Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We will support the gentleman in doing that. Let us just not penalize the tribes that have gone through it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is exactly what the Republican Congress is trying to do, is privatize a lot of these issues.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I understand.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. In my humble opinion, it should be struck, the point of order, the Johnson amendment should not be offered, or if it is offered, those members should stick to their word. The chairman of the committee in conference should not yield and accede to the Senate provision, and then the word would be kept.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also associate my words with the words about the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) and this bill being a good bill, and also with the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates). Though we have opposed each other on many issues, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Yates) reminds me of the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Natcher. One time when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) was on the floor and I was mad as a hornet, Mr. Natcher, being from Kentucky, who was in the majority at the time and in control of the bill and, with me, fuming right there at that microphone, said ``Mr. Cunningham,'' he said, ``I am from Kentucky and we have race horses. Quite often they come out of the block so fast that they break their legs, and we then have to shoot them. If you will settle down, I will help you pass your amendment.'' So I got the word of the then-chairman, Mr. Natcher. But I would say that I am proud of what the Republican majority has done with the balanced budget, welfare reform, and tax relief for working families, and I am proud of this bill. I have a potential sadness with this bill, in the fact that in 1995, on the Interior appropriations bill and the rule, the Republican Party was at an impasse. There was a group that wanted to increase the funding for the NEA and there was a group that wanted to strike the funding for the NEA. The result would have been that we would have lost that rule and the other side of the aisle would have taken over that rule and written it as they saw fit. So then the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), got the Republicans of both groups in a room for 4 hours and we came to an agreement. That agreement was that we would continue to fund the National Endowment for the Arts for a certain period of time. Then the problem was that they could not use the funding within the year and they would lose that amount of funding, so we agreed to let them keep it so they could establish a true endowment that would fund the NEA, and we also promised to work for a tax break where you could give to the arts and get an additional tax break. That was a word and that was a bond. My view of a principles of your word is that if I give, say, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) my word, I would fall on my sword before I would break that word, unless I came to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) and looked him in the eye and said, I cannot follow that because of these reasons, and let him respond. But once an agreement had been executed, like the National Endowment for the Arts agreement, you cannot come back on your word. I would ask the committee, many Members feel very strongly on both sides of this issue. That is fine, and they have fought for that. But the agreement was not just to reduce the NEA, it was not just to compel it to follow certain rules; it was, after the agreement, to eliminate it from the taxpayers, and Joe Six-pack would not have to pay for the NEA, but it could become its own endowment. I would ask this House and those Members that signed and agreed, I was in the room, you can spin it any way that you want. I am not talking about the Democrats, they were not part of this agreement, I am talking about my own party. You can spin it any way you want. I was in the room, I know the agreement, I know the acknowledgment, and I know how it was carried out. My potential sadness is that that word would be broken in this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to live up to their word and vote against the Johnson amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, one of the most rewarding aspects of my career on Capitol Hill has been serving as the Administrative Co- Chairman of the bipartisan National Security Caucus (NSC). The Caucus includes 275 lawmakers and it is the largest Congressional Member Organization. The NSC focuses on a wide range of foreign policy, defense and international economic issues and it is through the Caucus that I have come to know John M. Fisher. He is the Chairman of the American Security Council and the National Security Caucus Foundation and he is being honored today at a luncheon at the Heritage Foundation. John Fisher has long been a leader in the national security community and he has spent a lifetime pursuing the principles of peace through strength. It is thanks to the tremendous yeoman labor of John Fisher that the United States was not stuck in a posture of strategic vulnerability in the 1970s. In 1978, he helped organize the National Security Caucus, a bipartisan alliance of Members of Congress who agreed on a resolution listing the principles of a national strategy of peace through strength. In 1984, the American Security Council worked with experts, 240 Members of Congress, 96 national organizations and 514 universities and colleges in preparing the study ``A Strategy for Peace Through Strength,'' and over 400,000 copies of this study were distributed across the nation. President Reagan declared one week in September 1984 as ``Peace Through Strength Week.'' A documentary film was created and shown by 187 television stations nationwide, and more than 50 rallies were held across the U.S. Our national security policy has always involved military and economic considerations, but now it must also reflect a world integrated by telecommunications and trade. At John's urging, my colleagues in the National Security Caucus are now working on a new strategy for global peace and prosperity. The military balance was restored in the 1980s and John Fisher is entitled to significant credit. His predictions of Peace Through Strength have come true. The Russians saw the strategic and conventional modernization program as a sign the U.S. was prepared to use its technological superiority to trump their military power, their one claim to superpower status. The American Security Council, under John Fisher's guidance, led the fight against the nuclear freeze, for INF deployment and the Reagan Doctrine, which put American arms and money behind a worldwide anti- communist guerrilla campaign on three continents. The combination of INF, SDI, the Reagan Doctrine, and the defense build-up made it clear to the Marxist/Leninists that they were facing a future they could only lose. The 1970's have been called the Decade of Disarmament, and from 1975 to 1980 an independent nation fell to communism every year. A great deal of credit must be given to leaders like John Fisher who finally convinced Jimmy Carter to raise the defense budget to help arm the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, place an embargo on Soviet grain, and cutting off aid to the Sandinistas. The peace through strength policies advocated by John Fisher and adopted by Ronald Reagan and George Bush helped to create the stability we know today. George Washington once said ``To have peace, prepare for war.'' These words from our first Commander-in-Chief are engraved at the American Security Council's Congressional Conference Center. They are as applicable today as they were 200 years ago. John Fisher believes in these words and has spent his lifetime devoted to the maintenance of peace and freedom for the American people.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 8, the Border Smog Reduction Act of 1998. Introduced by my San Diego congressional delegation colleague, Representative Brian Bilbray, H.R. 8 is a practical and bipartisan approach to improving border air quality and strengthening our air pollution control strategies. It will give the federal government the authority it needs to help enforce state vehicle emissions requirements, without imposing new mandates or burdens on local government or the business community. In California, H.R. 8 will help to reduce high levels of smog-forming compounds from commuter vehicles driven across the border every day by people coming in to work or going to school legally in the U.S. Under existing state law, these vehicles are supposed to be in compliance with California's strict emission standards. But most presently are not, due to the current inability to enforce state law at the border. H.R. 8 will extend this enforcement ability to federal border inspectors at the points of entry, who will have the authority to ultimately turn away foreign-registered vehicles which cannot be shown to be in compliance with these emissions standards. H.R. 8 does not restrict an individual's legal access to the U.S. It is focused on gross-polluting commuter vehicles which emit a disproportionately high level of pollutants along our border region. In San Diego County, stringent controls exist on all stationary sources, and all cars must be smog tested to standard in order to be registered. H.R. 8 will simply help to level the playing field, and target and reduce a known pollution problem. While it would initially apply only to California, other border states are given the flexibility to implement the authority of the bill as they might see fit in the future. It is important to note that H.R. 8 places no new mandates or requirements on other states. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this measure, and I urge all of my Colleagues to support this common-sense legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on taking 5 minutes. But maybe I can appeal to my colleague. The cause and effect of veterans, not only their records, but the real problem is with their medical care in the first place. I think the gentleman agrees with that. It is a cause and effect. He may not agree with trickle-down economics, but he think he believes in trickle-down problems that come down to the lowest level. I would ask the gentleman that we have had the Moran and Watts bill help with FEHBP. That is just a Band-Aid right now as it is. The Tricare system is a Band-Aid. Subvention is a Band-Aid. And the veterans are looking for the same benefits that the employees have that if a secretary works over in the Pentagon, when she goes under Medicare, she has got a follow-on program called BEHBP. A military person does not. A veteran does not. And that is wrong. My bill solved that, and it got rid of all the Band-Aids, but they could not find the funds for it. I think in the future we have need to look at that. The records are a problem not only with veterans but active duty military, and we are working on that. But I would appeal to my friends, we have less than 24 percent retention in our military today. Most of those people are going to get out and be veterans that are getting out of the service right now. The OPTEMPO is 300 percent above what it was in Vietnam in Cold War. And our families in the military, people are saying, hey, I cannot handle this with my family and have it, too. If we want to solve both and live under the caps in defense budget and this budget, then we have got to reduce the OPTEMPO of our overseas commitment and we have got to bring our people home. And then we can have the dollars, instead of Haiti and Somalia and Bosnia and all the others, we will have some more dollars to do what we really need not only for our active duty but for our veterans. I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I think it is very thoughtful, and I support it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, we arm wrestle every day back and forth across the aisle on domestic spending. We have got budget caps, and we have some serious problems in this country. Even though the economics are supposed to be good, as many of you believe, and I do, too, there is a big difference between Wall Street and Main Street. There is probably not a handful of times in the past 8 years that I have agreed with the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders). Two times in one day, I am starting to question my own rationalization.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We will not tell anybody outside of this. But the gentleman's idea is good. I also agree with the gentlewoman on the fact concerning declaring war, there ought to be a limit, and this Congress needs to have its position based on the Constitution, and this is a good constitutional issue. I thank the gentleman from Vermont. I think it is a very good amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman is saying. To me this is not demagoguery. This is good economic sense and good policy, as the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) just said. I ask for support of the Sanders amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Promotion Act. I am proud to be joined by my fellow Sportsmen's Caucus co-chairman Representative John Tanner and the distinguished members of the Migratory Bird Conservation Committee, Representative John Dingell and Representative Curt Weldon. This legislation will enable the Federal Duck Stamp office to use the Migratory Bird Conservation Funds (MBCF) to create a promotional program that will increase the sales of the duck stamps, just as the Postal Service uses its postage revenues to promote stamp sales and stamp collecting. Since the Federal Duck Stamp was created on March 16, 1934, it has been one of America's most successful conservation initiatives. Since 1934, more than $500 million has been raised through the purchase of Federal Duck Stamps. Indeed, 98 percent of the program's revenue has been dedicated to the purchase of prime wildlife habitat. It has made possible the purchase of more than 500 million acres of wildlife habitat benefiting waterfowl, other migratory birds, and wildlife in general. Unfortunately, duck stamp sales have leveled off in recent years due to the absence of additional markets for the duck stamp. This act will permit a broader promotion of the stamp, increasing stamp revenues, that will allow more habitat to be purchased and protected. This legislation is supported by the U.S. Federal Wildlife Service and the Federal Duck Stamp Office. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this legislation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, too often we hear about the wetlands, not too often because wetlands have been denigrated. But a plant in the middle of the desert, because it flourishes for a few weeks, is not a wetland, or something that is frozen at the top of a 12,000 foot peak for the last thousand years in my opinion is not a wetland. But the opponents say that they oppose this bill, and yet it creates 50 miles of wetlands complete with marshes that purify and clean the environment, 50 new miles with marshes that create wetland. The wetland that is saved and enhanced is the size of the Beltway here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a farm pond. We are talking about a sea so big that if we were in a boat, it is like being in an ocean. I have been there, and I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) has, too. But we are actually creating good with the wetlands. The Miller substitute would study, and I agree there are other problems besides salinity with the Salton Sea. Agriculture is mostly to the south, though. Around the Salton Sea, if my colleagues have gone, it is all desert. The pollution comes in through the New River, and down, and filters, and that is what we are going to fix, but the farmlands are way to the south. They flow toward Mexico. They do not go in the Salton Sea. But yet I still think that pesticides and things like that are a problem for the birds that land in those farmlands, but not the Salton Sea. And I would say to my friend that said that, well, the Senate, the two senators from California, are against this. The one gentlewoman from California, her views are so extreme she even opposed the tuna/ dolphin bill which the President and the Vice President and five environmental groups supported. So I would say support the bill, reject the Miller substitute.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Madam Speaker, my daughters, April and Carrie, got the first duck mud between their toes in a goose blind over in the Salton Sea with their Grandpa Jones. He also taught them how to blow a duck call in that same place. Why is it important? It is a major flyway from Connecticut to Sacramento to the Salton Sea and then down to Mexico for the winter feeding grounds. There are also many of the endangered species and also porvina, which is a fish that lives there, which is dying in very fast order. I do not believe we are trying to get there in the same place, because if Members want to delay a bill in this body, if they want to kill a bill, just have a study with no commitment, with no commitment to carry it through. That is exactly what the Miller substitute does, study, study, study, knowing good and well that we will come back and not be able, when the funds are low, to fund it. Support the Bono amendment and let us pass this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Daniel L. Laver, a long time resident of San Diego, who has recently retired as Director of the San Diego County Area Agency on Aging. Mr. Laver leaves behind an agency that has become the leader in services to the elderly and disabled populations in our county. For almost forty years, Mr. Laver gave his all to the County of San Diego and its citizens, often times putting his life on hold to meet the challenges and break the roadblocks that prevented the agency from providing the highest quality services. Several services and products developed under Mr. Laver's leadership have been deemed ``Best in Class'' at the local, state and national levels. Dan's motto has been: ``If it's good for seniors--do it! It It's not--don't.'' Dan is known for his tenacity in enhancing options for elderly and disabled people to remain living independently in their own homes and communities and for his creativity in program development and management. Highlights of his remarkable career include: building and renovating 18 senior centers throughout the county under the Senior Center Bond Act of 1984; creating ``Meals on the Move'' which delivers hot, nutritious meals to the homebound elderly on holidays, weekends and on an emergency basis; expanding the county's case management program to embrace younger persons with disabilities, as well as the elderly; establishing ``Links-to-Life,'' which provides emergency medical identification bracelets for low-income seniors; and helping to establish ``Christmas in April,'' which rehabilitates the houses of low-income elderly and disabled homeowners. Mr. Laver is currently President of the National Association of Area Agencies (N4A) on Aging and leads them in their nationwide advocacy. In that capacity, he testified on the Older Americans Act before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, which I chaired at that time. In 1988, he was given N4's highest honor, the Distinguished Director Award. He also led the California Association of Area Agencies on Aging as its President from 1986 to 1987. I commend Dan Laver for making a significant impact on the lives of elderly and disabled people in San Diego County and throughout the nation.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and I would like to thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano). I serve on another committee, on the Committee on National Security, and it is a pleasure because of the bipartisanship. Does not mean that we do not have disagreements from time to time, but the atmosphere, the friendliness, the working, and their willingness not to continue with the, as my colleagues know, bigger government and tax and spend, but to serve by example to reduce the size to useful government; and the fact that good government does not have to be an oxymoron. I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) and I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) for delivering on those kind of promises and making it a very desirable committee to serve on.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I recently returned from Greece. And I met with the Prime Minister from Greece, and I also met with the Defense Minister. They bought German tanks. They have an alliance with Germany. It goes beyond what I think the gentleman is talking about, because, for us to sell U.S. product, for us to sell F-15s and the Strike Eagles to Greece and even F-18s, we had to throw into the package not only kits, but Corvettes as well, or they are going to buy other product. So when you are talking about taxpayers, we are going to have people in St. Louis working because we are going to sell extra aircraft. Those aircraft that we can buy cheaper, the U.S. military is going to benefit from that. I am not sure about the process with the gentleman's committee, but I am just letting him know that the reasons for it is, if we can have cheaper airplanes for our services and provide, I am a little different on the issue, I want the Turks out of Northern Cyprus. They invaded in 1974, and they ought to get their rear ends out, and the Greeks ought to kick them out if they do not move.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have talked to the Navy and regarding the problem of the backup of railroad cars, they would bring it as far as Texas and then off-load it onto trucks and bring it in. So it would not affect that kind of problem. This was not a problem until the White House got involved with it in East Chicago, Indiana, and stopped it right just before the elections. Now Al Gore is going to Texas and all of a sudden it stopped because of the environmentalists. Mr. Chairman, we will work hand-in-hand with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen), because there is no problem with it. As the gentleman from California (Mr. Packard) has said, this is safer than gas to ship. It will also be used to make cement. It is a useful product. The wood will be chewed up and go to Oklahoma and the metal, the aluminum, will be recycled. It is a win-win situation. I agree the gentleman's constituents in Texas need to know what the positives are instead of the negatives.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I do not plan on taking the full 5 minutes but only a moment. I would like to associate myself in part with the comments of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). I do not know how many Members have ever had food poisoning. I bet almost every Member here has had food poisoning at one time, not only from products but even from local problems that we have. We had in California a whole mess of strawberries with hepatitis come across from Mexico. It not only hurt people's sickness but our own local strawberry growers were hurt because people were afraid to buy strawberries. So there does need to be more control. I had a child in my district die of E. coli and the parents told me, ``We prayed, we prayed for our child to die because they were in such agony.'' I mean, if you think about that and the dollars that we put into research, especially for E. coli, this is a problem that is not going to go away. They keep telling us that this goes away. This is fecal matter that sets on beef or meat products and is not cleaned off before it goes to the consumer. We have got to get a handle on this. I laud what the committee has done as far as focusing on the issue of food safety. But it is an area in conference that we need to address.