Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, many colleagues on both sides have stood up and said that maybe it is just a little bit of money. National Endowment for the Arts, which I did not get a chance to speak on in the last amendment, it is only a little bit of money, $100 million a year. I swore that if I ever spoke that a million dollars was a little bit of money, that I would leave this body, because it is a lot of money and I think we need to take that into account. There are Members here and they have the right to that opinion that government can do things better. I think Charlie the Cockroach, whatever his name, would feel better if he had the right to control his own destiny instead of other people controlling it. That $110 million a year for the NEA and $100 million for the NEH adds up to a lot of dollars. Let us take a 10-year period. When the gentleman from Wisconsin talked about the real future and the light of the future, I think the real light of this great country was born on individualism, from people creating their own destiny, not Federal Government. If we look at what the NEH does, have they done some good things? Sure, I am sure they do. And the NEA, have they done good things? Yes. But when we take a look at what the real light is, is it giving back taxpaying Americans dollars instead of sending it to Washington? You have to borrow the money. That $200 million a year, you have to borrow that money to be able to spend it and then make people think that you are giving them a good deal. I submit that it is not a good deal, Mr. Chairman. We have people in San Diego, in my area like U.S.S. Grant Sharp, Adm. Grant Sharp, four- star admiral, we have Wally Schirra, an astronaut. I would love the humanities to come in and talk about their history. But we do that with PBS and private funds. The Government does not have to do that. The gentleman from Maine that talked about this great program in Maine that they have. If it is so important to Maine, I have never seen it. Joe Sixpack in my State or county has never seen it. Let people from Maine, if it is so important, support it. Why should Joe Sixpack from all the other districts fund this? There are some great individual programs. The gentleman talked about the B-2, a controversial issue. I would submit to take a look, is there a need for the B-2? Is there a mission in the future for it? I say yes. And if not, what would you do, spend another $12 billion just on the R&D that goes on with what the new B-2 is or whatever replaces it? That is going to cost more in those dollars. I would submit that the gentleman from Wisconsin has not sat over the top of Hanoi like I have and watched two B-52's go down in flames, with the horror of watching those men die because they were flying in 40- year-old airplanes. Yes, there is an issue. I think the perspective is different. But the perspective of the American people is not to have the Federal Government do it. It is awful hard to outspend a liberal. We will give a figure to balance the budget and you will give a higher figure. Then you will say we are cutting, whether it is Medicare, Medicaid, education and the environment or these programs, and look how wonderful they are. The President wants a $3 billion literacy program. Mr. Chairman, we have 14 literacy programs in the Federal Government. What is wrong with paying for one and fully funding it and getting rid of the bureaucracies and getting rid of the bureaucracy of the NEA and funding down the arts where parents and children and schools can make those decisions? No, they want the Federal Government. If you take a look at whether it is health care controlled by the Federal Government, whether it is education controlled by the Federal Government, or history standards controlled by the Federal Government in which they had more study about Madonna and McCarthyism than they did the Magna Carta, or whether it is private control of private property. No, I am not talking about the Federal Government. I am talking about the Communist Manifesto written by Karl Marx and Engels about control of everything that goes on in River City, in Washington, DC and by Government. I think it is time, Mr. Chairman, that we change those things. Yes, the cockroach would be much happier if he had the destiny of his own life to live instead of people that borrow money here that do not have to pay it back, they do not, even the people they spend it on do not have to pay it back. Americans have to pay it back.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if we want to save the arts and save the arts for children, $80 million goes to all States, not the majority to New York or my State of California. There was a Republican compromise back in 1995. As the chairman of the subcommittee, along with the majority leader, we brought moderate Republicans, conservatives, in an agreement to save the arts for 3 years. Give them $99 million, let them establish their own endowment, their own endowment, and take it off of taxpayers. Twenty million dollars in administrative fees, the rest of it going to New York and California, very little to many of the States, we decided to get rid of that. Let us put the money down to the States, down to the children, and take it out of the liberal hands of the NEA. What this rule does is eliminate the organization, not the arts. If we want our rhetoric to go where it is and save the arts, let us put the money down there. When we talk about policy, when the Democrats were in the majority they eliminated this amendment on an up or down vote because they knew it would pass, that the money would get to the children, not to the liberal NEA itself.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 849, which would prohibit illegal aliens from receiving relocation assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. This legislation continues Congress' commitment to stop providing taxpayer supported benefits to illegal aliens. Like many of my constituents, I was shocked to read on February 12, 1997, the San Diego Union-Tribune headline ``Immigrant Status No Bar to Housing Aid, Undocumented Tenant To Get $12,000 in Relocation Funds.'' The article, written by Lola Sherman, highlights how an illegal alien living in Oceanside, CA, was provided $12,000 by HUD for relocation assistance. I have attached the article for the Record. This illegal alien was living in a public housing complex which was purchased by Community Housing of North County, a private, nonprofit organization that is planning to remodel the complex to provide housing to people with AIDS. The illegal alien and the other members of the public housing complex were to be relocated to other housing by HUD under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act. Of the other 21 residents of this complex, all legal residents, 10 received no assistance for relocation. The other 11 either moved into subsidized housing or received between $1,000 and $2,500 in relocation assistance. However, because the illegal alien was not eligible to move into subsidized housing, and because the alien had no legal taxable income, HUD was required to provide the illegal alien the maximum possible Federal subsidy under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act for relocation assistance. In this case, the illegal alien was provided $12,000, far more than the other citizens and legal residents were provided for living in the same situation. Immediately, I joined Mr. Packard in supporting this important legislation, which would deny assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act to illegal aliens. This commonsense legislation continues Congress' commitment to stopping taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens. Last year, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act and the Immigration in the National Interest Act to stop generous taxpayer benefits from being paid to illegal aliens. By passing this legislation today, we will remove one more magnet which draws illegal aliens to our country and ensure that our limited taxpayers' dollars are focused to our citizens who need help most. Mr. Speaker, I encourage all my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 849. [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Feb. 12, 1997] Woman Gets $12,000 in Housing Aid Despite Undocumented Status (By Lola Sherman) Oceanside.--An Oceanside woman is being paid $12,000 in federal housing money to move from an apartment complex here even though she isn't a legal resident of the United States. The woman, Olivia Solorio, is one of a dozen individuals or families that were relocated after their former apartments on South Tremont Street were bought by Community Housing of North County, a private, nonprofit organization that soon will begin remodeling the complex to house AIDS patients. Most of the other tenants of the apartments, all legal residents of the country, moved either to rent-subsidized apartments or received much smaller relocation payments. Solorio's payment of $12,000 was largely the result of her undocumented status and her lack of income, officials acknowledge. City and federal officials, as well as documented residents ousted from the complex, say the large payment to Solorio doesn't seem fair. ``It's the law,'' said Nancy Lahey, relocation specialist in the Los Angeles regional office of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. ``I think it will take an act of Congress to change it.'' Solorio and the other tenants were moved from the 22-unit complex over the last several months. Work is to begin Feb. 24 on a $480,000 remodeling project so the complex can house low-income tenants with AIDS. Oceanside has funneled $310,750 of its federal housing funds into the remodeling, said Richard Goodman, city housing director. The entire project will cost about $1.7 million, mostly from federal tax credits offered to investors. Of that, $1.1 million is in so-called ``hard costs'' such as land acquisition and renovation. The rest is for relocation expenses, a reserve for future rental assistance for the new tenants and a developer fee to North County Housing, formerly called Esperanza. About 10 tenants moved from the apartments without any assistance. To save money on relocation expenses for the remaining 12, Goodman said, officials were able to relocate most of them to Section 8 housing, which provides federal rent subsidies. They received no relocation payments. But Solorio does not qualify for Section 8 housing since she is not a legal resident. She will, however, get $12,000 under the Uniform Relocation Act, which does not consider immigration status. ``It has always rubbed me the wrong way, but there is nothing I can do about it,'' Goodman said. HUD's Lahey said, ``It's kind of crazy.'' Undocumented immigrants are eligible for one kind of public aid and not another, she said, adding that she wasn't happy about giving taxpayer dollars to an undocumented resident, but was not able to do anything about it. Explaining the formula used to figure the payment, Lahey said if, for example, people displaced by a federally financed project had an income of $600 a month, they would be expected to pay just under a third of that, or about $180, for rent. If the rent in the new apartment was $400, they would be entitled to the difference--$220--for a period of 42 months. Solorio, 49, from Jalisco, Mexico, had lived in the South Tremont apartments since July 1994. It was unclear whether she would be subject to deportation. City housing records describe her status only as ``undocumented.'' In an interview, Solorio said, ``My documentation is in process.'' She denied seeking any large amount of money and expressed surprise at the sum due her. She said she does not work outside the home but takes care of two small children. She did not disclose her income, but said she pays $465 a month, plus utilities, in her new apartment. In the Tremont apartment, she paid $450 including utilities. Her two youngest sons, 13 and 15, live with her. All 10 of her children reside in California, she said, and she has been here for seven years. Solorio said she has not gotten any sizable payments as yet. ``I don't know anything about it,'' she added, indicating she has received only a small amount for moving expenses. But Del Richardson of Del Richardson and Associates, the Yorba Linda firm in charge of distributing the money under contract to North County Housing, said Solorio has received half the $12,000, while a check for the other half will be sent to her ``sometime this month.'' Richardson said that Solorio may be unaware of some of the assistance she has received because it went directly to the owner of her new apartment, for rent and the security deposit, and was paid to other vendors for moving costs. But she said Solorio has received direct payments as well. Horacio Ortiz and Concepcion Diaz, two other former tenants of the South Tremont Street apartments, were among four tenants besides Solorio who either turned down Section 8 housing or were not eligible for it. Because both have higher incomes than Solorio, Ortiz received $1,512 and Diaz $2,142 from the same fund that will pay Solorio $12,095, records show. Oritz, who lived in the Tremont apartments since 1974, isn't happy about the situation. ``It's not fair--she has less time here and she doesn't have (immigration) papers,'' he said. Diaz, a resident in the Tremont units since 1982, agreed. ``She doesn't have papers and she hasn't been here very long,'' she said.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bill. I appreciate my colleague from California for the good work that he and the ranking member have executed on the bill. But I come to the committee with a concern. For the first time I visited West Point this year, just a couple of weeks ago. We have a facility built in the 1920's, and they put through 4,000 cadets a day in these facilities. My colleagues say, ``What does a Navy guy want to help the Army for?'' Because we train our men and women to go to war and they are hurting bad. The facilities are cracked, they are falling down in some cases, and this is what we have to offer the best of the best that go through? These rascals even had ``Beat Navy'' signs on their houses, on their bleachers, on their cars, and in their dormitories, but that does not overshadow the fact that I would like to appeal to the gentleman from California next year to go forward and take a trip there and he will see just how decimated West Point is in relation to our other academies.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic support of the Taxpayer Relief Act. After a 17-year wait, the American people finally receive tax relief under this measure. Families with children get a $500-per-child tax credit. There's tax relief to help with college. There's relief from the capital gains tax, which will help spur investment and grow the economy. And there's relief from the onerous death tax, so Americans who have built their businesses with their own hard work will be more able to pass their businesses on to their children. It is remarkable to contrast this product of a Republican Congress with the product adopted in 1993 by a Democratic Congress. President Clinton was elected in 1992, with a Democratic Congress, and enacted the largest tax increase in history without a single Republican vote in the House or the other body. President Clinton was re-elected in 1996, with a Republican Congress, and now we are working together to provide Americans the middle-class tax relief that he promised 5 years ago, but has thus far failed to deliver--until now. Together with the bill we adopted yesterday cutting spending and preserving Medicare, this tax relief contributes to a balanced Federal budget, and ends the tide of red ink and deficits that threaten our future. Other Members have discussed in detail the many excellent provisions of this bill. I would like to focus on just one. I would like to talk about how this legislation includes my provision to encourage companies to invest their computers and technology to upgrade our children's classrooms. The Need for the 21st Century Classroom Act The General Accounting Office reported in 1995 that ``America's schools are not designed or equipped for the 21st century.'' Yet, we all know that an excellent education that provides American children with a fighting chance at the American Dream includes rigorous academic basic instruction--plus the new requirement for technological literacy and proficiency in working with computers. The need for technological literacy is immediate. By the year 2000, just 3 years way, 60 percent of American jobs will require high technology skills. Thus, without early training in technological literacy, many of our future leaders will start their adult lives at a severe economic disadvantage. While America's classrooms are supported by dedicated teachers, involved families, and bright young children, many of our Nation's classrooms lack the important technological resources that they need to prepare both teachers and students for a technologically advanced present and future. While we are daily amazed at the ways that advanced technology has improved America's economic competitiveness, transformed commerce and communications, and improved the quality of life of millions of Americans, that same advanced technology has not yet made as transforming an impact on the way schools educate children. The Internet and the World Wide Web are revolutionizing the way individuals and organizations share and find information. Yet only 14 percent of our classrooms have a telephone jack, and about 1 in 50 are connected to the Internet. Furthermore, the most common computer in our Nation's schools is the Apple 2c, introduced over a decade ago and now on display at the Smithsonian Institution; and while 50 percent of schools have local area computer networks [LAN's], less than 10 percent of those networks connect with computers in classrooms. Therefore, bringing America's classrooms into the 21st century requires a major national investment in technology, including computers, software, and interactive interconnectivity. How can we accomplish this task? We have three choices. We can do nothing, which appears inexpensive but bears an immense cost in lost opportunity and foregone economic growth. We can create and expand Federal Government programs which invest in education technology. However, because of the immense scale of the need, and because primary and secondary education are primarily a local and State responsibility, bringing our classrooms into the 21st century is best done in a manner that does not increase Federal Government expenditures or bureaucracy. Or we can encourage and maximize private investment for this purpose, keeping control as close as possible to the children, parents, and teachers who will benefit. This last choice is the option taken by the 21st Century Classrooms Act. We are fortunate that many businesses invest their time and resources into classrooms. But we must do more, and we can do better. The tremendous need for additional computer equipment and software in our classrooms, plus the wave of computer upgrades taking place among businesses in the United States, argue persuasively for an additional financial incentive to encourage businesses to invest their equipment into 21st century classrooms. The bipartisan balanced budget agreement offers Congress an opportunity to expand technological investment in our schools through specialized tax incentives. The budget agreement includes tax relief for American families. And it also includes tax cuts related to education--but only for higher education. With so many students entering universities, community colleges and other higher education needing remedial coursework, it is right and wise for Congress to use this opportunity to spur private investment into technology upgrades for K-12 education. provisions of the 21st century classrooms act The 21st Century Classrooms Act (Cunningham--H.R. 1153), included in the Taxpayer Relief Act as title II, subtitle C, sec. 223, is designed to spur private investment for technological upgrades to create and sustain a greater number of 21st century classrooms. Enactment of the 21st Century Classrooms Act will help provide schools the tools they need to offer a better education to our young people, increase local private investment in our schools, and ensure a better future for our country. This provision expands the tax deduction currently available to computer manufacturers making donations of high-tech equipment to university research institutions. It expands the class of donors to include any corporation, not just computer manufacturers. And it expands the class of recipients to include K-12 schools, certain private foundations, and certain other recipients whose primary purpose is to support K-12 education. The measure is intended to provide corporations a greater incentive to donate the right kind of quality computer equipment and technology toward K-12 education. It takes advantage of the many ways such donations may be accomplished, including donations to computer recycling programs whose primary purpose is supporting K-12 education. It limits the expanded tax deduction to donations of relatively new equipment of 2 years age or less. It also limits the expanded tax deduction to donations which will expressly fit productively into the recipient's education plan. practical examples of how the 21st century classrooms act works Let me describe how this tax incentive works. For example, if a corporation buys a computer as an asset, it pays $1,000, which is the basis. If it sells the computer a year later, it may receive $400 in cash. If the company donates the computer to a nonprofit or school under current law, it may take a charitable tax deduction of the lower of fair market value--$400--or the amount that has not been depreciated. If the company donates the computer to an eligible K-12 education recipient under this act, however, it may take a charitable tax deduction of $1,000, which is the basis of $1,000, plus one-half of the asset's appreciation, which is zero. If a corporation buys a computer as inventory, for example, it pays $500 to build it. If it sells the computer on the open market, it receives $1,000 in cash. If instead of selling the computer, the company donates it to a nonprofit or school--not to a scientific research institution--it may take a charitable tax deduction of $500, which is the lower of fair market value--$1,000--or the amount that has not depreciated, an amount equal to or less than the basis of $500. If instead of selling the computer, the company donates it to a qualified scientific research institution under current law, it may take a charitable tax deduction of $750, which is the $500 basis, plus one half of the $500 appreciation, totaling no more than twice the basis. And, finally, if instead of selling the computer, the company donates it to a qualified K-12 education recipient under the 21st Century Classrooms Act, it may take the charitable tax deduction of $750, which is now only available to donations to certain scientific research institutions. This measure is designed to work hand-in-hand with the educational connectivity provisions of the Telecommunications Act. As the Federal Communications Commission develops regulations to insure that schools have affordable high-technology telecommunications connectivity available to them, the 21st Century Classrooms Act accelerates the availability of high-tech equipment in our schools and our classrooms. supported by educators and corporations The 21st Century Classrooms Act has gained the support of over 30 members of the House, both Republicans and Democrats, including the chairman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Mr. Goodling. And obviously it was included in the Taxpayer Relief Act by the Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Mr. Archer. Let me summarize just a few of the letters I have received in support of this measure: Dr. Bertha Pendleton, superintendent of San Diego City Schools, says ``The 21st Century Classroom Act will provide additional incentives for private enterprise to involve themselves in preparing students for future employment by giving tax (deductions) to corporations who donate used computer equipment to schools. We applaud this effort and fully support this measure to help further education technology.'' Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, says ``the Council is supportive of incentives to attract contemporary technology into our schools, particularly the neediest schools. As such, the Council is also supportive of H.R. 1153.* * * Congratulations on your success.* * *'' Thomas Tauke, executive vice president of government affairs for Nynex, says, ``Nynex fully supports your efforts to encourage businesses to invest in our children. Your new legislative proposal, the 21st Century Classrooms Act for Private Technology Investment, through its expanded tax incentives, will enable schools to immerse students into the new technological environment that they will live and work in!'' There are many more letters of support. But these excerpts summarize the enthusiasm which greets this initiative to technologically upgrade our K-12 classrooms. in appreciation There are many men and women who deserve credit for helping me to develop this measure, and include it into our bipartisan Taxpayer Relief Act. In San Diego County, I want to specifically recognize Scott Himelstein and Bill Lynch at the Lynch Foundation for Children, John and Diana Detwiler at the Detwiler Foundation Computers for Schools Program in San Diego, and the students, teachers and principals at all of the San Diego County schools that showed me their education technology and their need for more. I also want to express my appreciation to the House Republican Leadership and to Chairman Archer for including this provision into the Taxpayer Relief Act. Mr. Chairman, a vote today for the Taxpayer Relief Act provides Americans long overdue tax cuts. It also spurs private investment into technology upgrades for our schools and for our children, through inclusion of the 21st Century Classrooms Act. I encourage adoption and enactment of this bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to pay tribute to the U.S. Postal Service employees of San Diego. Again, a survey, conducted by Price Waterhouse, has confirmed that 95 percent of all letters mailed to and from Dan Diego arrived on time. This places San Diego mail carriers second best in the Nation; 1 percentage point behind first place. The Postal Service employees of San Diego should be proud of their excellent service. While the national slogan for the Postal Service is ``We Deliver,'' San Diego postal employees say, ``We deliver on time'' and this survey proves that they do. I want to personally recognize San Diego District Manager Danny Jackson, the Margaret L. Sellers Processing and Distribution Center Manager Thomas Wilson, and the San Diego Postmaster Glenn Crouch. Along with every postal employee in San Diego, they have the right to be proud of their accomplishments. They have once again brought national recognition to San Diego and enhanced our reputation as America's finest city. Every San Diegan should join me in expressing gratitude to our Postal Service employees in San Diego and their commitment to be the best of the best.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thirty seconds to get us out of Bosnia. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the President told us a year ago that we are going to be out of Bosnia. Look at Somalia, the extension we got, 22 Rangers killed. Haiti; Aristide is still there, and so are the same problems. Billions of dollars. Izetbegovic is aligning himself with Iran because he knows the United States is eventually pulling out. There are thousands of mujaheddin and Hamas sitting there. Will there be peace in Bosnia? Not in our lifetime, nor the Middle East, and we need to let Europe do it and let us get out of Dodge.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, China is a rogue nation, ruled by totalitarians and Communists. It oppresses its people, and denies them basic freedoms and religious liberty. It fails to abide by standards of good citizenship in the community of nations. Its officials have been tied with attempts to influence the 1996 elections in the United States through contributions to the Democratic National Committee. In this environment, now Congress must decide whether continuing or essentially canceling regular American commerce with China will advance or damage America's national interests. These interests include national security, human rights and religious liberty, and commerce and American jobs. I take a back seat to no one as a defender of liberty, and as an opponent of communism and tyranny. I understand that this issue generates well-considered and strongly held opinions on all sides. I believe that the Clinton administration has badly mishandled our relationship with China, and that Congress has no choice but to fill the vacuum of leadership left by the President. With very few measures have I so deeply struggled with determining the best course of action, and with identifying what is right and wrong for America. After having carefully considered all of the facts, and reviewed all of the notes and letters and calls from my constituents, I conclude that our best hope for progress of American national interests in China is best fulfilled by extending China's regular trade status, and taking further actions that demonstrate a more robust American policy in that part of the world. I further conclude that blocking the renewal of MFN for China would damage America's national interests, in national security, human rights and religious freedoms, and American commerce and jobs. History and recent experience tells us that MFN gives the United States some leverage to advance our interests in China--but not a great deal of leverage. But if we cancel MFN, America's small leverage will become zero leverage. And China will turn away from America, and have no incentive to heed any of America's desires and interests. Let me first address the matter of American national security. Beijing has exhibited poor citizenship in the world. It tested missiles in the Taiwan Straits on the eve of free elections in Taiwan in 1996. It sold weapons and nuclear and other weapons materials to rogue terrorist nations. It attempted to expand its maritime presence in former United States military facilities, as in the case of COSCO at Long Beach Naval Station, and has effectively established beachheads at both ends of the strategically important Panama Canal through governmental industry subsidiaries. It smuggled AK-47 rifles into the United States, bound for Los Angeles street gangs. It increased its defense budget 40 percent over the past couple of years. In light of this current and emerging national security interest, it becomes clear that only by extending MFN for China can we hope to preserve the American interest and the American presence in China and East Asia. For this reason, several of our recent United States Secretaries of Defense have agreed to support continuing China's MFN status. Having nearly lost my life fighting communism in Vietnam, this matter of what action best represents America's national security interests is a matter I take very seriously. I assure you that I am under no illusion that extending MFN for China will work miracles in the advancement of our national security. It will not. But the penalty for terminating MFN for China is slightly greater than its reward. Terminating MFN with China simply drives the Beijing regime away from the United States, away from the community of law- abiding countries, into the arms of the world's terrorist nations. Let me address the matter of human rights and religious liberty in China. Again, Beijing's record in this field is repugnant to the cause of freedom. The bill of particulars goes on and on. Beijing oppresses the Buddhist people of Tibet, and the Muslims of Xinjiang. It practices a population policy that includes forced abortions. It has detained, jailed, and killed its dissidents. It severely restricts the activities of Christians and other people of faith, and imprisons priests and ministers, and closes house churches that attempt to teach the Gospel free from the reach of the Beijing regime. What action advances America's national interest in this area? Extending MFN continues the reach of Americans, through commerce and other outreach, into the lives of Chinese citizens. I recognize that the Christian Coalition and other United States family organizations strongly oppose extending MFN for China. But United States organizations that support Christian missionaries in China are supporting MFN for China. One of the titans of the Christian faith supports extending MFN trade status: Rev. Billy Graham. He says that ``I am in favor of doing all we can to strengthen our relationship with China and its people. China is rapidly becoming one of the dominant economic and political powers in the world, and I believe it is far better for us to keep China as a friend than to treat it as an adversary.'' Continuing MFN for China, again, does not work miracles for the people of China. Continuing it thus far has not freed opponents of China's communist government from prisons, according to the United States State Department. However, American commerce with China has given the Chinese people a taste of economic freedom, and economic freedom may pave a path toward more political and religious freedom. Again, the penalty for terminating MFN for China exceeds its reward-- particularly for China's oppressed people. If we terminate MFN for China, China will have no reason whatsoever to improve the human rights and religious freedom of its people, or to accommodate American visiting missionaries to China. Last, I would like to address the matter of commerce and American jobs. Extending China's MFN status simply continues regular commerce with the world's most populous nation. Companies in San Diego engage in significant exports in China. Among these are Solar Turbines, power plants, Cubic, mass transit systems, Jet Products, manufacturing, and many others. Furthermore, many American jobs are dependent on imports from China. These include hundreds of thousands of retailers. And American consumers regularly purchase goods made in China. Once again, the risks associated with terminating China's MFN status exceed their reward. If we terminate MFN for China, American jobs are endangered, and China will simply approach the employers of other nations to fulfill its market of 1.3 billion people. Following the continuation of MFN for China, and the failures and vacillations of the Clinton administration's China policy, I believe Congress has a responsibility to exercise leadership in the United States relationship with the world's most populous country. We can begin this by enacting the China Human Rights and Democracy Act, a measure soon to be introduced by Rep. John Edward Porter and others. Chairman Porter formerly opposed China's MFN status, but is supporting it this year in hopes that we can make real progress in other areas. Chairman Porter described this measure in today's Wall Street Journal to increase funding for Radio Free Asia and the Voice of America, expand democracy-building activities through the National Endowment for Democracy, require additional United States State Department report on human rights violations and political prisoners in China, and greater disclosure of Chinese companies' ties to the People's Liberation Army. As we did with the USSR and Eastern Europe, we can blanket the Chinese people, and all freedom-loving peoples of Southeast Asia, with broadcasts about freedom and democracy in the outside World. We can also pursue other aggressive initiatives to stand tall and strong for freedom in East Asia--initiatives which thus far have not been part of the Clinton administration's weak American policy toward China. Congress can and should take further action to send China powerful signals of our intention to advance our interests. The fiscal year 1998 national defense authorization includes the Hunter-Cunningham language from H.R. 1138, prohibiting the leasing of former U.S. military facilities to foreign state-owned enterprises. Specifically, this will block COSCO, the maritime arm of the communist Chinese regime in Beijing, from leasing a large beachhead at the former Long Beach Naval Station. And the House has already voted to establish direct United States ties with Hong Kong, which reverts from British to Chinese control in just a few days. Extending China's regular MFN trade status does not work miracles. We should extend MFN because it helps advance our national interests in China in freedom and religious liberty, in national security, and in commerce and jobs. We should extend China's MFN status because blocking MFN would hurt, not help, our national interests in China. But we cannot stop there. Congress has a responsibility to take the sure and strong actions that implant backbone into United States-China relations, a spine that is thus far missing from the Clinton administration's own policy. We can act. And we will.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have got friends on both sides of this issue. I am a Californian. Let me tell Members why I am opposed to this amendment. First of all, remember that every BRACC base closed is for privatization. Every one closed. That is what we are saying. We are closing them. We do not want the Federal Government to take care of them. We initially had six Air Force and six Navy depots. In the first BRACC round the Navy closed down three. The Air Force did not close any. So there was three and six in the next round, the Air Force closed three. So there was three and three. And yet there is still a 50 percent overhead or excess, so that we are operating at only 50 percent capacity. And now we want two other depots to come in and privatize. That is going to cost $700 million a year to compete against the ones that have and that is core military. Let me tell my colleagues why from personal experience. During the Vietnam war, we privatized because we could not do the work to build F-14 or FB4's to F-4N's. Six months before we got ready to go, four airwings of Phantoms could not go to Vietnam because they found wing cracks. If we would have flown those airplanes, our pilots would have been killed. That never would have happened in a depot. Not in a military depot. It would not have got through. So it is not only readiness, the core capability that we need to fight the war, and this is wrong. It is just as wrong to privatize this as it is to give the Communist Chinese Long Beach Naval Shipyard to control. That is privatization but it is wrong. It is bad policy. It is bad economics. And it is bad for national security. I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and, yes, those from California, my colleagues, oppose this amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from North Carolina and the gentleman from Missouri. I think it has been a good debate. But I want my colleagues to remember last year when China had missiles at Taiwan. Remember the minister when he said, you prefer Los Angeles or Taiwan when our ships start going through the straits? They can use this missile. It is very difficult to intercept a terminal supersonic missile coming inbound at a ship, and our Air Force and Navy pilots have to intercept these and it cuts down their orders of doing that.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, Shoeless John Kasich, tell me it is not so. Tell me an individual who is a caring individual would send our men and women off to combat. In Vietnam, we lost 10 percent of our bomber force in 11 days, B-52s. And that is what we are asking our kids to go forward in. Not with standoff weapons, like the gentleman says, but our kids are going to die. Shoeless John Kasich, put yourself in an airplane that is on fire, coming down, not knowing if you are going to die or you are going to be a prisoner of war. I cannot tell my colleague, I have been through that. And there is no Benson and Hedges in white scarf. When they told my mom I was shot down, they had to take her to the hospital; she had a nervous breakdown. That is what we are talking about in these families. And why, why the B-52 in the first place? You take an F-22 which the Air Force is going to escort a bomber in, the SU-27, the SU-35, and the SU-37, which Russia is shipping all over the country today, with its big radar, can knock down our airplanes. That puts us inside the envelope when they shoot their AA-12, which outranks and outflies our RAM. Our kids are going to make it because the F-22 and the B-2 get in undetected before the MIG's, and they are going to die instead of ours. But put them there with a B-52 and that thing is going to illuminate the whole sky. Everybody is going to know where your force is and they are going to attack it, and our kids are going to die. Shoeless John Kasich, tell me it ain't so. Tell me that you would not put our kids in harm's way and put them out there where they are not going to come back. The gentleman from Florida says he supports the flag. I appreciate that. But we damn near died for the flag, and I do not want our kids to die coming back in B-52's and antiquated B-51's, or B-1's. Give us a chance, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak directly to the gentleman from Texas, because I support 99.9 percent of his position. I have fought against military on the border. If they get to anywhere close to what your fears are, the perception, which I do not think is a reality, of this amendment, I will stand there toe to toe with you in my word to fight against exactly your fears. This amendment does not do that, in my opinion. The gentleman is one of, if not one of, I think the most respected expert on border patrol issues. I would say that up front. But we do have a lot of different agencies working with us. I would oppose a marine with a rifle that does not know the difference between alto and stop. My whole opinion is, we need more border patrol that are trained to help civil rights and do those kinds of things. But I do believe in the secondary missions and in the cases where not that we are saying put 10,000, I would oppose that now today, but where we need to protect our people from being fired at, at the Government, the people that are opposing, they have the right to say that, that to protect our border patrol, I would support it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it was very difficult to leave the Committee on National Security to go on the Committee on Appropriations. While I served there, even though we differed in great amounts, I think there was only one time we came to clash, when I thought I was being dealt with unfairly, but we have since resolved that with my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spence], a great chairman, and I think they have done just about everything they can do with a budget in a bipartisan way. But I would say, Mr. Chairman, this budget today, we are going to get American men and women killed. Men and women are going to die on the battlefield. They will not be trained and they are not equipped properly because of this budget. I am going to support this budget because I feel they have done everything they can with every ounce and every dollar that they can. Are they well equipped? No. Let me give my colleagues some examples. Before we trained to go to Vietnam and Desert Storm we had F-16's to train us against Mig 29's, Mig 31's, SU-27's, SU-35's. We do not have those anymore. We do not have the dollars to invest in our adversary programs. They are gone. We have post Vietnam A-4's and F-5's to compete with. Captain O'Grady, when we talk about training, Captain O'Grady that was shot down in Bosnia, Mr. Chairman, he was not even trained in ACM, that is air combat maneuvering, because the money was not available to do that. That is a crime. We send our men and women to war and we do not even have the dollars to qualify them and train them. When we say the cold war is over, look what the threat is. The SU-27 is far superior to our F-14's and F-15's. True. We do not have parity. Our last airplanes we bought, the F-14 and 15, are 25 years old. The AA-12 missile that the SU-27 carries is far superior to our AMRAAM. That puts our kids behind the power curve and is going to mean their death. The F-22, which is stealthy, the F-18, and, yes, the B-2 which is stealthy, will keep our men and women alive, but yet there are amendments to cut that. We need to do more, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the National Sea Grant College Program Reauthorization Act of 1997, H.R. 437. My home State of California is home to the largest Sea Grant Program in the Nation. The California Sea Grant College system is a statewide, multiuniversity program of marine research, extension services, and education. Through the research it sponsors, California Sea Grant contributes to the growing body of knowledge about our coastal and ocean resources and helps solve contemporary problems in marine ecosystems. Its extension services transfer this knowledge to a wide community of users in California, the Pacific region, and the Nation. Since the beginning of the Sea Grant Program in 1968, California has become a leader in Marine Biology and the development of new products in the areas of marine pharmacology, aquaculture, fisheries, water quality, coastal habitat, and ocean engineering. The universities participating in this program are known for their leadership and accomplishments in the study of our oceans. We in San Diego are particularly proud of the work done at Scripps Institute of Oceanography, a part of the University of California at San Diego. Scripps has achieved global recognition for its pioneering work in oceanography, due in no small part to the Sea Grant Program. Almost everyone living in southern California is affected by the management of our oceans for jobs, recreation, goods and services. The top seven ocean related industries in California generated nearly $20 billion in direct and indirect economic activity, supporting nearly 500,000 jobs. However, the preservation and study of our oceans is important not only to those who live in California or along the coasts but to the Nation as a whole. I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this program by voting for H.R. 437.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, we have legislation coming before this body that would give tax relief back to the American people. My father took home 85 percent of his paycheck. My daughters are scheduled to take home 10 percent of their paycheck at the current spending and the current tax rate on the American people. My brother takes home today only about 45 percent of his paycheck. This is not a legacy that we want to leave to our children. In the tax relief balanced budget plan that is coming before this body this body gives back 97 percent of tax relief to those earning less than $100,000. Mr. Speaker, $100,000 is a lot of money for a lot of people, but it also gives 72 percent of the tax relief for families earning between $20,000 and $75,000. Our colleagues on the other side, there are those that voted against a balanced budget, those who voted against welfare reform. What we call the liberal faction and leadership of the Democrat Party would say that we are giving only a tax break for the rich. If you take a look at Karl Marx's Communist manifesto, the class warfare, the ideals of union from control of private property right on down the line is class warfare and controlling the American people. What we are trying to do is give tax relief to the American people that are paying taxes. We went through a pretty violent debate in this body on welfare reform, but yet my colleagues on the other side that support a socialist model for this country would have us believe that people that do not pay any taxes should get back tax relief. Well, we had a welfare reform package. What this package does is the hard-working people that are projected to only get 10 percent of their dollars in their paycheck have some tax relief, and that is is what is focused. If we take a look at Japan, 1 in 11 workers works for the government; in France, 1 in 4. Now you see what kind of government that was elected in France over these last few weeks. France is controlled now by the socialists and the Communists that support big government and control of private property and on down the line. When they talk about Mr. Sweeney and the AFL-CIO, who do they represent? They represent government workers, and I would tell Mr. Sweeney that if he would support the Government officials and government workers necessary to do the legitimate works of the Constitution and this country, he would find a lot of Republican support. But to go out and fight for additional power for bigger government, for higher taxes, he is going to meet resistance. And my colleagues on the other side just do not get the message that we want lower taxes on the American people to stimulate growth, to put dollars in their pocket, not the Federal Government. If we take a look at the legitimate functions of this country, then we supply the workers to do that, then I think we can come up with tax relief for all. Ninety-seven percent, 97 percent of the tax relief, goes to families earning less than $100,000; 72 percent less than $75,000, down to $20,000, and those that do not get or pay taxes do not get tax relief. That is a form of welfare. They get all of the other benefits from the Federal Government, but yet the burden of those people trying to send their children to school, trying to put food on the table, trying to do the things that you and I and every other American wants to do is being stymied by an oversized government, by overtaxes and regulation. That is what this bill does, Mr. Speaker. It gives tax relief back to the American people that are paying the taxes, not nonpaying tax.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 56, in support of this legislation granting special recognition to the date of June 19, or Juneteenth, the date that the last slaves were considered freed in the United States, in 1865. I commend my colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Watts] for writing and introducing this legislation. Dr. Martin Luther King, in his famous ``I Have a Dream'' speech, said he looked forward to a day when people would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. We have come a long way toward this goal as a nation since the first Juneteenth almost 132 years ago. I believe we have come a long way since Dr. King gave his speech. But it would not be correct--and it would not even be American--to suggest that we do not yet have a ways to go before Dr. King's dream is fulfilled. To succeed as a nation, we should return to basic principles. One of these is to recognize and celebrate the fact that we are all Americans. The motto of this Nation is ``E Pluribus Unum''--out of many, one. Out of many nations, races, and faiths, we have all come together in this land called America. We are united by our Constitution, our laws, our flag, and our desire to achieve the American dream and a better future for our children. The celebration of Juneteenth continues the American march of embracing, celebrating, and advancing the cause of freedom in our own land, and around the globe. Of that, we can be proud, but we can never be content. I would like to insert into the Record an essay published by the National Christian Juneteenth Leadership Council, describing the history of Juneteenth. The BLACK CHURCH AND JUNETEENTH Juneteenth: A Celebration of Freedom what is juneteenth? Juneteenth or June 19, 1865, is considered the date when the last slaves in America were freed. Although the rumors of freedom were widespread prior to this, actual emancipation did not come until General Gordon Granger rode into Galveston, Texas and issued General Order No. 3, on June 19, almost two and a half years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. but didn't the emancipation proclamation free the enslaved? President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, notifying the states in rebellion against the Union that if they did not cease their rebellion and return to the Union by January 1, 1863, he would declare their slaves forever free. Needless to say, the proclamation was ignored by those states that seceded from the Union. Furthermore, the proclamation did not apply to those slave- holding states that did not rebel against the Union. As a result about 800,000 slaves were unaffected by the provisions of the proclamation. It would take a civil war to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to formally outlaw slavery in the United States. when is juneteenth celebrated? Annually, on June 19, in more than 200 cities in the United States. Texas (and Oklahoma) is the only state that has made Juneteenth a legal holiday. Some cities sponsor week-long celebrations, culminating on June 19, while others hold shorter celebrations. why is juneteenth celebrated? It symbolizes the end of slavery. Juneteenth has come to symbolize for many African-Americans what the fourth of July symbolizes for all Americans--freedom. It serves as a historical milestone reminding Americans of the triumph of the human spirit over the cruelty of slavery. It honors those African-Americans ancestors who survived the inhumane institution of bondage, as well as demonstrating pride in the marvelous legacy of resistance and perserverance they left us. why not just celebrate the fourth of july like other americans? Blacks do celebrate the Fourth of July in honor of American Independence Day, but history reminds us that blacks were still enslaved when the United States obtained its independence. why were slaves in texas the last to know that they were free? During the Civil War, Texas did not experience any significant invasion by Union forces. Although the Union army made several attempts to invade Texas, they were thwarted by Confederate troops. As a result, slavery in Texas continued to thrive. In fact, because slavery in Texas experienced such a minor interruption in its operation, many slave owners from other slave-holding states brought their slaves to Texas to wait out the war. News of the emancipation was suppressed due to the overwhelming influence of the slave owners.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 54, in support of protecting the flag of the United States from desecration. The majority today will find that the physical desecration of the flag of the United States is conduct which is not expressly protected by the freedom of speech clause of the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. It is similar to other types of conduct that carry misguided messages of hate--such as burning a cross in a yard, or painting a swastika on a synagogue, or exploding a Federal building. These are not protected free speech. They are not protected by our Constitution. They are conduct. And today, 2 days before Flag Day, we address the protection of our flag from desecration. The flag of the United States represents our country, our ideals, our people, and our history. It represents the motto of our Nation, ``E pluribus unum:'' out of many, one. It is a symbol of the United States of America here and around the world. Under the Stars and Stripes, men and women have fought and given their last full measure of devotion. This idea is very close to me, because like many others I served my country in the military. I am reminded by a tale of an American soldier who was captured in battle in Vietnam. He was a prisoner of war. He was subjected to the injustices and deprivations of the enemy. What kept him together was a project in which he used scraps of thread and any material he could find to sew, ever so slowly, an American flag on the inside of his garment. Day by day, he worked. On one day, his captors found his flag. They took the flag, and they beat the brave flag maker to within an inch of his life. He survived. He was returned to his cage. And he began once again to sew his flag in defiance of his captors. For this man, for every American who has had a flag flown at half staff or half mast in their honor, for every American who gave the last full measure of devotion for this country, for every American who has had a flag enclosed in their casket or passed on to the surviving generation, and for the strength and unity of America, let us pass this amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon] and the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], but I would also let them know that the Members from California and I think every Republican and Democrat in this House and in the Senate will be supportive of this amendment. Will we have peace in the Middle East? I do not believe so in my lifetime. I have been in Israel, like many of the Members. I flew there, flew fighters in Israel. I think that there will be a tempo of high activity and a tempo of low activity. But in our lifetime, I do not believe that there will be peace. I think from Ronald Reagan to George Bush to President Clinton, that that effort, that what we need to do is keep the pressure on to keep moving in that direction, just like we must in Bosnia as well. But I think we do not have to go very far. There is part of a bigger problem that I would like to speak to my colleagues about. This is a symptom of a much larger problem. All you have to do is look inwardly to our own country. This last month, all you had to do is be a cop in Washington, DC, and three of them were executed; or it was not too long ago and even today that you could end up buying a home in the wrong district, the wrong neighborhood, and you could end up with a burning cross on your front yard and, yes, you could be killed. This is a symptom of what we are seeing, I think, in the Middle East as well. But there is a much larger, bigger problem of the terrorist activity. It was recently stated that in Iran there was a moderate cleric appointed and that possibly our negotiations with Iran might be easier. I think that is an oxymoron, a moderate cleric. Because if you look around the world between Iraq, Iran, and Libya, where most of the fundamentalist Islamic groups come out of are those three countries. Just like in France and England and Germany and, yes, even on our World Trade Center, these are all symptoms of the same despicable disease called bigotry and Islamic fundamentalism. I think that if you look at Bosnia today, Izetbegovic, the Islamic leader in Bosnia, has over 10,000 Mujahedin and Hamas that have assembled in that country, which is a real threat to this country, with the same kind of bigotry toward the outside world, not only to Jews but to Christians as well. And it is an area in which this country must stand, as the Speaker said, and stand strong as a world leader. With that, Mr. Chairman, I would say that we rise, I believe all of us, 100 percent, in support, and we would like to thank the gentleman from New York [Mr. Engel], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Paxon], and the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues on the other side, there is a lot of room that we can maneuver in the future. We are looking at a lot of different savings, and I think we can get support from the other side of the aisle. Let me give a couple of classic examples that I hope in the next budget can go toward more of the savings that we are trying to send back to the American people. The 760 programs we have in education, to take and see, and I think it is fair to ask, which ones are working, which ones are not. The President is asking for $3 billion in a new literacy program. We today are funding 14 literacy programs. Let us reduce the bureaucracy and see which ones work. When we take a look at the earned income tax credit, that there is a 26-percent overpayment, so 25 cents out of every dollar. We can have a lot of savings from that and give it back to the American people. We can take a look at when we are getting as little as 50 cents on the dollar back out of our education from the Federal Government, that we can drive it down and bring in a lot of private work for it, with my colleagues from the other side. And take a look at the extension in Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia has cost us over $15 billion and this new extension that the President is talking about that already is there, and then not pulling our troops, it is going to cost another $5 billion. I think that there is going to be a lot of room at which we can improve both of the issues on the bills and have more relief for the middle class like we want and like my colleagues on the other side do. I hate the term middle class. It should be middle income, not middle class. I would ask my colleagues on the other side to work with us on this and that it is something I think for the future of this country, the balanced budget, and making sure that we do help on both sides of what we want in this, that we can go a long way.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act (H.R. 1420). As cochairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, I encourage all my colleagues to support this important legislation. The refuge bill is a proenvironment bill which will protect our Nation's tradition of allowing people using their national recreational areas to hunt, fish, and look at birds, while preserving the environment. Specifically, H.R. 1420 creates a nationwide set of six purposes for our national refuge system. Our refuge system will now be a dedicated network of lands to conserve and manage fish, wildlife, and plant species; to conserve, manage, and restore fish and wildlife populations, plant communities, and refuge habitats; to preserve, restore, and protect endangered and threatened species; conserve and manage migratory birds, anadromous fish and marine mammals; to allow compatible wildlife-dependent recreation, which includes hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, and environmental education; and to fulfill our international treaty obligations. This bill also requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to create conservation plans for each of America's 511 refuges within the next 15 years. These plans will help Americans understand the goals of our refuges and provide a better accounting of our national treasures. It is also important to recognize what this bill does not do. This bill does not permit hunting and fishing on every wildlife refuge. The individual refuge manager must find that these activities are compatible with the purpose of the refuge. In addition, this bill sets clear guidelines and standards for managers to determine compatible uses. This bill does not permit non-wildlife activities such as mining, jet skiing, or oil and gas development. This bill does not increase or decrease the size of any of our 511 refuges. This bill is the first significant refuge reform bill considered by Congress since the original refuge legislation in 1966. This legislation is supported by many outside organizations, including the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Wildlife Legislative Fund of America, American Sportfishing Association, Safari Club International, and many other groups. I hope that all my colleagues recognize how important this legislation is and vote for H.R. 1420.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Sportsmen's Bill of Rights. I am joined today by Representatives John Tanner (TN), Don Young (AK), Saxby Chambliss (GA), Collin Peterson (MN), Bob Smith (OR), Richard Pombo (CA), Virgil Goode (VA), Rick Hill (MT), James Barcia (MI), and Chris John (LA).

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it never ceases to amaze me that some people on the other side of this issue state their opinions as fact. I would say they are factually challenged. That is refuted in every single document that we have. When we go into the full House I will submit for the Record documents from the Coast Guard, from the Office of Drug Policy, from the DEA, from General McCaffery, stating that their claims are false. Why would they do that? Well, we have fund-raising letters here from some of their organizations that would like to put money into their campaigns, but there are some general people, I think, that are misinformed. First of all, I would like to say that dolphin-safe is not dolphin-safe under the current system. There is a certain amount and percentage that can actually go into that. I would like to state to the Members and show them exactly in the rule, in this bill, it says and I quote, No tuna will be labeled dolphin-safe unless absolutely no dolphins were killed. This is verified by an on-board international IATTC observer. These observers are made up of 35 scientists. Some of those are like Scripps Oceanographic and the natural association. These are trained observers, trained, in every single boat. When Members talk about drug boats, the one they talk about with the cocaine was from Ecuador. That was a dolphin-safe label. They did not even have observers on it. It did not even have fishing equipment on it. It was a drug boat. It had no observers. When they pull up to a dock, under the current system, it is checked there. We have 100-percent trained observers on every single boat. If there is one dolphin killed in that, then it cannot be dolphin-safe. Mr. Chairman, we have many officials in other countries that are pro- America, pro-reform. A classic example is Secretary Comacho in Mexico. He is trying to make some changes, to move toward the United States. Do we slap Mexico in the face for positive movements in that? I say no. Many of our American consumers still mistakenly believe that the dolphin-safe policies protect the labels. It does not. Earth Island gets millions of dollars every year for managing it. That is what is at issue here. They forego that if these countries go in. This is a show- me-the-money debate, not for the debate, what they are talking about. The groups who are opposed to the bill have conducted one of the most blatant misinformation campaigns I have ever seen. I think it is unfair to the American people. To do this, they would sacrifice the healthy conservation of the entire 8 million miles of the eastern tropical Pacific ecosystem. Our bill has support by all the diverse groups. Vice President Al Gore, I have the letter here, says that this will strengthen and make safe dolphin mortality, as well as the President, the Secretary of State, and the rest of them.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am, and it was also put into the dolphin-safe labels.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Zero.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I will do something unique and speak about the issue at hand, the tuna dolphin bill, and stay away from what some of my colleagues want to get into, political maneuvering. I stand before my colleagues as an original cosponsor of a bill that would save dolphins. When I was on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, we had a pretty monumental problem. All over the world, dolphin were being killed in thousands and thousands of numbers. Both the United States and other fishing environments and fishing fleets reacted and tried to devise methods that would actually save dolphin and allow us to fish and feed the populations of the world. One of the things they did was to establish a system to where they could back down the net because, where you have tuna being caught, the dolphins swim above it. And the dolphin were being caught up in these nets. So the fishing fleets devised a system where you would actually back down the nets and, where the dolphin swim above, the tuna would swim out of the back side of the nets. We have had two fishermen from the United States killed by sharks actually trying to help the dolphin out of the nets. Now, dolphin-safe means that there is no dolphin within that particular catch that was killed. And for some of my colleagues, that is not good enough. One of the problems is there are 11 other nations out there that fish tuna and catch dolphin. They do not adhere to our rules. So there are still dolphin being killed in many of these catches. There was an agreement that was set forth, called the Panama agreement, to bring in these other nations to ask them to adhere to our requirements to not kill dolphin. And they did so under the dolphin- safe label and under the Panama agreement. Some of my colleagues will say the State Department was not involved. I have got letters from here, and I have got the actual Panama agreement itself signed by the State Department. It was negotiated with five environmental groups that support this legislation. I have got a letter here from the President of the United States; I have one here from Al Gore. It says: The Vice President says the administration strongly supports this legislation, which is essential to the protection of dolphins and other marine life in the eastern tropical Pacific. Then the President, our shared goals are to further reduce, eliminate dolphin mortality, to minimize incidental catch for other species, and he strongly supports this legislation. Greenpeace believes, and I quote: Greenpeace believes that the Greenpeace bill offers the best foundation for the United States and other nations to resolve the tuna-dolphin. It goes on and on. Here is one from Barry McCaffrey. Some of my colleagues will claim that we are shipping drugs through fishing fleets. Give me a break. Most of the drugs come through cargo containers and across our borders. And, yes, there is a drug problem. The boat that they refer to is out of Ecuador, which is a dolphin-safe country already. And guess what, there was no fishing paraphernalia on the boat that was caught. It was one of their boats. It was not even fishing, and it had no observer. Every single boat that goes out to fish will have an internationally trained observer to monitor, to make sure that there are no slip-ups. If there is a dolphin killed in that set, Mr. Speaker, that set cannot be used in dolphin-safe fishing. But yet some of my colleagues will still fight it. The real answer, here it is right here, Earth Island makes millions of dollars managing the tuna-safe dolphin. Here is their fundraising list after they blast all the negatives. Here is the President, the Vice President, the White House, we had 316 votes last year on this. It went through two different full committees. The subcommittee, the committees with amendments and changes and all these changes went through in conjunction with the Panama agreement. And now they are supported by Republicans and Democrats, and this is going to pass overwhelmingly. That is why my colleagues across the aisle here want to use this as a political stymie in campaign finance reform. The issue before us is protecting dolphin. I would say that there is another reason. There are actually, believe it or not, pro-reform people in the Mexican Government that are working with us. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.