department of Defense (DOD) in 1996 and 1997. This money will fund 1998 and 1999 prostate cancer research projects, as approved by the DOD. 1997 Incidence Prostate Cancer--210,000. Breast Cancer--180,200.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I am a survivor, and I am a very, very fortunate survivor. By early detection, by having a good health care system, by having a doctor that is demanding, that you go through with all of the tests to check; by having a good surgeon and catching it early, one can also eliminate many of the side effects that normally go with radical prostatectomy, and that is such things as impotence and another is incontinence. And I tell my colleagues, those 2 things in every day life are very, very important. I would like to say too, to the African-Americans that are listening tonight, Mr. Speaker, that African-Americans have a much higher incidence of prostate cancer. It was interesting. The doctor said that those that can be traced with bloodlines directly back to Africa have a lower incidence of prostate cancer than those that do not have bloodlines that relate directly back to Africa. But yet African- Americans, at even a much younger age, contact and have a higher incidence, not only incidence, but have a higher mortality rate. My first thought was that well, maybe it is because many African-Americans are poor and they do not have the health care facilities. But this was a study done across-the-board with equal health care systems. Mr. Speaker, some of these studies, this is another reason why we need more money in prostate cancer research is the fact that they say that a lot of it can be or they suspect a lot of it is diet, in the foods available to different people. If you did not have very much money in the household and what you feed your family, you do not have salads, good nutrition, fish, the olive oil, instead of some of the other things that can cause prostate cancer, then maybe diet is very important, and we can change that. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, as I said, at an age over 50 years of age, everyone should have an annual check with a PSA, with the diagnosis and the different checks. But for African Americans, the doctor recommended it at least when you are 45 years of age, because there is a higher incidence. There is a higher instance of mortality and a higher incidence of younger males coming down with prostate cancer. I also learned that males can have breast cancer as well, so it is not just the prostate check or the genital check, but the complete check-up and an annual physical is very helpful. The doctor also pointed out to me that Asian Americans have a very low incidence of cancer. Again, the studies are important for prostate cancer because they think, again, generally the Asian population eats the more healthy foods: A lot of fish, salmon, rice, the things that are not high in the different kinds of oils. Olive oil is supposed to be a good one. I went to my check-up after 3 weeks out of surgery this morning, and I saw Dr. Christensen, who is my surgeon and a great doctor. I pointed out these different foods. I said, how much is there to diet in cancer? He said, Duke, there are actually certain foods that cause cancer cells to replicate faster. For example, your soy oils and your different safflower and all of those kinds of oils, there have been studies to show that they actually cause the cancer to multiply faster. Olive oil, however, is low in a certain chemical, and so are tomatoes. As a matter of fact, cooked tomatoes allow that particular chemical to get into your system that actually kills cancer cells. Regular tomatoes are good, but he said cooked tomatoes allow that substance to break down. It also says here about coffee. I drink 3 or 4 cups of coffee a day. Maybe that is the reason I got it in the first place. But I thought the response was good from Dr. Christensen, who had a cup of coffee in his hand, with all the other surgeons sitting there with cups of coffee. Oh, he said oh, no, it cannot be coffee, because we are not giving it up. I am not telling people to give up all the things they like in life, but at least with moderation, they could take a look at how these things affect their life. As a matter of fact, in this book there is a number that you can order. I would recommend that Members get this book if they have any doubts. What I will do is give my number, at 202-225-5452. If Members want to call my office, I will get the number where they can get this book that tells almost everything that one wants to know about prostate cancer, because I cannot find the number within the book here. There are other areas: the National Institutes for Health, the Cancer Research Society. If you call, in every State there is a cancer support group. In every State there are groups that meet, groups of cancer patients. I went to one this last weekend. It was very good. Dr. Barken in San Diego has a cancer group. As a matter of fact, there is going to be a cancer awareness, actually, by Israel Barken, M.D., President of the Prostate Cancer Education and Research Foundation, in San Diego, California. Every State and almost every city has these support groups. I would encourage each and every individual to check in, especially if they are diagnosed with cancer. Again, one of the worst things that you can have happen to you is the doctor look you in the face and say, ma'am, or sir, you have cancer, and it is almost overwhelming in the impact that has on your life. Through early detection, over 95 percent of prostate cancer victims can be saved with good mortality rates. All of the things that people dread, like impotence, I will say, that is a big factor, and incontinence, all of those things with early detection can be changed and saved. Even if they are not, the techniques they have today can bring about full, meaningful life for married or unmarried men and women in this. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to close by saying each man and each woman, whether it is breast cancer, whether it is diabetes or prostate cancer, we need to support the funds for the research, because we are so close in the biotech industries to finding out the answers. I would also say that the money for prostate cancer is so low, but yet it is the second leading cause in men's death, and in African American deaths it is one of the highest and leading causes, second only to AIDs.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to recognize my friend and fellow San Diegan, Dr. Irwin M. Jacobs, the founder, chairman and CEO of Qualcomm, Inc., who is being honored this September with the 1998 American Electronics Association Medal of Achievement. Everyone who uses a modern digital wireless telephone, with its advancements in reliability and sound quality, its low cost, and its wide range of features, owes Dr. Jacobs a debt of gratitude. He pioneered the ``Code Division Multiple Access'' (CDMA) technology that enables all of these attributes of the wireless world. This innovation and many others have powered Qualcomm from its founding in 1985 to the multi-billion-dollar industry leader, innovator, and major employer that it is today. I also want my colleagues to have an idea of what kind of man Dr. Jacobs is in my community of San Diego. Just in the past year or so, Dr. Jacobs has made a major donation to the University of California, San Diego, to improve and expand its school of engineering. His commitment to better education, particularly in the areas of mathematics and sciences, extends to all levels. I was honored to participate in a forum he and Qualcomm helped sponsor recently that recognizes and rewards best practices in math and science education in local schools. And when the financing anticipated for necessary upgrades to Jack Murphy Stadium fell through, Dr. Jacobs and Qualcomm came forward with funds sufficient to do the job, and now the home of the Chargers and the Padres bears the Qualcomm name. Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States note the many contributions Dr. Irwin M. Jacobs has made to the fields of engineering and telecommunications, to his community of San Diego, California, and to everyone's ability to communicate with one another clearly across a block or across the globe. I commend to my colleagues the following article from the San Diego Union-Tribune describing the honor that the AEA is awarding my friend and fellow San Diegan. [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Aug. 6, 1998] Qualcomm Boss To Get AEA Honor (By Deborah Solomon) Irwin M. Jacobs, the chairman and chief executive officer of Qualcomm Inc., will receive the 1998 American Electronics Association Medal of Achievement. The award is one of the highest honors given by the electronics industry and goes to individuals for their overall contributions to the industry. Previous winners include Intel Chairman Andrew Grove, Ross Perot of Electronic Data Systems and William Hewlett and David Packard of Hewlett-Packard. Jacobs, who co-founded Qualcomm in 1985, helped pioneer its trademark Code Division Multiple Access technology. He took the company from a start-up specializing in truck-tracking systems to a $3 billion digital wireless communications company. Qualcomm now has offices around the world and has grown to more than 10,000 employees. ``He is generally considered to be the primary catalyst in shaping the wireless technology industry and has long been recognized as a philanthropist and community leader,'' said William T. Archey, AEA president and CEO. Jacobs will be presented with the award on Sept. 17 at AEA's annual dinner. The organization is the largest high- tech trade group in the United States, representing more than 3,000 U.S.-based technology companies.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again in support of the Credit Union Membership Access Act (H.R. 1151). While the Senate has made a couple of minor changes to the legislation the House passed earlier this year, the substance of this legislation remains the same. H.R. 1151 will reverse the February 25, 1998, Supreme Court ruling (AT&T Family Federal Credit Union et al. v. First National Bank & Trust Co.) which sent shockwaves through this nation's 70 million credit union members. That decision threatened the future financial safety of our nation's credit unions. The 51st District in California, which I represent, is served by more than 230 different credit unions with more than 305,000 members. By passing this legislation, we will ensure that not a single credit union member will lose their choice of financial service provider. This legislation affirms the commitment of this Republican Congress to keep a healthy, competitive financial service industry in America. I call on all my colleagues to join me in support of credit union members and to vote for H.R. 1151, with the Senate Amendments.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to complete a federal commitment to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act (P.L. 100-675). In the late 1800's and early 1900's the United States Government and the State of California granted San Luis Rey River water rights to the City of Escondido and the Vista Irrigation District. Unfortunately, the right to that water was not the federal government's to give. It was rightfully held by five bands of Mission Indians (La Jolla, Rincon, Pala, Pauma, and San Pasqual). Beginning in 1969, the City of Escondido and the Vista Irrigation District have been subject to litigation by the Indian bands over the rights to the San Luis Rey River water. In 1980, because the Secretary of the Interior had ceded the Indian bands' water rights to Escondido and Vista, the Indian bands brought suit against the federal government. In 1984, in an effort to reach a settlement between the various parties, my California colleague, Rep. Ron Packard, established the San Luis Rey Indian Water Settlement Task Force and charged it with the responsibility of negotiating the settlement of decades-old litigation between five bands of Mission Indians, the United States Government, the City of Escondido and the Vista Irrigation District. After lengthy negotiations with local, state and federal negotiators, the parties achieved an agreement on settlement principles that ultimately led to passage of the San Luis Rey Indian Water Rights Settlement Act in 1988 (P.L. 100-675). Title I of the 1988 Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to supply of 16,000 acre feet of water per year to the Indian bands. This water was to be obtained from one or more sources, including the public lands within California outside the service area of the Central Valley project, or water conserved from the lining of the All-American Canal in the Imperial Valley as authorized in Title II of the 1988 Act. Over the last decade, since the enactment of this Act, and despite the best good faith efforts of all the parties involved, the Indian bands are no closer to receiving the water due them. Moreover, during the last two years, efforts to develop a source of water for the Indian bands have been delayed while Colorado River water users grapple with drafting a consensus solution for the future use of California's portion of Colorado River water. The Indian bands, the City of Escondido, and the Vista Irrigation District have pursued every potential source of water to fulfill the federal responsibility to the Indian bands water rights. I believe that the best option is to use a portion of the water conserved by lining the All-American Canal, in California's Imperial Valley. The concrete lining of the All-American Canal will conserve an estimated 67,000 acre feet of water per year. This lining will preserve water that is currently leaking from the All-American Canal and flowing unused into Mexico. Of the total amount conserved, this bill would set aside 16,000 acre feet of water for the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the Indian bands, fulfilling the terms of the 1988 Settlement Act. The federal government's share of the lining necessary to conserve 16,000 acre feet will amount to approximately $30,000,000. A private partner will assume the remaining cost for the lining. By assuming that cost on behalf of the San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority, the Secretary would be able to deliver the supplemental water, and the following benefits would accrue: The current stalemate in the Colorado River water allocation discussions would no longer bar the efforts of the Settlement Parties to bring this matter to a final resolution; A major contribution would be made to reduce California's historic use of Colorado River water; The completed Environmental Impact Study for the All-American Canal lining project, which is now nearly five years old, could be utilized before so much time passes that it must be redone; The cost of water to the San Luis Rey Indian Water Authority, including wheeling charges paid to Metropolitan Water District and the San Diego County Water Authority, would be low enough to accomplish the objectives of the Act; and The largest single water conservation project within the Imperial Irrigation District which remains to be built--and the only one which would have absolutely no adverse impact on the Salton Sea--would be started. The proposal currently being drafted by the Colorado River water users to distribute California's share of Colorado River water allocates 16,000 acre feet of water conserved from the lining of the All-American Canal for the San Luis Rey Water Rights Settlement. While this proposal is not final, I believe there is no reason to expect that this provision will not be in the final plan. Nor should the lack of comprehensive statewide Colorado River water use plan prohibit us from acting to settle what has now become a decades-old process to provide water rightfully due to the Indian bands. It should be noted that the 16,000 acre feet due to the Indian bands amounts to only 36/100ths of one percent of California's allocation of Colorado River water. I am aware that concerns about this proposal have been expressed by both the Imperial Irrigation District and the Coachella Valley Water District. It is my expectation that the introduction of this legislation will further the objective of reaching consensus on the issue of lining the All-American Canal with these important California water agencies. I look forward to working with all interested parties to reach an accord. I am proud to be joined in this effort by the original sponsor of the 1988 Act, Mr. Packard from California. I hope that all of my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation and help me fulfill our responsibility to the La Jolla, Rincon, Pala, Pauma, and San Pasqual Indian bands.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is almost laughable. I am a veteran. I live here in the Northeast right now. I want fairness for veterans. There is no one that I take a back seat to on support for veterans issues or active duty military issues. But I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. Let us look at cause and effect. I am going to speak to my Republican colleagues, not even the opposition over here. Many of those that live in the Northeast are the first to support the great social programs. Look at the National Endowment for the Arts. Why do you not cut it? How about Davis-Bacon, that we can save 35 percent on all construction, but will you stop that? We could put every penny of that in veterans. And the great social programs that you support and the war on the West. So do not come to me crying that your veterans are not being taken care of. Those that support defense, we want live veterans. Three hundred percent operation deployments above what it was during the Cold War. We are only maintaining 24 percent of our military. That means all of them are going to become veterans. Defense cuts. And then my colleagues on the other side from the Northeast saying, well, there were tax breaks for the rich. Now, I want to tell the gentleman, veterans benefit from tax breaks, just like anybody else. Veterans benefit from a balanced budget that most of them voted against for low interest rates, whether it is for scholarships, for homes or buying a home or just getting a double-egg double-cheese double- fryburger down at the store. And yet they cry, ``Oh, there is no money.'' So look at the cause of why we are. We pay nearly $1 billion a day on the national debt, $360 billion we could use for veterans care. But a liberal Congress over 40 years spent with big government, high taxes. And where are we now under a balanced budget? We could survive under a balanced budget, but if the President refuses to pay for 300 percent Operation Tempo, where does that money come from out of defense? It goes against our veterans. We could use the $25 billion that it is costing us in Bosnia, and we could fund every veterans program there is. So do not come to me crying, we need to fund our veterans, or that we are cutting veterans. I want more money for veterans, but I look at the cause of why we cannot give it. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I was not going to speak on this until I heard the debate, and I have the greatest respect for the ranking minority member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stokes), and my colleague from California (Mr. Lewis). But I tell my colleagues this is about priorities and it is about promises. The priority: If I was going to vote for health care for veterans or housing, I have no question where my priority lies. It is health care for our veterans. Our Capitol Police, in the news right now; if I was going to support either their health care or the housing, I would choose their health care for themselves and their families. I was the original offeror of subvention, not myself, but the veterans in San Diego, California, and it is a Band-Aid. TriCare is a Band-Aid for the promises that we made. The original bill of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and myself gave full funding to FEHBP. One can take a trash collector at a military base for the Pentagon, or a secretary, and they get the benefits of FEHBP. But someone who has gone over and fought our wars or their families, they do not get it. And that is the real answer that we need to do and take a look for our veterans, and take a look at it, and this is a very divisive issue, and it should not be. But I read the article by Mr. Ambrose, ``Kids Who Saved the World.'' I would recommend it. It is one of the best articles that one could read. And I would say to my friends that our active duty forces today, we are only retaining 24 percent of them because our operation tempo is 300 percent above what it was during the Cold War or Vietnam. We are killing our military. It is in the worst shape I have ever seen it. These people are going to become veterans, and we are going to deny them health care? I do not think so. I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment, and I ask for its passage.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Biomaterials Access Assurance Act. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Gekas, and the Committee Chairmen, Mr. Hyde and Mr. Bliley, for bringing this important legislation forward. This legislation seeks to alleviate a critical shortage of biomaterials available to our nation's medical device manufacturers. Biomaterials are the raw materials and component parts that go into life-saving and life-enhancing medical implants and devices. These devices include heart valves, prosthetics, brain shunts, and many other devices that provide an unmeasurable benefit to the lives of millions of Americans. Our citizens can only continue to enjoy these benefits if the biomaterials that go into such devices remain available. This legislation will ensure that patients have access to the biomaterials and medical devices that they need. Over the last several years, I have met with researchers and doctors who manufacture medical devices. Each time we meet they stress the importance of this legislation and show another area of critical shortage in biomaterials which could prevent them from making the medical devices which save lives. I have also met with parents and children who suffer from diseases which require these important medical devices. One of these young men is Titus Simonini, 5, who suffers from Hydrocephalus, a condition in which spinal fluid is blocked and builds up in the brain, often causing brain damage, paralysis and death. Titus' condition is treated through the implantation of silastic shunts, a silicon-coated device that regulates the fluid and prevents the buildup in the brain. These shunts are manufactured by only two small suppliers in the entire country. Without this legislation we are approaching the day when children like Titus won't have these products that make their lives possible. The Biomaterials Access Assurance Act protects biomaterials suppliers from the litigation that swarms to them whenever they sell to the medical device market, even though they take no part in the design, testing, or sales of medical devices. The Biomaterials Access Assurance Act gives biomaterials suppliers a quick exit from lawsuits in which they would not be found liable anyway. With regards to this important issue, it is equally important to stress what this bill does not do. The bill does not protect anyone who is involved in the design, testing, manufacture, or sale of medical implants. The bill also does not allow biomaterials suppliers to be negligent or fraudulent in their sale of materials to the medical market. As everyone knows, medical implants are intricately designed and rigorously tested in the FDA approval process. The specifications and tolerances of the materials that go into these devices are very precise and very narrow. If a biomaterials supplier fails to meet contractual specifications or specifications given to the Food and Drug Administration in the premarket approval process, the protections of this bill evaporate. Now, these are narrow, technical points that should not detract from the main focus of this legislation. The threat to biomaterials access is a problem on which Congress must take action. With the protections of this legislation material suppliers will continue to provide important components for medical devices that help Americans live healthier and more productive lives. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan in his inaugural address talked about a man named Martin Treptoe. Martin Treptoe, like J.J. Chestnut, John Gibson, had not ever been heard of by America before that time, but Martin Treptoe was a baker. During World War I, when it was raging, he volunteered to go to the front. He became a message carrier. He got to the front, and three other message carriers had been killed, but yet Martin Treptoe volunteered again. And like the other three, they found Martin Treptoe dead about halfway to the front, and they found his message pouch, and I would like to quote from that pouch. It says: ``This is a very difficult war. I don't think I will survive. But I must treat every action as if that action determined the outcome of this conflict.'' Both J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson treated every one of their actions as if the outcome made a difference for the Members of Congress and the safety of the public. We honor those two individuals today. May God bless.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join my colleagues to honor the memories of two American heroes, U.S. Capitol Police Officers Jacob ``J.J.'' Chestnut and John Gibson, who gave their lives last Friday so that others might live. The U.S. Capitol Police are a unique law enforcement institution in America. They are charged with protecting members of the House and Senate, the Capitol itself, our congressional staffs, and the millions of tourists from around the world who visit this building. In performing this task, they are more than security personnel. They are ambassadors for our country, helping Americans find their way through the Capitol safely, answering questions, providing a helping hand. They help congressmen and staffs get to where they need to go. And over time, we get to know the Capitol Police well, by face if not always by name, so much so that they become like family to those of us who do the American people's work here as their elected representatives. Officer Chestnut and Officer Gibson were family, Mr. Speaker. And as with the passing of any relative, near or distant, we feel sadness and a sense of loss. They died protecting people, and protecting a monument to represent government known by peoples around the world both free and oppressed. The Bible says, ``greater love hath no man than to lay down his life for his friends.'' Officers Chestnut and Gibson laid down their lives for us, and for the ideals of freedom and liberty that we hold dear. Our prayers are with their widows and their families. Our thanks are due to Chief Gary Abrecht and all of the U.S. Capitol Police, to House Sergeant at Arms Wilson Livingood and his staff, and to all of America's law enforcement officers, who have tragically lost two brave colleagues in the force. And, Mr. Speaker, we should work to preserve the memory of these brave officers by continuing the work that they did for so many years: by keeping the Capitol open to the people. In doing so, we will remember the awful price that we have paid to obtain our freedom, the high price America must occasionally pay to keep it, and the terrible price that the Chestnut and Gibson families paid for it on Friday, July 24, 1998.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that Members on both sides of the aisle want to focus on health care, but I personally feel that, in an election year, political pandering on both sides is not a benefit for the American public. I look at the Democratic ``Bill of Fights'' that is going to drive up health care cost by letting trial lawyers take over. California is a leader in HMOs, but I also see good, bad, and ugly in the HMOs in California. We are losing good doctors in California because of HMOs and managed health care. But yet there are still some good ones, and we need to attend to that. Whether the lawyers drive up costs or CEO's from HMOs rip off the system and drive up health care, both are bad, and that is why I say that neither one of these bills are good for the American consumer, and we need to help. The gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) brought over a list of things that are preempted in state law. I do not want that. But, at the same time, I looked into it, and the unions right now are under ERISA. Your supporters are exempt under state law, the unions and large companies. We wanted the small businesses to be able to band together and have the same benefits for low health care costs.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I guess I do not have, as I mentioned, a Native American tribe in my district. California has a lot of Native Americans, and I think it is more on principle than it is anything else. I could be hurting, maybe, some of the tribes in the San Diego area by supporting this amendment, but, on principle, if we ask somebody to do something and they do it, and they save us money, then we ought to reward that. And if there is a penalty, the penalty should come on the tribes that do not. I think that is what the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) is saying. I also acknowledge the fact that we do not have enough money to do what we said we were going to do. But if there is a penalty, then it ought to penalize the ones that have not. That is the reason that I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. We need to keep our word.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Where we ask someone to privatize and to save money and they go through the extraordinary function to do that, then I think that we ought to honor that and not renege on our promise. I do not have any Indian tribes in my district, but I think it is terrible what this country has done to Native Americans, and this is one area in which I think we can stand out, take a step and be counted, and help our Native Americans. I rise in support of the amendment.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with the gentleman on that issue, but I do disagree that it is on privatization because these tribes have done that. They have been successful. They saved money. We are trying to get the rest of the tribes to do the same. But let us not penalize those tribes that have gone and done this problem that we have asked them to do. That is what the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) in his amendment is asking us to do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman is saying, and I know the budget constraints and the caps. But at the same time, I think the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Parker) is trying to say that these tribes have earned what they have done through privatization in managing their own health care system and that the others have not. We want the others to do the same thing. There is not enough money to do that. But let us not penalize those Native American tribes that have gone to the effort and created a system that is beneficial for all tribes.

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, China is a rogue nation, as dangerous to us and the world as a dangerous pit viper. It is ruled by totalitarians and lying communists over a people that want to be free. Dissidents beg us to stay engaged, both diplomatically and economically, and I take a back seat to no one in fighting Communists or socialists in this country and abroad. China is different than it was 10 years ago because we have engaged economically. Go there and see the differences that we have made. If we had not engaged, China would not be different. Trade with Middle East, trade with Northern Ireland, we could make the same arguments on trading with them. I understand why the other side is opposed to this issue. I am that close to being with them on the issue, because while engaging in trade, the President has failed the other side. You do not walk softly and carry a big stick of candy in trade. You do not not stand up for American rights and let China have high tariffs. You do not let our own forces train the Communist PLA that will be used against Taiwan. You do not slap Taiwan in the face and support China. You do not not stand up for human rights. And the other side is absolutely correct, but I believe unless we trade economically, unless we try and change this 10,000 year-old dog, that we will be behind. COSCO, Long Beach shipyard. You do not let a pit viper in the crib of your baby. You do not let a communist Chinese shipping company that has shipped chemical and biological weapons into California. They have shipped AK-47s into California. They have shipped to Iran and Iraq, the reason that we are there right now in California. So the President has failed in his policies with China, but he has also traded with them, and I think that will make the changes necessary.