Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me give my colleagues a good example of coming to arms. I had a doctor come into my office about 3 years ago. And I was fortunate enough to write much of the welfare reform bill, being on the Committee on Education and the Workforce. He said, ``Duke, I had a lady come in my office with a 13-year-old daughter. She wanted to know what was wrong with her daughter that had just had her fourth menstrual cycle that she couldn't have a child. She wanted the welfare money.'' Now, what happens to those children? There is one view that would continue to spend trillions of dollars in the old welfare system. To me, that was a waste. And we have to send our tax dollars there. But what we did is stood up to the plate, made a commitment that we are going to solve the welfare and slavery problem of the people trapped in the inner cities. Now, that child, what chance do they have of the American dream? Zero. Is it because the parents raised them? No. They are busy having other children. Is it the grandmother? Usually. If it is a male child, that child is in a gang. And if it is a female today, that child is in a gang. And where do they turn? Can they get a job? No. Do they have an American dream? No. They go to drugs and crime, and then it is perpetuated over and over again. But we stood up to the plate. And in many States like the gentleman's, over 50 percent of the welfare roles are coming off just because we said, you should go to work. The average welfare recipient was 16 years. That is a perfect example of stepping up to the plate and making a commitment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Exactly. And when we are trying to balance the budget, we can look forward that for all of those wastes, from the 12 to $16 million for only 10 percent of what we could have done for 100 percent, taxpayers have got to send their dollars to Washington, D.C., turn those around at a very low rate, we can totally eliminate it. And it is not a question of giving money back from taxes; it is having not to send it here in the first place to balance the budget.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would agree with the gentleman. And instead of bogging down in the sadness of the state of readiness, there are ways in which we can actually make a three-cornered Pentagon. A couple of examples: One, I was able to get $12 million through both the authorization process and appropriations to copy all defense maps. All services for $12 million. That was a reduction of 1 to 100th of the cost. The office of Secretary of Defense held onto the money. They wanted to steal it. They wanted to reprogram it. They wanted to give it to NAVCOM. They wanted to do other purposes with it. And we fought for 1 year to get the money released so we could copy those systems. The services continued at the old rate of copying those services. They copied 10 percent of those maps, costing $16 million. One of the things we can do is reduce the size of OSD by at least 35 percent, and streamlining the bureaucracy in the military. That is just one of a thousand suggestions.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the gentleman, if he will continue to yield, that we just finished with a readiness hearing in San Diego. We had both Republicans and Democrats from the Committee on National Security and the defense appropriations committee. And I was proud of my Democratic colleagues because they not only recognized but praised the individuals and swore to help the situation. Our service chiefs will come and tell us that the budget is okay, but then between the lines they will tell us of increased operations of 300 percent above the Cold War. Our equipment is 1970s. We have large numbers of our senior NCOs and aviators getting out of the service because they are forced to go away. Take, for example, the U.S.S. Constellation. She got back from a cruise. This is typical of all services. She got back from a 6-month cruise. She goes into port into San Diego. April, May, June, July, August. She has to go up to Bremerton for repairs. Now, all of those families are in San Diego. So those personnel again, besides on cruise, have to leave their families. They are having to cannibalize parts. Several aircraft or squadrons have only one aircraft to fly because they have to steal those parts. They call it cannibalization, take that part off those airplanes and send them to Bosnia and Iraq and where our forward forces are deployed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Neumann). How can we do this? First of all, good government does not have to be an oxymoron like it is today. People want their tax dollars to go to fund good government not wasteful government. I am glad the gentleman talked about education. I have two focuses in Congress; one is national security and the other is education. I think both sides, no matter what the opinions are, education is the key to a lot of many different areas. It is anticrime, it is antidrug, it is antipoverty. My father and mother, who were Democrats, focused on education because they knew that that was the future. I remember my dad telling me, he said, ``Son,'' he said, ``if you get a good education,'' and neither my father or my mother went to college, but they said, ``If you get a good education and you work hard, you can make tomorrow better than it is today.'' And that was their definition, very simple definition of the American dream. Where are we today? We are sending billions of tax dollars to Washington, D.C. Now only about 93 percent of education dollars come from the State. Less than 7 percent come from the Federal Government, but yet that 7 percent represents about $35 billion. So that 7 percent is no small number. Now, what I would think that the American people want, if they send their tax dollars to Washington, is that they get a return on that dollar that is going to enhance education. The President, for example, wanted $3 billion for a new literacy program. California, the State that I come from, is 50th in literacy. So the gentleman can imagine the jubilation that the folks that said, hey, California is 50th in literacy; $3 billion for a new literacy program. That will be good. But if we look at it, the Federal Government has 14 literacy programs. Title 1, which is the biggest user of that $35 billion, is one of those. Title 7 is another. What is wrong with taking one or two of our literacy programs, of the 14 that we currently have, and not just funding them 100 percent but increasing them because they work, and taking the other 12 that are not working, and getting rid of the bureaucracy? We have to pay all those salaries, the buildings, the overhead, the cost of paperwork, the retirements, which gets us less than 48 cents out of a dollar down to the classroom. In doing so, by having this other 12, we have to send our tax dollars to support this level. And that is wrong. That is what we are saying, is that government can be good government. We can reduce the cost of government and yet at the same time benefit the American people, especially in education. And that is just one example. And I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Charles Herbert Seaton. Herb, as we knew him, was a long time scoutmaster, role model and friend to hundreds of children and young men in North San Diego County, and a fine engineer and public servant. He was born in Uniontown, Pennsylvania on September 13, 1928 to Charles Swan and Mary Elizabeth Kelley Seaton. He attended East Bethlehem Township High School and Pennsylvania State University, where he graduated in June 1949 with a degree in aeronautical engineering. During the summer of 1948 he worked for the U.S. Navy at the David Taylor Model Basin in Carderock, Maryland testing models of airplanes and missiles. After his graduation from Penn State, he was an instructor in the aeronautical engineering department and attended graduate school until 1951. On December 16, 1950 he married Jean Louise Harte, the daughter of Loyal Bert Harte and Sarah Eva Gray. The young Seatons moved to San Diego, California in 1951 where Herb was employed at Convair as a senior aerodynamics engineer, working on the F-102 interceptor airplane, the Atlas rocket program, and other launch vehicles. In October 1961, Herb's work moved him to the Aeronautical Division of Ford Motor Company in Newport Beach, California, where he was employed as a principal engineer until January 1962, when he was appointed Assistant Director of Nuclear Flight Systems at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration headquarters in Washington, D.C. For several technical and other reasons, nuclear rocket propulsion did not catch on, and the Seatons returned to California in July 1963, where he applied his expertise in nuclear engineering and propulsion for a number of firms and as a consultant, eventually arriving in North San Diego County with five children in the fall of 1968. Herb's most memorable role was in his local community. He served as President of the Parents and Teachers Association at Ocean Knoll Elementary School in Encinitas, California in 1972 when his two youngest children were enrolled there. As a leader in the Boy Scouts of America for more than 20 years, he served as Scoutmaster of Troop 777, San Diego County Council (now Desert-Pacific Council). This troop grew to be one of the largest troops in its district and produced many Eagle Scouts. For his devotion to scouting, he was awarded the Order of Merit and Silver Beaver by the Boy Scouts of America. He was also a very active member of International Rotary since 1969, most recently with the Kearny Mesa Club. Every Christmas season he donated his time to play Santa Claus for the Rotary Club and for the Children's Home Society. His death came on February 12, 1998 at home in Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California. He leaves five children behind: Charles Bret Seaton of San Diego, California; Gary Bruce Seaton of Newport Beach, California; Carl Evan Seaton of Vista, California; LT Scott Montgomery Seaton, MC USNR of Chesapeake, Virginia; and Mrs. Lauren Louise Stills of Santa Monica, California. He also leaves five grandchildren. Let the permanent Record of the Congress of the United States show that Herb's life exemplified the Scouting and Rotarian traditions of service to community, and that he leaves behind this legacy for his family, friends, and fellow Americans to emulate.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, it was the full intention to protect Native American languages, as these sovereign tribes have a unique relationship with the Federal Government. Unfortunately, the Parliamentarian ruled that adding these sections would not be germane to the bill we are debating. I look forward to working with the gentleman in seeing that the Native American languages are protected as the bill works its way through the legislative process.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it was the intention of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) to include the text of H.R. 123 in this amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with me.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one thing I think the members of Puerto Rico will see, I think this is one of the most healthy debates that I have seen on this floor in 7 years. It is issue-oriented. I have got conservatives for and against, I have got liberals for and against, and each with individual ideas. I commend both sides of this. I did not have time to speak on the floor. I would like to speak to the amendment but I would also like to speak to the bill. Teddy Roosevelt, Rough Rider, San Juan Hill, and yes, many, many members from Puerto Rico have shed their blood to support democracy and fight communism and socialism around the world just like many Americans have. I think you know how most of us feel about that. I would also say that the people, now nearly 4 million Puerto Ricans, have voted on several occasions on these issues. I know for me, and I will say this and I will give you my support, it is not required by Congress that they vote on what their determination wants to be. If you have at least two-thirds instead of 50 plus one on a very important issue like this, this gentleman will support it, but not on a 50 plus one vote. I think if we look, the Puerto Rican people themselves are divided on this particular issue. Quebec has been mentioned. I am not going to let the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) give me any more golf bags after this, but I would say that if he wants to encourage them to learn English, if we ask the people of Quebec and encourage them to learn English instead of French, look at the problems they have had, it would not happen. I think it takes stronger. Mr. Chairman, I was disappointed in the minority leader at his representation of the English provision in this. Let me tell my colleagues why. First of all, there were 259 votes. I went from the very extreme portion of a bill as chairman of the committee and down to the lower portions and moderated the bill to where even States had the right, after this body had said English is the common language of our government, that each individual State had a right to change that. It gave them that option. There was no mandatory thing there. I thought that that was very fair. I think that is why we got such bipartisan support for it. I think the misrepresentation was not well proposed in the bill. I think another big issue, it fails to follow the precedents of other U.S. territories that joined the Union, Hawaii, Alaska, with the great percentages. They really want it. It should be something very special to the great majority of a country. Puerto Rico, as the gentleman said, they feel they are a country. It should be the great expectation of a great majority of that group before they become an American citizen. I do not want another Quebec here. I do not want in Puerto Rico that kind of division and that divisiveness. I think that that is a legitimate issue. They said it is a poison pill. The former Governor of Arkansas had a bill similar to this, Governor Clinton, 23 States in our Union. That is not extreme, as the minority leader said. I just think if we are going to speak, I think we need to speak not disingenuously but purport what the bill says. It is English as a common language, not English only. When I was in the Philippines, the Philippines was going to have Tagalog as its official language. I recommended to President Ramos that that was a disservice because it has no root in math or science. I speak a little Tagalog. They would do themselves a disservice internationally. I went to Vietnam. They are carrying computers, they are learning English and they are studying business because they understand. That is all we are asking for Puerto Rico, that they do that. Instead of speaking Spanish first in their classrooms and English second, it should be turned around, if they want a bite of the American dream. I think that is very, very important. I would ask my colleagues, think carefully about this. If we can have a vote from Puerto Rico, where the majority of them say we want to be an American citizen, I think only a very small percentage of the group that are opposed to this would say no. But we do not have that. I ask my colleagues to take a look at that. I would say, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned, the bill by both sides of the aisle has been represented well with the issues. I thank my colleagues for that. But this is more serious than most bills we have coming up here. I think that is the reason we have given it so much time. Give yourself the time, look at the issues on both sides of it, and I think you will not support the bill and you will not support the substitute but you will support the Solomon amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of HR 424, which increases the mandatory minimum penalty for possessing a firearm while committing a crime, and imposes tough, new penalties based on how a firearm is used in the commission of a crime. The Second Amendment of our Constitution protects the right of law- abiding Americans to bear arms. It does not extend this solemn right to criminals. Nor does it extend this right to those individuals who use firearms in the commission of crimes. In response to Americans' concern with violent crime, the Federal government, and several States, have pursued policies which fail to distinguish between two widely disparate interests: the law-abiding citizens who wish to acquire firearms for protection, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose; and criminals, who, by definition, seeking to obtain firearms for purposes contrary to the law, and who are dangerous to our communities. Unfortunately, this policy of targeting both law-abiding citizens and criminals is not succeeding. Criminals can be relied upon to obtain firearms outside lawful channels. Americans understand that waiting periods and other hindrances to the acquisition of firearms that fail to differentiate between law-abiding citizens and criminals simply do not reduce crime, and do not make our communities safer. Such policies do injustice to our Constitutional liberty for citizens to bear arms. Just as importantly, such policies do not target the cause of violent gun crimes. The cause of violent gun crimes is violent gun criminals. In the best interests of crime victims, and of men, women and children who want safe communities, let us send a strong message to the criminals: If you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, you will go to jail for a long time. I am pleased today to support HR 424 because this important legislation targets firearms crimes by targeting criminals who use firearms, while protecting the Constitutional rights of lawful firearms owners. It is based on a simply, easily-understood principle: penalty escalation. If an individual commits a crime while possessing a firearm, he gets 10 years in jail. If he brandishes that weapon in such a way that it aids in the criminal act, that's a 15-year sentence. If he discharges that weapon, count on 20 years in jail. And those penalties are for the first offense. Second or subsequent offenses demand greater penalties. Additional penalties are provided if the crime was committed with a machine gun, or a firearm with a silencer or muffler. My congratulations go to my colleague, Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC), who wrote this bill, and to Chairmen Bill McCollum and Henry Hyde for reporting HR 424 to the floor today. I also want to express my appreciation to the leadership of this Republican Congress, which is thoroughly and fully committed to making every American community safer for families and for freedom. I encourage my colleagues to stand for safer communities, to stand for the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens who are gun owners and those who are not, and to stand against the criminal element in this country, by voting in favor of HR 424. I hope that the Senate and the President will follow through as well, by promptly adopting this important anti-crime measure.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, there is a vision for education and a vision that could be bipartisan, but it chooses not to, unfortunately, because of partisan politics. We can have big government control of education or we can have it where parents, teachers, local administrators can control that. We talk about voluntary national testing. The gentleman from Michigan Mr. Dale Kildee, who was the ranking minority member on the subcommittee, he and I killed national history standards. Why? As a previous history teacher, the gentleman from Michigan saw they were teaching more about Madonna than they were the Magna Carta, and that the Federal Government was getting involved in socialized history and the standards that went into it. And the worst part was that the textbook companies, before that bill was ever passed, had set forth that liberal agenda into our schools. And that is wrong. The President talks about more money for school construction, but yet the other side of the aisle denied the average age of D.C. schools is 60 years. And when they talk about school construction and more tax dollars for it, the other side rejected that all we had to do is waive Davis-Bacon and we would save 35 percent of school construction. But yet the union bosses controlled the other side of the aisle and they rejected it. So there is a difference in vision. The Democrats had 40 years to establish the foundation of public education. Public education should be the foundation of this country. It spreads across a lot of lines, but yet they want big bureaucracy, big government control. There are 760 Federal education programs. The President wanted $3 billion for a new literacy program. There are already 14 literacy programs, Title I is one of those. What is wrong with saying let us take one or two and get rid of the rest of the bureaucracy that steals the money for big Washington government and keeps it from going down to the classrooms so that teachers and parents and administrators can have more control instead of big Washington union bosses and bureaucrats?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding to me. This is really special for me because quite often it is hard to say you are wrong. When I came to Congress, I did not respect Ron Dellums. Coming out of the military, I had preconceived ideas, notions. As a matter of fact, I thought he was unfair at times, and we even came once, when there was an issue on the conference where they had 14 Members one year on conference, and I had winnowed my way to number 13, and then they cut it to 12. I came to the chairman and said, Mr. Chairman, you are unfair. It got pretty heated right back here in this back room. And both of us in the heat of the battle looked at each other both with tears in our eyes, and we ended up embracing each other, I would like to state for the record in a manly way, Mr. Speaker. But since then I think over these past few years, I say quite a few years since I have been here, Ron and I have become good friends. And it does not mean that we do not differ on issues. I disagree vehemently with national security issues with my friend from California and come from a different perspective. But I want to tell you one thing, one of the hardest things that there is on this floor, and I think my colleagues would agree with, is when you are really dedicated in your heart trying to help something and someone accuses you, whether it is cutting education or cutting Medicare, and you are trying your best to do what you believe is right for this country, Ron Dellums never did that. He always spoke to the issue. He never spoke through partisanship or anything. I think that is part of the reason, Ron, that you were fair. I was wrong. I think there is a Jewish proverb that I think that best exudes what the gentleman from California represents. It was taken from a movie called the Jazz Singer. He and I are old enough to remember Al Jolson. And then Neil Diamond later played in that movie. But it was about a father who had lost a son, not to death but to an argument. And the father wanted his son to be a cantor, and the son wanted to be a jazz singer. And there was so much conflict between them that the father ripped his coat in a Jewish fashion and disavowed that he had a son. I have two daughters. You can use this same proverb. But the proverb goes like this, the father calls to his son and says, son, come home. We have argued too long. And his son replies, father, I cannot. There is too much between us. And the father replies, son, come as far as you can, and I will come the rest of the way. Ron Dellums has always come the rest of the way. I think that is why most of us, even though we disagree a lot of times with politics, do I want you as President? No. Do I want you as Secretary of Defense? No. But I want you as my friend for life, and I want you to always know you are welcome at my table in my home with my family. God bless you, Ron.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. No, I will not withdraw. I have not spoken to anybody specifically.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I did not speak in respect to anybody specifically.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say to the gentleman I have been very careful not to specifically mention anybody.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw the earlier words.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if I may restate my words, the gentleman said it was really a deer and lion and not a snake and a turtle, and I did not mean to infer, and I was very careful not to mention, anybody's name. So I will restate it. By ``snakelike tactics'' I mean in general, and I will be specific, but I will not apply to anybody specifically on it, but I will point out some instances with different departments within the Government that I think have used tactics that are, like was said, we may not trust either one, sampling or counting, and if the gentleman would accept that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, specifically what I was speaking to: In San Diego, for example, there were 2,000 new citizens sworn in, 2,000. The Republican Party asked if they could have tables to register, and they were told by Mr. Reed, head of the INS, no, they could not. They went down to the ceremony itself, and there were 10 Democrat tables set up inside the building ready to go to register people. That kind of tactic we disagree with, and we think it is unfair. I look at the INS and the Sanchez case refusing to give documents up and apply and go toward the subpoenas. We think that was unfair. I look at the Lincoln bedroom, the Vice President with the Buddhists, and the money to the DNC. I look to Charlie Trie, and Riady, and Lippo Bank, and the DNC and dollars to that, Ron Brown, special deals with the buses, John Huang, the DNC illegal campaign contribution, the FBI files, the IRS attacking businesses, Secretary Babbitt up for deals with tribes to give money to the DNC, and the whole point is, if my colleagues want to guess instead of actually counting, we are not going to buy it. I think that if looking at all of the different history, if it was different, we probably would say, okay, let us take a look and let us see which one works better.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there are not two more Members I respect more than the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Skelton] and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha]. I have not heard the tape. I will listen to it tonight, if I can. If that is the case, then, yes, she should have her day. But the problem is the day will be 2 or 3 months from now, when all this issue is dead. Joe Paterno, one of my favorite coaches at Penn State, told a story when I was in a football clinic. He said his dad was in the Army and hated the Marine Corps. He said they were a bunch of peacocks. You can imagine Joe Paterno's amazement and the father's amazement and this old Italian family when his oldest brother came up and said he was going to join the Marine Corps. The father in his old way said, ``Go off, my son, and become a peacock.'' And he did. This is a son that never spoke back to his father a day in his life in that old Italian family. The day he came back after boot camp in his finery, his father said, ``Look, here is that peacock.'' And a man that had never spoken an ill word to his Italian father in his life put his finger in his chest and says, ``Don't you ever say anything bad about the United States Marine Corps. It can lick any 10 Army regiments.'' The gentleman from California [Mr. Hunter] would disagree with that. But his whole idea was how do you collectively take a mind and mold it into a fighting machine with respect, and he took that same esprit de corps and turned it into the Penn State football team. And he talks about tradition. What this gentlelady has just done is violate that tradition, and we cannot accept that kind of character, or lack of character, in the leadership of the Department of Defense. We can neither accept nor tolerate it. And, in my opinion, if the allegations are true, this gentlelady has no place, because the position of leadership in the military is not just a position, it is a guidepost for men and women in all the services.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would make one correction: There is no such word as ``hero.'' You do what you have to do, and try to survive. I rise in support of this resolution. One of the most victorious things I think that has ever happened to me is we sponsor an art contest, like many of the Members. A young lady named Foo Lee, a Vietnamese refugee, won that contest. I found out that her mom had actually had to stay back while the whole family escaped in the boat, in a rickety old boat, which the picture was about. If you could see the picture, you would actually have tears in your eyes. You could see the pain in that family. It took us 2 years to get Foo Lee's mom out of a reeducation camp in Vietnam. She stayed behind, knowing that if the rest of the family was caught, they would be put into this reeducation camp, and not many people survive. After 2 years, on Christmas Eve, Foo Lee's mom came into San Diego. That is the kind of treatment that you can expect in Vietnam. I commend Pete Peterson, who asked me to come over just a couple months ago and raise the American flag over Ho Chi Minh City for the first time in many years, in about 25 years. Pete and I and a delegation did so with Hal Rogers. I want to tell you something. They are moving forward. As a matter of fact, I told the President of the Philippines this, that they are studying English. You see people on bicycles, carrying computers, they are studying economics, and they are going to move. Yet they are still repressed. It is still a Communist regime. For example, there are over 39 Americans in prison there. Our State Department cannot even be present while they are convicted and going through court. I don't know how many of you recently saw Richard Gere in the current movie in China. That is the type of environment that they still have. So this resolution is very, very important, I think, to send a clear message. We must engage, just like we do with China and Russia, but we need to send a loud and clear message.