Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Hawaii, and we have been friends for a long time, and what I would say is under the same circumstances I probably would have objected also, just receiving the information, not knowing what the bill was. The gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest] and myself have been following this thing day by day, working with the senators from my State on the bill who had objection to it originally. There were some agreements made on the Senate side that I would have not wanted in the bill, but were placed there. I, like the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton] and my colleague from Maryland, agree that in the best interests of the country and of the safety of the tuna dolphin that it would be good to pass and push on this bill. After all, it was supported last Congress. It did not make it to the Senate, it has gone through here, it has gone through the Senate, and I believe the President has lobbied strongly for this bill and will sign it, that we go forth and do that. And I thank my friend for not only his patience, but for his consideration.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we are today proudly returning to Americans more of their hard earned money. I am honored to help provide the people of San Diego County some long-overdue tax relief, through my enthusiastic vote for H.R. 2014. For families with children, we provide relief through a $400-per- child tax credit next year, and $500 per child in the following years, and relief to save for college and education and a better future. For homeowners, we exempt the sale of couples' homes up to $500,000 from the capital gains tax. This will help spur home sales, and simplify recordkeeping for thousands of San Diego County homeowners. And for families who save and invest, we have expanded the availability of IRA's and slashed the capital gains tax. Together, these initiatives spur more savings and more economic growth. Together with the bill we passed yesterday, saving Medicare and controlling Government spending, we are balancing the budget after years of debts and deficits. What a difference it has made for America to have a fiscally responsible Republican Congress. Back in 1993, President Clinton enacted the largest tax increase in American history. This Republican Congress has brought sense to the Federal budget by restoring respect for the budgets of the families and businesses that make America strong and free. And America wins. As I did when this measure passed the House in June, I want to draw attention to one particular provision of this package: the 21st Century Classrooms Act. This provision provides expanded tax incentives for companies to donate computers and technology to K-12 education. I want to address why this is so important to our children and our future. By the year 2000, some 60 percent of U.S. jobs will require technical skills, twice as many as today. But, as the GAO has reported, our classrooms lack the technology our children need to succeed. This measure will spur private enterprise to get involved with local schools, and to provide them a new source of up-to-date computers and technology. It ensures that companies have an incentive to donate to schools, to private foundations involved in education, and to organizations that refurbish computers for schools so that they are ready for educational uses. Just as computers and technology have transformed private enterprise, they can transform our schools and the education of our children. With the click of a mouse, a child can go anywhere in the world. With computer proficiency, a young person can transform a wide variety of information into a multimedia presentation. With the technology available today--to say nothing of the technology available tomorrow--a student can compose music, write and illustrate a short story, study images of distant worlds, and help dream bigger dreams and build a better world for the next generation of Americans. I am optimistic that the 21st Century Classrooms Act can help transform American education. It will help prepare our young people for tomorrow. And when this House votes for this tax relief today, it will help bring new opportunity to the classrooms of America's young people. We are indebted to the men and women who assembled this package of tax relief for the American people, including Speaker Gingrich and the Republican House leadership, Chairmen Archer and Kasich and their staffs. But we are most indebted to the Americans who pay the way of this Government. For them, we are providing a tax cut.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, there were some other reservations for other bills that were made under all of these unanimous consent requests. And although I support the initiative of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel] and his bill, I would have to object until these reservations can be worked out by the leadership. We were told these UC's were worked out and, at the last moment someone from his side of the aisle was going to object to one of these UC's. If that is the case, I will object until that can be worked out.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Rangel].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say to my friend that I will support the gentleman in commemorating it in a few minutes if this can be worked out. After the agreement is made, I will be very happy and I will not object. But until that is made, the lives and livelihood of many of my constituents are at stake. And I would say to the same gentleman, someone on his side of the aisle was just about ready to make that decision, which would affect adversely and in which a vote in the Senate was 99-to-0, and because there is an objection to the UC, would affect negatively many of the lives. And until that point, I am going to be forced to object.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would say that I will support the amendment, but I do not think it will pass. The reason I am hesitant in doing that is because if it gets my constituents' hopes up, I think they will get dashed. I will support the gentleman's amendment, but I do not think it will pass.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I understand part of the gentleman's amendment, that when we have a lot of different programs that we have to buy, then there is limited dollars. But I would also tell the gentleman that that has been created not artificially but by this very body. When we keep cutting defense, procurement, about 70 percent, when we have additional BRACC rounds and that takes, base closing rounds and that takes additional dollars, when we increase the operations tempo higher, higher than during the Vietnam conflict, which wears out our equipment, then we cannot put the money in research and development. We want to take money and advance the procurement for a carrier, which would save $600 million. But if we take money out of that carrier from, say, the F-22, we take it from any of the other programs, then those costs go up. So, eventually, we override the costs and we cannot even buy smart. Those that are proponents of reducing defense, and they have that right, I disagree with that. But those that do, cost us not only national security but we cannot even buy smart because we cannot buy and keep a line open. We have to shut down a line, and we have to open it. We have to lay off workers and bring them back on. That is very costly. But I want to talk tactically. These are some of the aircraft that the F-22 would have to go out and fight. I have flown most of what we have in the United States inventory and most of what the Soviets have. I can tell my colleagues their capabilities. I can tell my colleagues about their radars, their missiles, their maneuverability, what their electronic warfare equipment is, all the different tactical applications. The F-22 will have a much different mission, say, than the FA-18EF. It will be more of a hunter-killer, flying with four to eight aircraft protecting B-2's, or actually on what we call a Mig cap, going in prior to going into a target and sweeping the area and having blue water and fleet air defense, as well as air superiority. As General Fogleman says, we need air dominance. We had air superiority in Desert Storm. But as we go in, I would ask my colleagues to take a look at the reasons that we need these airplanes. The F-22, a lot of it is for the same reason that we needed the B-2. The F-22 is one of the new stealthy airplanes that we have to go in against a target and that the enemy, all those fighters that I showed my colleagues previously, do not know that they are there. When we close in on a fighter and he does not know we are there, we get first shot, he does not. Right now, most of those airplanes on that other chart have missiles that will go farther than ours, they go faster and they detect us first. With the F-22, they do not detect us. It allows our shorter range missile to get inside so that we can fire and launch and leave, and now our guys are going to live. That is the value of the F-22. Now, it is an Air Force airplane. I flew in the Navy. Why would I support an Air Force airplane? Because it is part of national security and it is part of the defense of this country. In this humble Member's opinion it is an aircraft that we need. I agree there are not enough dollars to go around, and we could buy other programs, but when we take from one to give to the other, then the additional costs go up and that is not effective. I would say to my friend that in this other chart, the aircraft of tomorrow are here today, only the United States does not have them. I am alive today because I had better training than the enemy. I am alive today because the airplane, the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam was better than the Mig-21. The missiles I had, the Sparrow and the Sidewinder, were better than the Aphid and the Apex, but that is no longer true. This is the research and development. And I will be happy to take my colleagues up on the fourth floor where we can talk about the secure programs, the black programs that exist in this airplane, that are star wars technology that none of the other airplanes have and none of the other countries have. This will be an airplane for the future. This is an airplane that will mean the difference between life and death for our aviators, our men and women.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I served on the Committee on National Security my first three terms here and served with the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums]. He is an honorable man. We disagree on issues, but he has always been fair and he debates well. That is not my issue. The issue is how I see it on why we need not only the B-2 but the defense structure that we have. I do not expect to change the opponents' minds by my 5 minutes. But I would like to express to them why I feel that it is important and at least have them have that understanding. First of all, I think it is fair to say, why did we order the B-2 in the first place? Was there a perceived mission for it? Did the Air Force want the airplane? The answer is yes. Second, is there still today a perceived mission for the B-2 and the B-1? The answer is yes. And is there one in the future? I also say yes. I will be specific in just a moment. I think if we take a look at what the threat is today in the areas that we could have gone into, whether it is Desert Storm, whether it is North Korea, whether it is different areas, without having to cost the additional expense of massing forces, when Saddam Hussein rattles his ugly sword and makes a strike, can we do that effectively and save billions of dollars by using a B-2 strike instead of having to mass all of our forces and then back away if nothing happens? The answer is yes. Second, if we do not build the B-2 today, then what? The cost of then-year dollars, the R&D dollars out into the future is so expensive to build a new airplane and to invest in a new airplane, it would cost much more. Russia today, I would say to my friend, not tomorrow, is building today a first strike nuclear site under the Ural Mountains the size of inside the beltway in Washington D.C. Why, when they already have one to the northeast? A nuclear threat to the United States, supposedly an ally. Anyone who would think Russia is our ally or China is our ally is mistaken, in my opinion. Second, let us look at what the real threat is to our aviators who are going to be asked to fly in those particular airplanes. I have some charts. These are the nations where fighters are proliferated. These airplanes right here, the SU-27, the SU-35, and the SU-37. Let us take a scenario of taking a Strike Eagle, an F-15 Strike Eagle. By the way, the Air Force has not bought a new fighter in 25 years, while the development of all of these countries are advancing their procurement and their R&D. They have advanced farther than we have, in stealth and in missile technology and airframe. If we take a Strike Eagle or an F-14D, two of our best fighters, and match them up with an SU-27, an SU-35, or a -37 that has a big radar, their radar sees those airplanes first. They have big giant radars. They are very fast. They are very maneuverable. The AA-12 missile gets there faster and further than our AMRAAM. Our guys are going to die. That is why we need the F-22. Let us take a F-22 that they do not see as well because it is more stealthy, or the B-2. We get inside that envelope, we get first shot, and the bad guys are going to die first. These are the countries that have those airplanes. Let us take an F-22 flying with a B-2 or a B-1. This bad guy over here is going to tell exactly where our fighters are because that B-2 is going to tell him it is a big aluminum fog in the sky and he is going to see it, he is going to know where we are. Again, our pilots are going to die, not the bad guys. If we take the B-2 with an F-22, he gets in unobserved, can get to the target, can knock it out or the B-2 can get in there by himself and save billions of dollars. These again are the countries that have the missiles, the AA-12. I have flown most of these airplanes. If Members want to talk about the maneuverability, go to the Paris Air Show and look at the SU-37 and take a look at the vector thrust. They are better than our fighters, the B-2's and the threat of the bombers are better than ours, and we need to know. Mr. Chairman, I include the following material for the Record: Countries With Advanced AAM in 2005

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman partially, except that I intentionally put in the language that would allow this to happen. The only problem is that every source we have gone to has said no, it will not happen. The gentleman is correct, there is no money to make it happen. And we tried every effort, whether it was 29 Palms or whether it was March or what, we thought it was a better avenue. I still do. The language is in there that would allow it, but none of the sources that would allow us to do that at this time will allow it to happen.

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I do not disagree with anything my colleague from California has said. In the very first BRACC, before this was even a concern, this Member sought to try and put fixed-wing aircraft with fixed-wing aircraft at Miramar. It is much more efficient. We lost that fight. During the second BRACC, when they decided to close El Toro and Hawaii and some other bases and move helicopters, I also opposed helicopters coming to Miramar for some of the same reasons my colleague from California mentioned. We went through the study of noise, we went through environmental, we went through the Secretary of the Navy. They said no. We went to General Krulak. The Marine Corps said the helicopters are coming. We went to the Secretary of the Navy. They said the helicopters were coming. My colleague and I even went to the White House to try to get support from then Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, and after an extensive study, the Chief of Staff said the helicopters are coming. The President said the helicopters are coming. It is my responsibility to my constituents in whose area these helicopters are coming to be truthful and to point out to them when there is, A, merit, which I think there is merit in the gentleman's amendment. But the chance of the amendment getting through is very, very small. It is like telling an MIA family that there are MIA's alive. We get their hopes up and then when it does not happen, it goes down. We have been through this year after year after year. I would say, Mr. Chairman, I have gone back and asked General Krulak, I have asked Jay Johnson in the Navy, I have asked the Secretary of Defense, and all the way up to the President, and they said that, no, this does interfere with the BRACC decision and that it will not happen. So instead of getting my constituents all in hopes that they are not coming, I would like to work with my colleague to make sure, first of all, the I-15 corridor that goes up and down, which has Scripts' Ranch and Rancho Bernardo, and a lot of the affected area. The FAA has been very forthcoming, and the administration has helped us with this, which I am very thankful for, but if it is IFR, under instrument flight rules, we have limited the number of flights that go up and down the I- 15 corridor. If it goes to the east, over a certain departure, we have actually altered the departure route for that so it does not overfly much of the population. I cannot tell the gentleman the difficulty it took or takes to change airways, because it affects everything. The third thing we have done is change the altitudes. They were going to go out a thousand feet. I would also like to work with the chairman. I live out here at the marina, and those helicopters are coming by every morning and every night at 0-dark-hundred in the morning from the White House, and I want them stopped because they are noisy. And those things are about 200 feet over the top of my boat, and it is going to stop. But I also want to point out that we have also lost, Mr. Chairman, six marines in car accidents that have been forced to travel up and down the corridor. Military construction for the base. And I think the helicopters are coming, I would say to my colleague, and we need to do everything that we can to make sure that, A, the military is welcome; that, B, we do everything we can to appease our citizens in South Bay and my district as well, and to work together on this issue. But I do not think the amendment will pass and I think the actual potential of it ever making it through is zero. So for that reason I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me even add to that point. When I worked in the Pentagon, the Navy never ordered A-6's. They prayed that Congress would add them just to keep the line on so we could perpetuate it. Members can talk to General Fogleman or the Air Force generals, they pray that we will add this. Yes, there are budgetary constraints. They asked for the B-2 in the first place because it had a mission. With the White House and other constraints cutting defense, there are limited dollars. But they want the B-2 for the mission because they know it is applicable and it is going to save pilots' lives.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Small point: The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Sam Johnson, saw three B-52's blow up. Those were shot down by SA-2 Fansong radar in an old technology, post-Korean vintage. Today they have got SA-3 surface-to-air missile, all the way through about 19, and the advanced technology. We were successful in Desert Storm with the 117 because we could go over downtown Baghdad and not be seen. That is what the B-2 brings to this, instead of the loss of lives, much more efficiency, not only the cost of training pilots, but aircraft and our effectiveness in combat, and that is what we call national security.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I move to strike the requisite number of words, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I will only speak for a short amount of time. Mr. Chairman, I understand what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] is attempting to do here. I would caution him, and I will support the amendment, one of the most troubling times I had in my military career was being outspoken about letting F-14's go to the Shah of Iran. I made a statement that we were being blackmailed at the time. This was at a time when there was an oil embargo. We remember the long gas lines we had in this country because of the shortage. I said, now, Iran is not Arabic and it is the Arabs that were holding us hostage over oil. Iran is Persian. But yet they will not have to pay for one single one of those F-14's because all they have to do is raise the price of oil by a cent and they get them free. I said the second point is that as a fighter pilot, I do not want to have to look down the barrels of those F-14's if the shah ever falls. Well, I felt like Billy Mitchell after that happened because we did look down the barrels of those F-14's. So I understand the intent of the gentleman and support it. But in future language, I would ask the gentleman to be very cautious because there are countries that I have flown with, like South Korea, some of our allies that have F-16s, England, I would not give them to France, personal opinion. They sell arms to every one of our enemies. There are socialists and Communists there now, and I would not give them a dime or any weapons. But there are countries that I think that, if we are flying there in a conflict and some of the NATO countries that would ally, and I do not care if it is a British pilot taking a Mig off my tail or someone else, then I would like that support. But I support the gentleman's amendment and I understand the merit behind it.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh]. I think from the different committees that I have served on and my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, there is no more of an evenhandedness of the issues or of the bill. The gentleman will bend over backward to help. I would like to address the last speaker's words on Mr. Dornan and the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. Many of us feel that the Sanchez-Dornan seat was stolen. I will be specific. I will give my colleagues a classic example. In the city of San Diego, they had 5,000 new citizens sworn in. At that time, a gentleman from the Republican Party asked the INS if they could establish tables like they always have, but this was an extra large one and they were told no, that this was so large that they were not going to allow anyone to register new citizens in either party. The Republican Party went down there the day of, anyway, and there were 12 Democrat tables set up and no Republican tables had been allowed in. Then we have the case of the pushing in of new citizens and waiving background checks to the point where we have thousands, thousands, of people that were let in as new citizens that were felons. I am not talking just little felons, I am talking rapists, murderers, and so on. The recent newspaper articles on Conair, where they are actually shifting out people in different areas, is prevalent, also. All Mr. Dornan is asking is to get the records to see if there was an injustice or if there were any peculiarities in that particular district that affected voting. That is a fair question: Do you have American citizens voting? What they found to date, especially one activist group encouraged people that were going to be citizens to vote. Even though they had not become citizens, they had done so. It is a felony for people to register before they have become citizens, and there is a great number of those. At the same time, there were numbers of illegals that had registered. What we need to do, Mr. Chairman, is to take a look at motor-voter, the practices of the INS, the practices of registration in different States. It is not just Mr. Dornan at stake. If we look at all of the border States and the infusion of illegals coming across, we even had hearings in San Diego that the Border Patrol stepped forward and said that they were ordered to let illegals come through, not us, not the Republicans, but the Border Patrol members themselves. We need to get to the heart of this. When Mr. Dornan asks to have the records looked at by appropriate sources, by Republicans and Democrats, by the judicial system, I think that is fair.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia. We can support this right now, for all States, for all congressional districts, but just in a little different way. The Century 21 high- technology bill, which is in the budget under Ways and Means, today the President is looking at it and he accepts some portions of that. Right now he is insisting that all $35 billion go toward higher postsecondary education. If that is the case, this will be cut out of all of our districts, and it is one in which we accommodate industry that develops and puts into the classrooms high-technology equipment like computers, like scientific gear. The next phase of this, I think, should be the libraries, and we are asking for just a small portion of that $35 billion goes through K through 12. We think when our education system in some areas, and we have good teachers, my wife is one of them, but in some areas needs help, that we do it in the K through 12 and not spend it all on postsecondary education.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from California. Let me take a little different tack. On a bipartisan nature, both Republicans and Democrats in the California area, when the Federal Government induces or causes a problem or at least contributes to it, then it should have that responsibility to take care of those problems. With the advent of the border States and NAFTA, especially along the Mexican border, the infrastructure and our highway and transportation system have been beaten to death by trucks, cars, and additional travel. The gentleman's amendment would ease that problem. Second, that the interstate transportation along a border State with a major port like San Diego actually enhances the economy of this great country with the Asian markets in which we have a current deficit, so it helps reduce that deficit. The gentleman has given a lot of thought to this amendment. We have not received the support that we think that it should receive.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, before I yield back the time, I mention just one more benefit from this, not only the Federal Government's responsibility for helping create jobs in NAFTA, not only in our rail but other rails, but to take a look at the environmental concerns when we put trains on and take heavy trucks and transportation off of our highways, the environmental and the pollution with EPA and so on is also benefited. Mr. Chairman, with that I yield back the balance of my time.