Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the last speaker, and the gentleman managing the bill, this was so very important to them that under the rule, while they had another half-hour, they spent the whole time on another issue. So this must not be that important an issue for them to support, but it is to the American people. Under the current system we can actually have a percentage of dolphin that go into a tuna safe label, and the American people are saying no, that is wrong. If we want to turn our heads to that, then we should go ahead and say we protect the old system. If we want to protect the old system that allows us to kill billfish and allows us to kill turtles, allows us to kill endangered species and bycatch, then we should go ahead and do not turn around because the current fishing methods they use damage those systems. We are trying to improve it. Twelve other nations came together. That is pretty respectable. They are trying to make a change not just because of trade but because they are trying to protect the species for future generations. They understand this is how they make their livelihood and they want that to continue, not to end. If we take a look at General McCaffrey and every organization, including the Vice President and the President of the United States, they say the gentlemen on the other side are wrong.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 84, the concurrent bipartisan balanced budget agreement. Balancing the budget brings practical benefits to every American, in the form of lower interest payments, stronger economic growth, lower taxes, and less Government spending. It is not the budget I would write on my own. Nor is it the budget that the President would write on his own. I am concerned that it does not provide sufficiently for our national security, reduce spending enough, save Medicare for future generations, or return as much money to hard-working American taxpayers as it should. But it is a real, balanced budget, with less Government spending and real tax cuts for American families, that Republicans, Democrats, and the President have agreed upon. For my children, and for everyone's children, it means less of their future earnings will be taken just to pay interest on the debt. Interest on the debt, which today costs over $1 billion every business day, cannot be invested in education, or transportation, or returned to the taxpayers. However, under this budget, we will stop adding to the debt. It represents a beginning so that we can develop a plan to pay down the debt, and free the next generation from its heavy and immoral burden. For my mother, and for everyone who is or is kin to a ``chronologically gifted'' American, this budget means she can count on the good health of her Medicare for the next decade. We still have work to do here. We have to work together to save Medicare for the next generation. But we have made a real and substantial start. For every family, this budget means the Federal Government will take less of their money in taxes, so they can invest more in their children, and in their children's education. Despite the good intentions of people in Government, the best chance a young person has to achieve the American Dream is to have a mom and a dad that love and care for them. And under this budget, many moms and dads that have to earn two incomes today--one to pay the bills, and the other to pay the taxes--may find that through lower taxes and lower interest payments, they may be able to prosper on the income of one family member. For everyone who saves or invests, or wants to save or invest, or wants to keep or create a job, or owns a home, this budget insures a reduction in the capital gains tax. Let me for a moment focus on how far we have come. In 1994, liberal congressional leadership had reigned for 40 years. The Clinton administration had levied the largest tax increase in American history and attempted total Government control of people's health care. The deficit was headed skyward, a classic case of the Federal Government leaving an immoral and untenable legacy to our children. And the American people responded by electing a Republican House and Senate. We began working the people's will. We enacted historic welfare reform legislation, restored credibility to our borders and our immigration laws, and revitalized telecommunications for the information age. We attempted to enact a balanced budget amendment and a real balanced budget that saved Medicare and cut taxes. But on those matters, our work was vetoed or otherwise blocked by the President. And so the American people reelected the Republican Congress in 1996--and reelected a President of the opposite party. Now we have before us a real balanced budget, representing the commonsense conservative values that Americans have long demanded, and never really had reflected in their Government, until now. We can and should pass this budget, knowing that the hard work remains ahead. We have to enact appropriations bills that limit the growth of spending. We have to enact real tax cuts for the American people. We have to enact this budget into law, and the President has to sign it. Mr. Chairman, a journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. The journey to balancing the budget begins with this step. Let us step out boldly now. Let us do what is best for America and for Americans, and pass the budget resolution.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1385, the Employment, Training and Literacy Enhancement Act. Most Americans are not college graduates. Most Americans will face job or career changes during their lifetime. Many of our newest Americans want the opportunity to learn to read and write in English, the language of American opportunity. Americans on welfare are now seeking the skills they need to get work. All Americans want an opportunity to succeed and enjoy the American Dream. Furthermore, American employers want to hire people with the skills they need. These skills change over time. Today's automobiles, to cite one example, have more onboard computing power than the Apollo spacecraft did, and the skills needed to repair them have grown to include computer sciences and electrical engineering. The current system of job training and basic adult education, created with good intentions, has simply failed to help citizens get training they need to get jobs. Workers have to navigate a hornet's nest of redtape. And Federal micro management has created training for jobs that do not exist. So this legislation replaces a failed Washington-run system, with local control, local authority, and the local motivation to do the job right. The Employment, Training and Literacy Enhancement Act replaces Federal micro management with local control and accountability. It replaces some 60 Federal job training programs with three flexible block grants that States and communities can use to provide education and job training that is responsive to local needs. In San Diego, our community colleges, regional occupational programs, private industry councils and others will have the opportunity to work together to meet local citizens' and employers' needs, without having to distort their services to meet the needless and conflicting paperwork guidelines of dozens of Federal programs. Most importantly, it gives individuals who need job training the flexibility, information and resources they need, so they can obtain the education and training they need, so they will have a fighting chance to achieve the American Dream. In the 104th Congress, I was privileged to serve as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families. Along with Chairman Goodling and KcKeon, and Ranking Member Kildee, we worked very hard to consolidate and improved job training, adult education and literacy programs. Our measure was not enacted in the 104th Congress, owing to the late-session election year crush. And now I serve on the Appropriations Committee. But last year's and this year's bills both included some major improvements and focus on the area of literacy. And I would like to focus special attention on that area. This measure consolidates several adult education and literacy programs into a single block grant to the States. This very basic education is made available for one reason: If a person cannot read and write, he or she cannot benefit from more advanced job skill training. In 1995, my subcommittee held hearings in San Marcos, CA, on this subject. One of the witnesses, John Corcoran, was a teacher and a businessman, and author of the alarming book ``The Teacher that Couldn't Read.'' Throughout his own education, and through a teaching and real estate sales career, he had developed a thousand coping mechanisms to get around his illiteracy. But when the real estate market failed, his inability to read kept him from being able to support his family. He got help. He learned to read. And now he's doing very well. The fact is that there are more John Corcorans in America than we are willing to admit, and that most illiterate adults do not do as well as John did. The National Adult Literacy Survey showed that of Americans at the lowest of five literacy levels, 17 percent receive food stamps, 43 percent live in poverty, and a stunning 70 percent are unemployed and underemployed. Therefore, victory in our national battle against poverty and welfare dependency requires attention and devotion to improving literacy among adults. This legislation encourages local community efforts to improve literacy, and provides resources for that type of basic adult education, such as English language courses. One of the most successful literacy initiatives is called ``family literacy.'' This program is based on the premise that adults will learn to read if they learn together with their children. In San Diego, the Lynch Foundation leverages Even Start family literacy funds into dozens and dozens of groups and courses for literacy training, in libraries and other settings, to offer people a chance to succeed. Bill Lynch and his team do a terrific job, and H.R. 1385 helps them do their job better. I understand that this measure extends vocational rehabilitation programs until fiscal year 2000, leaving the reform of Federal vocational rehabilitation services to the 106th Congress. I believe this is unfortunate, because the people with disabilities involved in this program deserve much better than they are getting. Despite congressional authorization of vocational rehabilitation several years ago, the U.S. Rehabilitation Services Administration failed to promulgate regulations on the law until last month. Thus, States have lacked sufficient guidance on how to improve vocational rehabilitation, and to comply with the law, for an unacceptable period of time, and persons with disabilities have suffered. Furthermore, a Region IX RSA comprehensive study of vocational rehabilitation in the State of California, due in December 1996 in hopes of informing further congressional action to improve the program, still has not been released in May 1997. I have not been satisfied with the RSA's justification for the delay, and will continue to follow this issue closely and vigorously. Persons with disabilities deserve a fighting chance at the American dream. Redtape, bureaucratic buck-passing, management failures, poor service to citizens, lack of accountability, and delays are simply inexcusable to me, particularly when one considers the billions--yes, billions of Federal dollars appropriated for vocational rehabilitation every year. Persons with disabilities deserve better. Mr. Chairman, many citizens and families deserve recognition for their excellent work on this bill. In particular, Dr. George Boggs of Palomar Community College in my district, Dan Pegg and his staff at the San Diego Economic Development Commission, Gil Partida and the men and women of the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, and Scott Himelstein of the Lynch Foundation have all provided me excellent information on the importance of replacing Federal redtape with local control in this field. Several members of this body have served this cause with distinction, namely Chairman Goodling, McKeon, and Riggs, Ranking Member Dale Kildee, Governor Castle, Mr. Graham of South Carolina, and many others. They have yielded a bill that means less government and more opportunity for Americans to succeed. I urge support for the bill.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewomen for speaking to the issue. They believe differently than we do, but at least they spoke to the issue and did not demagogue, did not do anything. We on this side feel that the money was put in, the $38 million we put in, and then the additional $40 million to bring it to $78 million. The President asked for $76 million, and then they say, what if USDA is wrong and there is not enough money in there? Will we hurt the children? We do not think we will. They believe one way and we believe the other. But I appreciate my colleagues on the other side. They do not stand up and demagogue. They are speaking to the issue. We truly feel there is enough money in there to cover without increasing and increasing and increasing. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for debating this without throwing in the rhetorical information.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a monumental bill. My colleagues on the other side, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Clay], and the rest of them, and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee], we worked on this bill when I was chairman of the subcommittee. If we look at the difficulty of getting a bill through, between parent groups and schools, what the committee has done is monumental. On one hand we have parents that are thrust into an environment they never planned on having with a special education child and they are bewildered. On the other side there are the immense costs to the schools. And to bring those two groups together, I applaud both sides of the aisle. I think for the first time we have been able to enhance the amount of dollars and the services available to these children but, at the same time, giving the schools the flexibility that they need to handle the special education needs.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of H.R. 5, the IDEA Improvement Act. I am pleased to see it moving toward enactment, hopeful that continued improvements can be made, and thankful to those citizens, staff, and members who have made it possible. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, is based on one principle: That children with disabilities deserve a fighting chance to achieve the American Dream. Since its enactment in the 1970's, this law has made education and opportunity available for millions of children with disabilities. Many of these Americans, who once would have been consigned to costly institutions for life, have used their education to sustain themselves and become contributing members of society. They are better for it, and the country is better, too. But the law has not been perfect. Over time, cooperation in pursuit of education has gradually given way to divisive and costly litigation that usurps scarce resources from children's schooling. Congress and successive administrations have failed to keep their promise to fund 40 percent of States' costs to comply with IDEA and provide free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, as the law requires. And the distribution of funds among the States has grown unfair and unequal, with some States receiving substantially more funding per school-age child than others. In the 104th Congress, we pledged and worked to do better. And we did. I was privileged at the time to serve as chairman of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families. We assembled a historic coalition of citizen representatives of children with disabilities, educators, the administration, Republicans, and Democrats to develop an IDEA Improvement Act that we could all agree upon. We reported a bill out of subcommittee, to the full committee, to the House, and forwarded it to the Senate by voice vote. Unfortunately, the late-session crunch and latent divisions forestalled its enactment. Nevertheless, Congress recognized the progress we had made by providing an equally historic, first-time substantial increase in IDEA funding, some $4 billion total in fiscal year 1997, $700 million more than in fiscal year 1996. Now, the 105th Congress is completing the work we began in the 104th Congress. Under the leadership of Education Committee Chairman Bill Goodling, Early Childhood Subcommittee Chairman Frank Riggs, and the majority leader of the other body, we now have an IDEA Improvement Act that all sides agree is an improvement. It focuses anew on the education of children with disabilities. It improves schools' administration of special education. It assures that additional IDEA appropriations are distributed in a more equitable manner, freeing the Appropriations Committee on which I now serve to fund IDEA more robustly and responsibly. And it replaces litigation and division with mediation and a more cooperative process for resolving disputes. Like the IDEA Improvement Act of the 104th Congress, this measure before us today is not perfect. H.R. 5 does not address the inequitable distribution of current IDEA funding. It does not give States enough relief from certain mandates, particularly those relating to IDEA- mandated educational services for convicts in jail. And it does not give schools and communities as much flexibility as I would prefer in implementing an educational program, and ensuring the fair conduct of disciplinary procedures. It is a product of compromise and a great deal of hard work and sacrifice from all parties. And I am glad to say that it is, on balance, a very good bill that will do well by our children and our schools. Finally, I would like to publicly recognize a number of the people who made this measure possible. Chairmen Goodling and Riggs, and my former Early Childhood Subcommittee ranking member Dale Kildee--now ranking on the Higher Education Subcommittee--have done yeoman's work in carrying this difficult task through. The Senate majority leader, and his chief of staff, David Hoppe, coordinated a months-long march of meetings between all parties to hammer out an agreeable bill, and they have done marvelously. And Jay Eagen, Sally Lovejoy, and Todd Jones of the Education and Workforce Committee staff deserve recognition for distinguished service on this issue on behalf of many Members of the Congress. I was privileged to work with all of them in the 104th Congress. Many others deserve special recognition, especially the families, special education students, teachers, school board members, and administrators who contributed their work and experience to this measure. I urge Members to support H.R. 5. It goes to show that when we work together, we can get the job done.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support House Concurrent Resolution 66, authorizing the use of the U.S. Capitol Grounds for the 16th annual National Peace Officers' Memorial Day services on Thursday, May 15. In memory of the law officers who have given their last full measure of devotion to their communities and their country in service of public safety, and in tribute to their families and their colleagues, the flags atop the U.S. Capitol will be flown at half-staff on National Peace Officers' Memorial Day. I would like to recognize Speaker Newt Gingrich for his leadership in helping us make this tribute possible. I also thank Chairman Jay Kim and Ranking Member James Traficant, of the House Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Infrastructure, for their timely and expeditious work in support of our peace officers' use of the Capitol Grounds.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I laud the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott]. He and I have worked on the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and if the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott] could listen for a moment, I do not have time to yield, but I would like the gentleman to really listen to what I have to say, because I have worked with the gentleman on the committee. Let me tell my colleagues what some of our frustrations are. The amendments and the substitute focus on programs that are working from my colleagues' side. We find ourselves in a very critical situation today, and we find that in many cases it is not working. Many of us, and I have had Members from the other side come across, a lot of us have personal problems with our own children that we are looking at. Do we want our children in prison systems? No. We want them in a boot camp where they can be taken care of where there are counselors, and not even juveniles, but maybe a first-time offender that we can reach out to. However, we have been stymied, and I would like to go over a few of those frustrations. I have just met with the police chief in the District of Columbia, and yet there has been very little activity between law enforcement and the schools and the education systems. New York came and testified before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, but yet the school systems are a disaster in New York; but they have cleaned up the law enforcement. We need the gentleman from Virginia's help on that, because these are all pieces of the puzzle that we are trying to work on. In education, the comment is we are trying to take the Federal Government out of it and let it do it on a State level, but yet every day we fight the same battle from our side trying to take the power out of Washington and back down. In education, a classic example, we get less across the country than about 50 cents on a dollar down to our education programs, and that is a key part of law enforcement and especially juvenile justice, but yet we cannot break that. When we talk about jails, in California, I would tell the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott], we have 18,000 to 22,000 illegal felons, illegals, just in our prison system. We would not have to build any more prisons if we could get help on the illegal immigration. When we talk about the State level, Proposition 187, which about two- thirds of the Californians voted for, would have taken care of that; yet a single Federal judge overruled the wishes of two-thirds of the Californians. We have in the State of California over 400,000 illegals in our education system. At $5,000 a year, that is $2 billion a year. All of these are symptomatic of problems that we have. These are the kinds of things and the pieces of the puzzle, not just this particular bill, that my colleagues' side of the aisle is very concerned about, and so are we. But understand the frustrations that we have, and we are trying to fight for these things, knowing that they are a piece of that puzzle and we cannot get support for it. The welfare bill, 16 years average, and those children having two and three babies. What happens to those children? They are the ones we are talking about, because they end up in the gangs and having the problems. We need help on that, and that is why it is so important to us. I think we can work together a lot better than we have on these things; and I do oppose the gentleman's bill, but I would like to work with him.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, one minute on a subject like this that is so critical, I think, to the future is by far not enough and we spend two days on an open rule on housing and in something like this that affects our children. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Washington. We have just seen two little girls, sisters, that were dumped in a river. We just saw a little girl last month that was found under a pile of rocks. And Megan in New Jersey, and in California. The highest recidivism rate they have, whether it is a juvenile or a senior, is in the sexual abuse area. I have two daughters. I do not care if it is a date rape, if they are on a college level or if it happens, God forbid, what happened to these little girls. It is about time, Mr. Chairman, that we support the victims instead of quit trying to protect the guilty and the lawbreakers.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this morning the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus held its monthly information briefing. This morning's briefing was on fishing in the Washington, DC area. Each month these breakfasts focus on different aspects of wildlife conservation. This morning's breakfast hit home with many of the Members because it highlighted the area where many of us live and fish. I have attached an article written by Charles Verharen that highlights the threats to the Potomac fishery. I hope that my colleagues will read this article and work to restore and protect our local fishery. The Potomac--An Endangered River? (By Charles C. Verharen) Imagine standing at the base of Little Falls on a brilliant spring day on the Potomac, just above Chain Bridge in Washington, D.C. Flocks of black cormorants stream north. Thousands of silver and black hickory shad fight their way up the surging rapids. Sparkling emerald water breaks against black granite. This wilderness-like setting in the Capital's city limits takes your breath away--until you look downstream. Just below the falls what looks like gusher of Texas crude oil jets into the crystalline water. A hundred yards below the falls, green and black merge into dismal gray. A motorist on Chain Bridge can look upstream and see a Potomac that's in ``better shape today than it has been in a century,'' according to Bill Matuszeski, director of the Chesapeake Bay Program (Post, 4/17/97, D8). That same motorist can look downstream and see a Potomac that deserves its place on the list of America's endangered rivers. Beth Norcross, a director of the American Rivers group that maintains the list, admits that the ``Potomac is in fabulous shape.'' Maybe she doesn't know about the black filth surging into the Potomac at Little Falls. She thinks the primary threat is bacteria-laden run-off from poultry farms in West Virginia. The U.S. and West Virginia Departments of Agriculture acknowledge the problem as well. In an ironic twist of fate, bacteria are the indirect cause of the gouts of black ooze. A by-product of the Washington Aqueduct water treatment plant, the black goo is sediment from the plant's holding basins, containing such chemicals as aluminum silicate, copper, chlorine, and heavy metals from Potomac run-off. The treatment plant discharges its waste into the Potomac above and below Little Falls. On some days Little Falls creek above the falls runs milky white like a glacial stream with aluminum silicate discharge from Washington Aqueduct. On the other days it runs a bright fluorescent green with copper silicate discharge. Fishermen on the Potomac downstream of the falls report that discharges from the treatment plant have increased since the EPA found evidence of contamination of drinking water in the Washington area last year. They claim that the discharge endangers the spawning fish. The fish simply disappear during the discharge period. Thomas P. Jacobus, chief of the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers division that runs the Washington Aqueduct, said he's discharging heavily in the period from March to June to help the spawning fish. He said he thought the spawning season was from June through August. When he learned that the spawning season is on right now, he said he couldn't stop the discharge in any event. His regulatory agencies, including the Environmental Protection Association, forbid discharge during summer's typically low river flow to protect fish habitats. The American Rivers group, the EPA, and the Army Corp of Engineers need to get together with the Atlantic Marine Fisheries Commission and sport fishing associations to settle on a water treatment discharge schedule that will protect the spawning fish. And politicians and residents of the Washington area need to figure out a way to purify Potomac water without polluting it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman a moment ago spoke on trigger guards, and I understand she had a personal family loss and I do not know how I would handle that myself. I would also let the gentlewoman know I am a member of the NRA, and that I have trigger guards, or my weapons are all in safes and my daughters and my son have been taught how to use those in a safe manner. In fact, the keys are in a different position, in case one of their friends walks in and finds it, so they will not have an accident. But I would also advise my friends on the other side to look into COSCO, who shipped in 2,000 fully automatic AK-47's. The actual gun runners themselves were in the White House and contributed to the DNC; Mr. Huang, who contributed and arranged $366,000 for COSCO, a company owned by the Communist Chinese. I would ask that they look into the M-2's that were going down to Mexico to disrupt those elections, so they put leftists in their legislature. And do my colleagues know where the AK-47's were impacted and headed for in San Francisco, in my State of California? They were targeted for the inner city gangs. These are fully automatic weapons, which we do not sanction. But I would ask for a little bit of clarity when my colleagues point fingers. Let us take a look at where the threats are in this country and let us try to stop them, but we also need to look inwardly.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would ask the gentleman's help in stopping the Communist Chinese COSCO from taking over Long Beach Naval Shipyard.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, on Rollcall 90 I was recorded as in favor of the Roemer amendment to H.R. 1275. This was an error. As a supporter of the Space Station, I ask that the Record show my intentions to vote ``nay'' on the Roemer amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the African Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act (H.R. 39). This important piece of legislation will continue America's commitment to worldwide elephant conservation. I would also like to congratulate Chairman Young for bringing this important legislation forward. H.R. 39 will reauthorize the African Elephant Conservation Act through the year 2002. The continuation of this important and successful program will preserve America's leadership to conserve and restore African elephant herds in their native habitat. The future survival of African elephants depends upon America's leadership, and our small but crucial amount of financial support. The AECA has been responsible for rescuing African elephants from the path to extinction. As we all know during the 1970's and 1980's, African elephant populations declined from around 1.5 million to 600,000 animals. Drought, shrinking habitat, and expanding human populations had some part in the decline of the population. But by the mid-1980's, rampant and efficient poaching of elephants for the world ivory trade was found most directly responsible for elephants' endangerment. The passage of the AECA reversed that downward trend of elephant populations. A large part of the success of the AECA comes from the effectiveness of the African Elephant Conservation Fund. This Fund, which is administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, has provided nearly $7 million during 9 years to elephant conservation projects throughout Africa, through 66 grants to 50 projects in 17 countries. Each of these projects has received matching support from organizations like Safari Club International, the Wildlife Conservation Society, the African Safari Club of Washington, DC, and others. Less than one half of this has been Federal funding. Our Federal commitment leverages and coordinates private sector support for elephant conservation. The focus of the conservation fund was originally on antipoaching efforts. However, in the last few years, the projects have focused on elephant population research, efforts to mitigate elephant/human conflict, investigations of the ivory trade, cataloging of ivory stockpiles, and identifying new techniques for elephant management. In addition the fund helps local villages, who often live in fear of elephants, to coexist and benefit from the long term conservation of elephants. This is an important step. As rural farmers in Africa begin to accumulate economic gains brought by the wildlife around them, they will find it in their best interest to conserve that same wildlife. In the long run, this will reduce the high cost of conservation and save elephants from extinction. Mr. Speaker, the African Elephant Conservation Fund has been a tremendous success. I encourage all my colleagues to vote H.R. 39 and support this important and successful program.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me just say briefly, Mr. Speaker, that the gentleman that spoke before, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] talked about the Republicans destroying the environment; and I would like to make just about 30 seconds' worth of comments. The gentleman has a right to his opinion, only he states it as fact, and I would say that the gentleman is factually challenged. He has a right to his view, but those from the left that would take all the power in Washington, DC, and control that power, whether it be environmental, whether it be education, whether it be private property, whether it be religious beliefs, and control it within the walls of this body, I disagree with. Let me give a classic example. The Superfund, which was created to clean up toxic wastesites, over 70 percent of the dollars that we allocate to clean it up go to trial lawyers in litigation. What we are saying is that over 85 percent of the cleanup of these Superfund sites is done by the State and the people within that State. Now, it is up to your opinion, Mr. Speaker, whether having the money and having it wasted here in Washington, DC, over 70 percent are getting 90 percent of the dollars down to the State, who actually does the cleanup, and focusing the money on the problem instead of bureaucracy. There are two different views there. The EPA, the dollars go to over 50 percent of the bureaucracy, and we believe on the Republican side, with many of our colleagues on the other side, that it is more important to get the dollars to clean up clean air, more important to get the dollars out of those that pollute the air, and support this country. With those comments I would like to move on to the title subject tonight, Mr. Speaker. I want to talk about COSCO. Not Price Club, Mr. Chairman, as we know it, not Costco or Price Club, as many Americans know it, but the China Ocean Shipping Company owned and controlled by only one CEO, chief executive officer, and that chief executive officer is Communist China itself. There is no board of directors, there are no bosses above COSCO or these other corporations set up by Communist China. They all answer and are directed, and if they do not, one can imagine the consequences. What I want to speak to tonight is that recently, within the last couple of days, a judge, just the day before yesterday, agreed to examine the validity of the lease made by the Port of Long Beach to a shipping company owned by the Communist Chinese Government. This is what the COSCO president, a Communist Chinese, says about its shipping company: Call the charges totally false. A handful of U.S. individuals with ulterior motives have made use of the media to fabricate reports that have gravely injured the reputation of COSCO. In the same article, the newspaper article, and I quote, COSCO's past problems, however, have given its critics ammunition. Six of these ships were cited for safety violations by our Coast Guard last year and considered unsafe. A COSCO ship, owned by Communist China again, recently plowed into a New Orleans dock in December, injuring 116 people. Customs officials found over 2,000 AK-47's being smuggled into Oakland last year by COSCO. The company that makes the AK-47's, the company that distributes the AK-47's and COSCO are all controlled by the same chief executive officer: Communist China, Mr. Chairman. They also brought in two ships. I remember in the press this year where we had two shiploads of illegal Chinese trying to enter the United States. Mr. chairman, those were COSCO ships. Now, supporters in the administration will tell us that one of those ship's registrations had expired and they went and asked Communist China, is that still your ship? Well, that is like if I had a car and drove it into Mexico with a load of cocaine and it did not have registration, but it was my car and the Mexican Government came back and said, hey, Duke, is that your car? I am not going to say, sure, that is my car. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think common sense should prevail. This is the same company, Mr. Speaker, that shipped nuclear weapons components to Pakistan. This is the same company, Mr. Speaker, that is shipping chemical and biological weapons to North Korea, to Iran, to Iraq, to Syria, and yes, to the Mujahedin, Hamas, and Bosnia, which impacts the safety of every American citizen and free world citizen in this world. We disagree with the Communist Chinese taking over and controlling a United States port. There is currently, Mr. Speaker, an FBI report reported to us by intelligence. It is current, and it states that as of today even, the Communist Chinese, through COSCO, are deploying both industrial spies and national security spies into every port, whether they are a tenant or whether they control it. that, to me, Mr. Speaker, is a national security threat and must be examined. I would state that Councilman Roberts from Long Beach said, it broke our hearts when the Navy made its decision to leave Long Beach. This has been an incredible struggle for the city. Mr. Speaker, Long Beach has lost thousands of jobs. Why? The President's extreme defense cuts and the additional BRAC process, base closing process, closed Kelly Air Force Base in California. It closed El Toro Base in California, it closed Long Beach Naval Shipyard in California, it took out the training center in San Diego and has devastated over 1 million jobs in the State of California, Mr. Speaker. We vowed to the people of Long Beach and those other cities that have been devastated by those cuts by the administration that we will do every single thing we can to help, but not at the cost of letting and having a national security threat, a known threat to this country, the Communist Chinese. Even though we are involved in trading negotiations, to think that they are our ally or our friend, in my opinion, is foolhardy. What is that opinion based on? That opinion is based on my service on Seventh Fleet staff, responsible for all Southeast Asia exercises and defense of those countries, including planning the invasions of those countries in time of war. It also was gained at Naval Fighter Weapons School, and planning the invasions and defense of those countries. Just today in the newspaper, Mr. Speaker: ``Geneva--After an intense lobbying campaign marked both by threats and tantalizing promises, China succeeded once again yesterday in blocking U.N. criticism of its human rights record.'' The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] spoke of children being in slavery, and used. It is also done in China, not just India and other countries, Mr. Speaker. If we take a look at the threat, when that U.N. resolution was blocked by Communist China through threats, they followed through with that threat. Here is another article in today's paper: ``U.N. consideration of resolution condemning its human rights record.'' ``The Chinese government took diplomatic retaliation against Denmark for sponsoring the measure,'' just for sponsoring and speaking their feelings. ``Accusing the Danish government of hurting the feelings of the Chinese people, China announced that it will suspend bilateral state visits with Copenhagen. The motion urged China to relax controls on freedom of expression and religion and release political prisoners, and improve its judicial system.'' yet China retaliated against a country that expressed its opinion on human rights. We look at the terrorism threat in Bahrain, shipped in by Cosco and the Communist Chinese. We look at the murders that took place in Germany and France and England and the World Trade Center. Many of these materials were shipped by Cosco ships to the terrorist countries that are a direct threat. We look at North Korea, threatening withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with the United States. Cosco also delivers nuclear weapons materials to North Korea. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that why would the people of Long Beach, some of them, and many do not, but we are getting calls every day from all over the United States and all over the world in outrage of this country allowing a Communist Chinese-run shipping company to take over the port. But if we take a look at the devastation that has gone on in these bases and with these people, they are worried about putting bread on the table, about putting their children through school. They are concerned. So are we, Mr. Speaker. I would say that President Clinton took a personal role in promoting the interests of Cosco, and at the same time he was cutting over 100 warships out of national security for this country. That is a 23 percent cut. The symbolism could not be made more stark. Richard Fisher, a senior policy analyst of the Asian Studies Center, noted the real, very real security concerns of the Long Beach deal in a Washington Times column of April 3rd. His main point is given: ``If it so desires, the Chinese leadership can direct that Cosco's assets be put at the disposal of the Peoples Liberation Army (the PLA), or the main espionage organ, which the FBI has reports that it is currently doing, the Ministry of State Security, the MSS * * *. Do we really want a subsidiary of the Peoples Republic of China to have such a large presence'' in the port? Mr. Speaker, Cosco has had a position at Long Beach for many years. I have no problems with that. They can be a tenant and I will not object, Mr. Speaker. But to give a Communist Chinese-operated shipping company, with its past violations, full access, and they control everything that comes into the port, they control who sees what containers that go out in the middle of the night, they control what goes out of this country. Mr. Speaker, they will ship in illegals, they will ship in illegal arms, they will ship in intelligence officers, as they do around the rest of the world. We must be vigilant, Mr. Speaker, on stopping that. Russia told the United States, air defense arms are not sold to Iran, but we find out, yes, they are. I think if we have a bright star in the Clinton administration, it is Madeleine Albright, because I would say, Mr. Speaker, that she is tough, and I think that this gentlewoman has the pizzazz, if you want to use that word, to stand up for American workers' rights. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that under Republican administrations and under Democrat administrations the weakling of our foreign policy has been our State Department. They will not stand up for our workers' rights, and I think Madeleine Albright is the person to do that. Let me give the Members a quick story. When the world first started trading with China, with sails and wooden ships, and this is a true story, Mr. Speaker, one of the sailors from a ship threw over a bucket on a line, and it so happened that there was a sanpan down below it, and it impacted a lady, by mistake, on the head, and it killed the lady. The Chinese, much like in the movie ``Sand Pebble,'' stormed the ship and tried to take the sailor off the ship. The crew stood with arms protecting the sailor, and would not let him go off the ship, because the Chinese wanted to execute the individual right there. They waited three days. The Chinese emissary came back to the ship and threatened the fleet, to withhold all trade to those fleets. That day the fleet gave over that sailor, Mr. Speaker, and the Chinese executed him, for an accident. So many times when our countries are threatened with economic power of foreign countries, our State Department does not stand up for our rights, does not stand up for our workers, and we need to be more vigilant in that. I believe in trade. I supported NAFTA. I supported GATT. But all of our fears on both sides of the issue were that we would not make it be fair trade, and more and more we are finding that that in some cases is the case. I have an article here that says ``Marines Lost Bid for Site to China Cosco Firm.'' The United States Marine Corps wanted the facility at Cosco, and the Clinton administration allowed it to go to a Chinese Communist-controlled company. As Members know, as the Chinese Ocean Shipping Company, Cosco, while it is true that Cosco has been a tenant at Long Beach since 1991, the agreement would turn over 145 acres. It was a Cosco ship Empress Phoenix that shipped in the 2,000 AK-47 automatic rifles into San Francisco base a year ago. Mr. Speaker, these are the same type of weapons that were recently used in Los Angeles in the bank hold-ups which placed in jeopardy the lives of our law enforcement agencies. Yet, the President says, I do not want any assault weapons in this country. These are truly fully automatic weapons of war and assault weapons. There was a shipment of M-2's that we recently stopped at the border in San Diego, fully automatic weapons. We need to stop that, Mr. Speaker. The Chinese regime is not a steady United States ally. On July 24, 1996, the U.S. Times reported warnings by the former United States Ambassador Charles Freeman quoting a Chinese official that China could intimidate Taiwan because United States leaders would care more about Los Angeles than they do Taiwan. What was that about? Remember when China fired missiles at Taiwan this last year? When the United States fleet started going through the straits, Communist China responded with a nuclear threat on the city of Los Angeles, and made the statement, ``Do you prefer Los Angeles more than you do Taiwan?'' And do you think that Taiwan is a possible conflict in the next year? Absolutely, it is. With American aircraft in the straits, the Chinese official had conveyed an anonymous message to Tony Lake, Anthony Lake, President Clinton's national security adviser, that American interference in Beijing's effort to bring Taipei to heel would result in a devastating attack on the city of Los Angeles. Yet, we are going to allow this same Communist control in Long Beach Naval Shipyard. The San Diego Union Tribune, 3/31/96. Mr. Speaker, the Panama Canal, one of the most strategic locations in the world for the United States, the Panama Canal, that we paid for with blood and sweat and tears and American citizens digging the canal, was recently turned over to Hutchinson, out of Hong Kong, a controlled Chinese Communist country, both ends of the Panama Canal. Now, why? The major export to China from the United States is wheat. Why do they not go around the horn? For the same reason sailors have not for 200 years, especially with cargo ships, container ships: The weather. They go through the Panama Canal. Yet the Chinese took over control of both ends of it. The major export port for wheat going to China is where? Guess where, Mr. Speaker? Long Beach Naval Shipyard. They will control price-fixing of our agriculture interests. They will not only have a national security threat, they will have an economic threat to this country. In the President's budget, he just gave $50 million to Communist China. Maybe $50 million is not very much to a lot of people, but it is to most. In his budget he cut impact education aid, but he gives $50 million to the Communist Chinese for a coal-burning plant in Beijing. The President also gave China, after the elections, over $100 million to build Cosco ships in a non-recourse loan to Communist China, a loan to Communist China which takes away our Title XI money for our own shipbuilders to build American ships. Those same ships are not going to be sailed by U.S. sailors, they are going to be sailed by Chinese sailors. Those exports, under the control of price-fixing, will go out of the United States. That is what I talk about regarding our State Department, Mr. Speaker. If we do not speak from a position of strength, instead of a position of weakness, then the United States and America loses again, just another reason why we are in opposition to this move. Johnny Chung, a Chinese American businessman from California, gave $366,000 to the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, that was later returned on suspicion it illegally came from foreign sources. Guess what? Mr. Chung brought six Chinese officials to the White House last year to hear President Clinton make his weekly radio address. Mr. Speaker, guess who two of those guests were: The person that owned Cosco, how Chinese shipping was set up, he was the head of it, controlled by Communist China. And one of the others was the very gun runners that smuggled in 2,000 AK-47's into the United States, and after being caught they were penalized and put in prison. Do you know why they were putting the AK-47's into this country? To disrupt our inner cities in the United States, and to go to our gangs. The M-2's going to Mexico, during the next 90 days Mexico has critical elections. Do we want a left-wing Communist legislature in Mexico City? No. We want a pro-American, we want a pro-reform Mexican legislature, and not to have some Communist country disrupt the elections of countries next to us, whether it is Mexico or Canada. On the campaign trail last year and in a White House meeting in 1995, President Clinton endorsed a proposal to transfer Long Beach Naval Shipyard to COSCO. A COSCO adviser was among the Chinese businessmen invited to hear the President in the Oval Office. Over the past year, a COSCO ship recently plowed, if you remember, Mr. Speaker, it was a COSCO ship that totally destroyed the pier in New Orleans. Not only shipping two shiploads of illegal aliens, they are not only shipping in AK-47's, they have not only been violated six times by our Coast Guard, they took out an entire pier, injuring over 116 people, causing millions of dollars in New Orleans and declared unsafe. This is the company that we want controlling and having access within the United States? Mr. Speaker, in my humble opinion, that is ludicrous. We want to make it clear, as the Heritage Foundation, Asia analyst, Richard Fisher said, Increasing trade with China should not be pursued at the expense of U.S. national security. We believe there is enough evidence of these COSCO transactions presenting a threat to U.S. national security, particularly when the Clinton administration has been intimately involved throughout, that Congress should exercise its responsibility with prudent and robust oversight. We plan to do so, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think that if the United States does not get involved in trade, including with China, that economically we are going to die. But as many Members on both sides of the aisle are afraid of, that should be fair trade, not trade with the United States having the largest, largest trade deficit in the world with China. We want fair trade. We want the Chinese and our State Department, along with the President, must demand, not should demand, must demand that, first, that Christians quit being abused in Communist China, that weapons to our enemies, our real enemies, terrorists of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and North Korea cease now, that they quit supplying areas like Bosnia that can be used against our troops, that they quit shipping in weapons to nations close to the United States like Mexico, that the human rights violations be moved on, not thwarted in the United Nations with threats to other countries. And that is another reason, Mr. Speaker, that the United Nations should be and must be changed. The Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, was correct in his recent trip to Asia and China. He said that perhaps one of the first signs that China can make is how the handling of the turnover of Hong Kong to the Communist Chinese looks. The next step should be its policy toward Taiwan as a free nation. And yes, I think that our State Department and our President need to focus on the trade deficit, not only with China but other countries as well. As the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Moran] said, its utilization of children, we are not talking teenagers, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 5- and 6- and 7-year-olds working 14 hours a day just to survive for a handful of rice. And then guess what? Those products come to this country, but our businesses out of business because we cannot meet that labor cost. We need to take a look at Long Beach and the biodiversity that the interest groups are currently looking at, including the Audubon Society, Mr. Speaker. I would be happy to sum up by saying that I will not object to Long Beach having COSCO or other nations as a tenant, but, Mr. Speaker, let us not give them control and complete access of a former national security base, not with the record of COSCO, not with the current threat from the Chinese Communists who just increased their defense by 30 percent and bought 250 SU-27's, which are better than our F-14 and F-15 Strike Eagles, our aircraft, and not with the current China shipping arms to our enemies. Let us be tough. Let us talk softly and carry a big stick, Mr. Speaker. But when the time comes, I would ask the President, the State Department, and this body to be able to speak with a strong voice and be willing to use that stick. And God bless America.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my friend from Virginia [Mr. Moran] just talked about human rights and he makes many, many good points, and I support the gentleman's assessments. Let me say that I would ask the gentleman to support us, the attorney general from California and all of the police chiefs in the State of California, and I am sure there are other States that are affected. They brought some pretty gruesome pictures of children being imported from Mexico, we are talking 7-year-olds, 8-year-olds, 9-year-olds and teenagers, across the border to serve in methamphetamine labs across the United States. One out of four of these exploded in fires, and they had grizzly pictures of these children burned. Not over a period of weeks or months or years, but these children are dying within minutes of breathing in the fumes and the chemicals of methamphetamines. I will work with the gentleman. We do not have to look very far, and I understand that, yes, there are human rights violations like these, but even within our own borders. I think it is criminal, and we ought to do everything we can to stop it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We have all worked for people that we respect and believe that have vision on both sides of the aisle. And I would like to state that we had our Republican Caucus just before the decision was made about the Speaker and before the Speaker made the decision to come forward to the body. The Speaker's own legal advisors, the special prosecutor that looked into the allegations, came before the caucus and told the Speaker that if he wanted to fight every one of the allegations in that one ethics violation that he would win 100 percent, he could fight them and he would win because they had no basis. And yet, the left leadership of the Democrat Party wanted its pound of flesh and, for them to give us a bipartisan agreement, had to have the extra pound of flesh and the Speaker had to agree to pay the $300,000. Knowing that he could win, why would not the Speaker do it? Because on both sides of the counsel, they told him, Mr. Speaker, you will win, but at what cost; and what the gentleman just covered, we would have been in the year of disruption, with the Democrats demagoguing, with the Democrats attacking and partisan rhetoric, because they want the power here in Washington, DC. And the Speaker's vision is what the gentleman from California was talking about and swore to destroy the Speaker because he was the leader of the Republican Party, the gentleman from Florida that did the same thing. And the leadership has sworn to destroy politically the Speaker, because he is so effective. I would say to the gentleman, that is wrong; and I think the American people think it is wrong, too. But in the face of that, when you look at leadership, in the face of attending to the people's business of saving Medicare, of providing Medicaid, and balancing a budget and tax reform and revising Superfund, where 70 percent does not go to trial lawyers, and attending to this House and its functions, the Speaker elected not to disrupt the House, not to have this House disabled because of partisan attacks, and went through personal sacrifice. As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] said, how many of us could go through a $300,000 voluntary settlement? That is a mansion in a lot of areas. It takes a long time. I could not pay cash for it, and it would be devastating. So when we talk about leadership, I think it is important to see the Speaker's vision that even at the expense of his own personal family and Marianne, his beautiful wife, making those decisions right with the Speaker, and which he blessed today, I think it is important for the American people to see that. I would also like to remind the Speaker here tonight that the gentleman from Missouri, the minority leader of the Democrat Party, had ethics violations that filed improper IRS returns that benefited him personally and was found to have ethics violations. How did he pay his fine, quote? Out of his campaign funds. But yet the speaker choose not today do to that because the Speaker of the House should be held high, and he takes full responsibility. That to me, Mr. Speaker, is leadership. That is vision, and that is wisdom. Today the gentleman had talked about the gentleman from California attacking the Speaker, the same gentleman that had vowed to destroy the Speaker only last year, and he said that he will do anything he can to remove the political strength of the Speaker. Is that what the American people want on this body? I do not think so. The same gentleman from California attacked then Bob Dole, as the gentleman mentioned. Is it not a shame that the gentleman from California will never ever reach the heights of the accomplishments or the values and the respect of the gentleman from Kansas, Bob Dole, and neither will he ever lead this body or have the vision of the Speaker of the House today, Newt Gingrich. And I think it is important to just let me go through real quickly, unless you have something you would like to talk about, I would like to go through just a few quick points and just mention them. This is what the liberal left stands for in this body, the abolition of private property and land and application of all rents and lands to public purposes to be controlled by the Government. A good example: San Diego County, the Government owns over 54 percent. Many States have over 80 percent of it owned. A heavily progressive or graduated income tax. Abolishment of all rights of inheritance, i.e. the death tax. Confiscation of the property of all immigrants and rebels to centralize the credit in the hands of the government by means of national bank with State capital and exclusive monopoly; i.e., Medicare. The centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands to the State. The extension of factories, an instrument and production owned by the State bringing into cultivation waste lands and soil into government control. Equal obligation of all to work and the establishment of industrial armies, the unions. The abolition of the distinction between town and country, only the government. Free education for all, but yet controlled by the government. Class distinctions and class warfare to achieve it. Political power, property, properly so-called is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing the other. I would State, Mr. Speaker, and to the gentleman that yielded his time, I am reading from the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Will the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough] yield for one moment? The gentleman I think has mischaracterized the term ``fine'' with a voluntary payment, and the Speaker has stated that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct attempted to put a fine, that he would have fought it in court if it was a fine.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my father took home about 85 percent of his paycheck. My brother will take home about 45 percent of his paycheck. My daughters, at the current rate of taxes and spending, will take home between 10 and 16 percent. Yogi Berra once said, ``Ladies and gentleman, the future ain't what it used to be.'' When I grew up, if you worked hard and tried to save and put money back, you may have a little bit of a life with your family. More and more, that is increasingly different. Mr. Speaker, we need to reduce the amount of Federal spending and have an effective government. The President wants a $3 billion literacy program. There are already 14 literacy programs in education, all with bureaucracies, to where we get as little as 23 cents on the dollar down to the classroom. That is cutting education, Mr. Speaker. We need to work on both sides because American families are endangered in this country. A billion dollars a day, but not one penny goes to any of those. {time} 1115

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there they go again. In 1996, the big labor bosses in Washington attempted to buy a political party and the elections, using $35 million in union dues from honest working men and women--40 percent of whom opposed the union bosses' endorsed Presidential candidate. Now they are coordinating with the Clinton administration an expansive, expensive, and bureaucratic new Federal contracting regulation to shake down everybody else--American taxpayers, employers, and the 90 percent of workers who are not union members--for the self-serving interests of the labor bosses in Washington. It should go without saying that the President's proposed Executive order on project labor agreements is in addition to existing Federal contract and labor law, which includes but is not limited to the Service Contract Act, the Davis-Bacon Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act and the minimum wage, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and the Occupational Health and Safety Act, among others, plus the laws of the States. I enter into the Record a memorandum from AFL-CIO President John Sweeney that outlines the labor bosses' plan, so that Members may read it and draw their own conclusions. American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations Memo to: National and International Union Presidents. From: John J. Sweeney. Subject: Support for Pro-Worker Federal Procurement Reforms. Date: March 25, 1997. The purpose of this memo is to alert you to an exciting initiative that requires the immediate attention of affiliated unions, and to request your assistance in building the case for these much-needed reforms. As you may recall, the Clinton Administration recently announced its intention to undertake several initiatives that will protect worker rights and workplace standards while improving federal government procurement and contracting practices. If properly implemented, these initiatives will affect the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars every year. In any given year federal contracts total as much as $200 billion, and federal contractors and subcontractors employ approximately one-fifth of the labor force. At any given time perhaps 3% of the labor force is directly employed in the performance of a federal government contract. In order for these initiatives to take effect and withstand Republican and business community opposition in Congress and the courts, we need the assistance and active involvement of AFL-CIO unions. We are asking affiliates to undertake the efforts described in the attached memorandum, and to designate one person from each organization who will work with us in coordinating these efforts. Our short term goal is to develop material to buttress our case for these reforms from a hostile attack from the Republican Congress. The long term goal is to build and sustain a body of information to help us make the most of these initiatives and have a positive, pro-worker impact on the world of federal contracting. The government will be issuing proposed procurement regulations that will accomplish three reforms. First, the government will evaluate whether a bidder for a government contract has a satisfactory record of labor relations and other employment practices in determining whether or not the bidder is a ``responsible contractor'' eligible to receive a particular government contract. Second, the government will not reimburse federal contractors for costs they incur in unsuccessfully defending against or settling unfair labor practice complaints brought against them by the National Labor Relations Board. Third, the government will not reimburse contractors for the money they spend to fight unionization of their employees. These proposed amendments to the Federal Acquisition Regulations will be published in the Federal Register for a 60-day notice and comment period by the public, and then issued in final and binding form following consideration of those comments. President Clinton will also issue an executive order directing all federal departments to consider using a project labor agreement when they undertake government-funded construction projects. This order is not subject to notice- and-comment or other administrative steps. Republicans in Congress and the business community attacked these plans as soon as the Administration announced them. Republican leaders have said they may try to override them and are also threatening litigation. Both groups assert that the initiatives are bad policy and simply a payoff to the AFL-CIO for its efforts during the 1996 election campaign. In order to secure final issuance of the procurement regulations, and to defeat the campaign that is coalescing against them and the proposed executive order, it is imperative that AFL-CIO affiliates bolster the case in support of these changes with specific information and examples of corporate lawbreaking or bad practices that justify the regulations, and successful experiences with project labor agreements in both the private and public sectors. We are reaching out in particular to organizers, lawyers, researchers and lobbyists for AFL-CIO affiliates to ask their assistance in securing this information, and to consult as appropriate with other staff in their union and its affiliated local, district and similar bodies. The attached memorandum describes these initiatives in more detail and specifies the information and materials we need. Responses should be sent directly to AFL-CIO Corporate Affairs Department Director Ron Blackwell, who is coordinating the AFL-CIO's research efforts for the procurement reforms. Ron can be reached at AFL-CIO headquarters at 202-637-5160. Thank you for your help in our campaign to win these important reforms. Information Needed in Support of Proposed Government Contracting Reforms The Clinton Administration will soon be proposing regulations to modify the Federal Acquisition Regulations in three areas, and will be issuing an executive order on project labor agreements. A description of the forthcoming proposals, and the information needed to support these proposals, follows: 1. Requiring government contractors to have satisfactory labor and employment practices Under the regulations that govern federal procurement and contracting--Part 9 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations-- before the government can award a contract for goods, services or construction, such as computers, building maintenance or the erection of a government office building, it must evaluate the contractor's past performance record; its record of integrity and business ethics; and its capability to perform the contract. In selecting contractors, the government has only occasionally taken into account a contractor's labor relations and employment practices. Often, then, a contractor with a shabby record of treating its workers has won a government contract, and on only rare occasions has the government decided that a contractor's labor relations were so poor that it could not satisfactorily perform the contract up for bid. The government will now revise its procurement regulations so they expressly provide that a satisfactory record of employment practices is a component of both the ``business ethics and integrity'' and ``capability'' qualifications for being ``responsible.'' This means the government will review a contractor's labor and employment policies and practices and its compliance with laws and standards concerning safety and health; wages, benefits and other labor standards; equal employment opportunity; and the right to organize and bargain collectively. The AFL-CIO has stressed two important public purposes that are served by this initiative. First, it ensures that the government won't award contracts to companies that don't respect worker rights or adopt sound workplace standards, because these companies aren't trustworthy or reliable enough for the government to do business with. Second, it will improve the performance of government contracts because employers with good labor relations and employment practices are more stable, productive and efficient. In order to support this initiative, we need information and documentation about government contractors that either are lawbreakers or have substandard labor and employment practices or policies--for example, government contractors that-- Have been held liable for substantial breaches of the National Labor Relations Act; the Occupational Safety and Health Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Employee Retirement Income Security Act; the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; or other federal laws protecting workplace standards and barring employment discrimination. Are being investigated, sued or prosecuted for such violations (examples: Caterpillar and Mitsubishi) even though no final determination has been made. Pay substandard wages; have no defined workplace rules and arbitrarily administer employment policy; provide few or no benefits; provoke ongoing worker dissatisfaction or unrest; experience unusually high turnover and workforce instability; enforce unfair or degrading rules and procedures; or provide no means for workers to raise on-the-job problems. We need names, dates, related documents and, just as important, union representatives or workers who can attest to these situations or provide at least anecdotal information. If your organization has compiled any relevant general data, that would prove very useful as well. We particularly suggest that: Lawyers gather records of cases involving government contractor violations of workplace laws; lobbyists review their files where local unions or other internal bodies have requested intervention with either the Congress or the Executive Branch over a problem with a government contractor like the ones described in this memo; organizers review ongoing and recent organizing campaigns at employers that are government contractors; and researchers investigate the records of contractors in the principal industries they represent. 2. Ending government reimbursement of employers' antiworker expenses a. Defense of Unfair Labor Practice Complaints Under current government procurement and contracting regulations--Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations-- the government now precludes the reimbursement of government contractors for their costs in unsuccessfully defending or settling criminal indictments and certain civil proceedings brought by the government involving fraud or similar misconduct or the imposition of a monetary penalty. But the regulations don't specify whether the defense of unfair labor practice complaints issued by the NLRB General Counsel charging violations of the NLRA is a reimbursable cost incurred in the performance of a contract that contractors can pass on to taxpayers. Now those regulations will preclude the use of public funds for that private purpose where the contractor is found liable or the contractor resolves the case by settlement. This will end the self- defeating practice of the government funding both the enforcement and the defense of government litigation to enforce the labor laws. We need information about employers that have defended unfair labor practice complaints brought by the NLRB General Counsel during the performance of a government contract, where either the NLRB held that the contractor violated the NLRA or the contractor settled the case after a compliant was issued. We are looking especially for situations in which the contractor violated organizing rights during an organizing campaign; refused to bargain in good faith for a first contract; tried to destroy an established collective bargaining relationship; or unlawfully discharged or otherwise retaliated against employees because they supported a union. If known, we especially need cases where the government reimbursed the contractor for the cost of unsuccessfully defending the ULP complaint. We recognize that it is unlikely that the union would know these details. Identification of the organizing campaign alone would be helpful; we will try to obtain information about reimbursement from other sources. In particular: Lawyers should provide citations to NLRB decisions, and copies of ALJ decisions, settlement agreements and other documents arising from ULP prosecutions of government contractors; organizers should provide information about the organizing campaigns at worksites of government contracts that gave rise to ULPs and identify the union staff of workers who had direct experience with the matter; lobbyists, again, should review their files where local unions or other internal bodies have requested intervention with either the Congress or the Executive Branch over a problem with a government contractor like the ones described in this memo; and researchers should undertake associated research into these matters. b. Anti-Union Campaigning Under several federal statutes and regulations, including those governing Head Start, Medicare, the National and Community Service Act and the Job Training Partnership Act, federal contractors and fund recipients have long been barred from using government money to fight their workers' efforts to exercise their rights to organize and bargain collectively. The government will now revise its regulations-- specifically, in Part 31 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations--to specify that as a general rule covering all government procurement, contractors will not be able to obtain government reimbursement for these sorts of activities. This reform will create a more level playing field when employees of government contractors try to exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act by ending the grossly unfair practice of taxpayers underwriting employer efforts to fight or influence their employees' decision about exercising their rights. This initiative will save taxpayers these expenses, which have nothing to do with guaranteeing satisfactory government contract performance. We need unions to identify instances where organizing campaigns took place in bargaining units of employees that were actually performing the government contract. Again, if known, instances of government reimbursement should be described. We are especially interested in situations in which the employer aggressively opposed the campaign; the employer committed ULP's during the campaign; the employer broke or skirted the law but, for whatever reason (such as where the union won the election), the union did not pursue NLRB objections or charges; and other situations where the employer engaged in an anti-union campaign, such as during collective bargaining. In particular, Lawyers should review organizing and contract campaigns they were involved with, particularly those in which the employer incurred substantial legal expenses; organizers should review organizing and contract campaigns and, again, identify both the union staff and workers who had direct contract with the situation; lobbyists should, again, review their files as described earlier; and researchers should undertake associated inquiries. 3. Authorizing project labor agreements for government construction. A project labor agreement is a comprehensive collective bargaining agreement negotiated at the outset of a project between the construction owner or manager and the unions representing all the workers who will construct the project. This agreement sets the wages, working conditions, work rules and dispute resolution procedures for the duration of the project. They usually guarantee that projects will be built without strikes, lockouts and similar disruptions. In the private sector, project labor agreements have long proven their worth in the construction of large utility, manufacturing and other complexes. Over the years of federal government has used project labor agreements on large construction projects, including dams, atomic energy facilities and other defense installations, but it has never had a policy to consider using them or to require its contractors to negotiate them where these agreements may facilitate efficient and timely construction. Innumerable state and locally funded construction projects such as the mammoth cleanup of Boston Harbor, and bridges, office complexes, highways, and airports have been built under project labor agreements. In the past three years, Republican Governors Whitman of New Jersey and Pataki of New York and Democratic Governor Miller of Nevada have issued executive orders authorizing the use of project labor agreements for state-funded construction when it will promote the efficient, timely and safe construction of a project. Under this new presidential executive order, when an agency decides that a project labor agreement will benefit a federal construction project, it may either negotiate one directly or require bidders to agree to negotiate one for the project. This order advances fair and efficient government contracting by making it clear that federal agencies, just like state and municipal governments and private builders, have the option of using project labor agreements as one means of assuring that the project will be performed in a cost-effective, competent and timely manner. In order to defend this order from anticipated political attack, we need information from Building and Construction Trades Department affiliates about recent or ongoing project labor agreements, whether public or private. Especially useful would be examples of experiences in the three states where executive orders encourage such agreements on public construction projects. In particular, building trades: Lawyers should provide examples of publicly-funded project labor agreements whose lawfulness has been litigated; lobbyists should report efforts to have states and localities adopt project agreements on particular projects or general executive orders to promote them as a matter of policy; and researchers should compile lists and data regarding the use of project labor agreements. We appreciate any assistance you can provide to our campaign to support these initiatives and counter the opposition coalescing against them.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to take the whole time. My colleagues just spoke on the issue of our generation and future generations on taxation, and as important as it is, I feel it is very important that we bring up another subject. That is the subjugation of the United States by a Communist-owned company, and control of. What I would like to do tonight is talk on the facts. Those facts are based on when I served in the U.S. Navy, I served on 7th Fleet staff and was responsible for all Southeast Asia countries, the defense of, not only in the training exercises, but in the real world threat. For example, in Team Spirit in Korea, we ran exercises involving our allies in the defense of Korea. That involved our reserves, that involved all of our friendly assets that we had to bear if North Korea came across a line. But at the same time, I had access to some 13 linguists that monitored North Korea's frequencies to give us an idea of real threats. For example, my last year there, the two Mig 21's came over across the line and defected, and we were responsible for that as well. While at Navy Fighter Weapons School my job was to plan and coordinate not only offensive but defensive impacts and invasions of Southeast Asian countries, so I come tonight with experience and fact. I would like to give those tonight to the Speaker to make his decision, as I hope the American people do. Cosco is a Communist-owned, Communist Chinese-owned company. Its purpose is ship containers in and out of major ports all over the world. Recently, California has been devastated by the President's defense cuts. We have lost over 1 million jobs. The additional BRACC cuts in base closings and realignments have cost thousands to millions of jobs in the State of California. The people of Long Beach have lost thousands of those jobs, as we did at Kelly Air Force Base, as we did at El Toro and Miramar, and the shifting of different assets. In that process, the people of Long Beach are looking for help. They have mouths to feed just like anyone else. They have children to send to college. They have been devastated from these cuts in national security in base realignment and closures. What I plan to show tonight is a direct link between the White House fundraising with China and assets that have gone in favor of Communist China that could pose as a national security threat to the United States. I have intelligence reports that state so. I have facts that also state so, and I would like to make that case this evening. First, Mr. Speaker, let us look at Long Beach perspective. Again, people have been devastated. They are without jobs, and they need help. Mr. Speaker, I would say that all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that are opposed to a Chinese Communist company taking over Long Beach Naval Air Station would be more than willing to do everything we can to help Long Beach recover those jobs, but not to a Communist-controlled nation of the Chinese Republic. Cosco's ships fly flags of the People's Republic of China. The port lease with Cosco will provide Cosco with its own terminal. Major imports from China to Long Beach include toys, sporting goods, footwear, apparel, electrical parts, and machinery. But Mr. Speaker, that is not all. Last year, it was Cosco that delivered to the State of California 2,000 AK-47's. The company that builds the AK-47's, the company that negotiates the trade of AK-47's around the world, the company Cosco, all set up by the PRC, the People's Republic of China, owns. They do not report to department heads. Their CEO is Communist China, all owned and coordinated and controlled by Communist China. Yet, they delivered over 2,000 AK-47's into our country, with the intent of selling these arms to our inner cities to disrupt, to disrupt our inner cities, and disrupt our political environment within the United States of America. At the same time, the Clinton White House accepted both Cosco and the gunrunners themselves in a White House coffee. I will later show the direct tie between the $366,000 that was conducted to the DNC by the White House recipients and Chinese investors to allow Cosco to gain this favored status. Long Beach Naval Shipyard closed as a result, as I said, of the additional base closures and lots of jobs were lost. We have a long way to protect those. I would also like to point out that during the bid to reclaim Long Beach Naval Shipyard, the marines lost a bid for the site to a China Cosco firm, and I quote from the Washington Times: Several officers in the Marine Corps have raised questions about why the Clinton administration favored turning over a military base in Long Beach, CA to the Chinese ocean shipping company, Cosco, over the protest of marine reserve battalion made homeless by the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Briefings on the firm fail to convince many of its members. The CIA, the Office of Naval Intelligence, and the Coast Guard reinforced the view that Cosco's strong link with the Chinese Government is a fatal flaw in its proposal to deliver the base to a company. Mr. Speaker, there is a current report, an updated report from the FBI, that states that Cosco is currently actively involved in placing intelligence officers, spies, in all of their ports of call. That is a national security interest. Cosco has enjoyed a 15-year access to Long Beach Naval Shipyard. I have no problems with that. My problem comes with Cosco taking over complete control of the 145 acres in which they will control access of every ship there. Every cargo container that comes off there, they will place it. They will have control of who sees where that cargo goes, where it is stored, what time of night it goes out, and who receives it. Mr. Speaker, if we give China that opportunity, we are going to see an increase of illegal aliens in which two Cosco ships forced, in the last Congress, two ships owned by Cosco shipped in illegal aliens, the Chinese, it was in the newspapers, along with the AK-47's. At the same time, you remember it was a Cosco ship that plowed into the port recently and nearly devastated the port in another U.S. facility. We cannot discuss the actual details of that intelligence briefing as it would not be prudent and it was a classified briefing. But I want to mention that two of the representatives that represent, and I understand their needs, they represent the people that are looking for jobs, one of those individuals stated that, and I quote, ``All intelligence agencies that briefed us have assured us that Cosco represents no threat to our national security.'' I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is an untruth, the fact that the same intelligence briefers, the CIA, the National Security, the Coast Guard, have all stated that no such comment was ever made and ever intended. And as a matter of fact, they were very, very upset at the dear colleague press release. Why? Because they stated that this is a policy issue for them to discuss, and they would never say that there is a national security interest, nor would they say that there is not. So I would submit that is not the case and that after careful deliberation of experience that there is a national security interest. Let me go through some of the facts. The national security of the United States is a responsibility of Congress and the President, not the city of Long Beach. Cosco has been attendant at Long Beach since 1991. The proposed lease agreement would turn over 145 acres of port property and grant Cosco a much more significant presence at that port, which I have discussed. Cosco ship, Empress Phoenix, had attempted to smuggle in some 2,000 AK-47's fully automatic assault weapons, the same kinds of weapons, Mr. Speaker, that were used in the bank holdup in Los Angeles that placed our law enforcement agents in great jeopardy, the same companies in port at which we recently found down off the border, M-2 fully automatic weapons going to Mexico to disrupt their elections which are going to take place over the next 90 days and cause anti-American, antireform legislators and affect the elections in Mexico City. That the Chinese regime is not steadily a U.S. ally. On January 24, 1996, the New York Times reported warnings by the former Ambassador, Charles Freling, quoting a Chinese official that China would intimidate Taiwan because U.S. leaders would care more about Los Angeles than they would Taiwan. When the U.S. fleet started to go through the straits, when communist China started shelling Taiwan and missile attacks, the Chinese responded as we started to enter our fleet that either we withdraw or the threat of nuclear warfare on the city of Los Angeles. Now, let's take a look at a Communist-owned and controlled facility in Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Hutchinson Group, also owned by Communist China, recently purchased both ends of the Panama Canal. This would give the Chinese control of the Panama Canal, it would give them control of Long Beach Naval Shipyard, and all of the access to and from and who sees what and where it goes. We feel that this would be a major national security threat. Mr. Speaker, let us take a look at why economically China would want to do this. There is a study coming out by the military. China's number one import from the United States is wheat. Why, Mr. Speaker, does not China or other cargo-containing vessels go around the horn instead of using the Panama Canal? Primarily, it has affected seagoers for centuries, the weather is bad and the threat of lost ships. If they own both ends of the Panama Canal, the major export of wheat out of the United States to China is controlled through Long Beach Naval Shipyard, they could control economically price fixing of all of our exports going out of our major port at Long Beach. And we feel that this is also an economy threat as well as a military security threat. According to the New York Times, Chinese officials had conveyed an ominous message to Anthony Lake, President Clinton's national security adviser, just weeks earlier: ``The possibility that American interference in Beijing efforts to bring Taipei to heel could result in devastating attack on Los Angeles.'' San Diego Union Tribune, March 31, 1996. Panama Canal, one of the most strategic locations on the globe, has been brought under COSCO's web. Hutchinson Port Holdings Incorporated, a Hong Kong operated, controlled, again by a corporation, by Chinese Communists with direct ties to the Pacific and Atlantic entrances to the Panama Canal and global, syndicated columnist, Georgie Anne Geyer, Universal Press Syndicate, March 26, 1997. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we lost the Panama Canal, both ends of it, to Communist China owned companies. We had an American company from Alabama that bid on those same sites. They won the contracts for both of those sites. It was selected by Panama. After selection, after announcement, the Chinese government went in with sacks of cash, much like they did with our government here in the United States, and said, here is $25,000 for you, here is another $25,000 for you. And guess what? That decision was reversed and it went to Chinese Communists instead of a U.S. based firm. Johnny Chung, a Chinese American businessman from California, gave $366,000 to the Democrats, the DNC, that was later returned on suspicion it illegally came from foreign sources. Chung brought 6 Chinese officials to the White House last year to watch President Clinton make his weekly radio address. One of the 6 was the advisor from COSCO who was later given by the President access to Long Beach shipyard and also the actual gun runners that were there in the White House gave money to the DNC. The chairman of one of these two Chinese arms companies implicated in the scheme to smuggle the 2,000 illegal Chinese-made weapons into Oakland aboard COSCO's ship had coffee in the White House in an affair associated with D.C. fundraising. Officials of the weapons company were indicted for shipping those arms. I would reiterate, Mr. Speaker, the company that shipped it, the company that made the rifles, the company that were the arms dealers are all owned by a CEO called Communist China. So what if we turn over a port to COSCO, complete control of a Communist Chinese operated state. We will have illegal immigrants come into the United States. We will have an increase of drugs come into the United States. We will have an increase of Chinese intelligence officers within the United States on our borders, and it could prove a devastating national security issue. On the campaign trail last year and in a White House meeting in 1995, President Clinton endorsed the proposal to transfer land of the Long Beach Naval shipyard to COSCO, but it was this March, 1995, the White House radio address that had critics talking. A COSCO advisor was among the Chinese businessmen invited to hear the President in the oval office just two days after a California businessman, Johnny Chung, made a $50,000 donation to the DNC and hand-delivered it to Mrs. Clinton's chief of staff Margaret Williams, CBS Evening News, March 11, 1997. Shortly after the Long Beach Naval shipyard land transfer was arranged, the Clinton administration helped arrange, listen to this, Mr. Speaker, in the President's budget that he submitted, he gave free, no strings, gave to Communist China $50 million to burn a coal burning plant, after these meetings and after these DNC fund-raisers from the Chinese. He can cut impact aid for education, but he can also give $50 million to Communist China in the name of trade and just give it. That is not fair trade. He also gave a multimillion dollar loan to build 5 Communist Chinese ships, COSCO ships, in a nonrecourse loan. What that means, Mr. Speaker, this is a loan of some $137 million, which may not be much to many Members around this body, but you ask the American people, $137 million of their taxpayers' dollars back up a nonrecourse loan to Communist China, a state-controlled company by Communist China, and if they forfeit, who is left holding the bag? The United States taxpayers. Our own ship builders do not have access to this type of loan, Mr. Speaker. Incredible. But yet the administration gives Communist China. Over the past year a COSCO ship plowed into New Orleans boardwalk injuring 116 people and 6 COSCO ships were denied or detailed for violating international safety regulations by our Coast Guard. This is since January, COSCO has violated by the Coast Guard and had 6 violations since January and declared as an unsafe company, not only for plowing into the pier at New Orleans and devastating that pier, causing millions of dollars in injuries, but for the other violations as well. COSCO was fined for paying kickbacks to shippers instead of abiding by tariffs. This is, again, a Chinese-operated company that was cited for giving kickbacks, payoffs for access. We want to make it clear that we do not mean any ill will toward the people of Long Beach. As a matter of fact, we will do everything we can to restore the jobs that they lost in the BRACC closures and defense cuts. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle that are opposed to COSCO taking over this port will do that and do so vigorously. COSCO's track record, if they were a company owned by some of our greatest allies, Great Britain or others, I would not want them in my backyard for the violations. But I would say this, if they want to stay as a tenant of Long Beach and not have total control and access of a former national security base, most of us would support that, Mr. Speaker. Our problem, again, is giving them total access to a security base that controls entry of illegals, of drugs, of illegal arms and intelligence officers and could pose an economic and national security threat. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton took a personal role in promoting the interests of COSCO. At the same time he was cutting over 100 warships from the U.S. fleet, drawn up by the Bush administration, a 23 percent cut. The symbolism could not be anymore stark. Richard Fisher, senior policy analyst with the Asian Studies Center of the Heritage Foundation, noted the real security concerns of Long Beach Steel in a Washington Times column on April 13. His main point is given below. If it so desires, the Chinese leadership can direct that COSCO assets be put at the disposal of the People's Liberation Army, the PLA, or the main espionage organ, the Ministry of State Security, the MSS. Do we really want a subsidiary of the People's Republic of China, a future superpower, to have such large presence at a port on our own coast, one of the only two West Coast ports with a dry dock large enough to repair our aircraft carriers? Mr. Speaker, I would say that we do not. It is one of the reasons that the gentleman from California [Mr. Duncan Hunter] and I offered a bill to stop this takeover by a Communist power of U.S. territory. The Clinton administration, and I would like to go through this step by step, it is not enough that there is a national security interest, but the Clinton administration and the China connection is very complicated. Unless you go step by step through it on how the various pieces seem to fit together, it is difficult to draw any special direction. Webster Hubbell, John Huang, Johnny Chung, Charles Yah Lin Trie will be discussed. The other incidences of Roger Tamraz, a felon, Susan McDougal, White House and DNC Immigration and Naturalization Service, Arapaho Indian Tribe, Oklahoma fundraising--all of these I will not discuss, Mr. Speaker, because they do not have a direct tie, although indirectly, to the Chinese taking over a shipyard in Long Beach. I would like to go through and show how devastating the empirical indictment of a conflict of interest between the White House and Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Let me first start with a family called the Riady family. The Riady family is based in Indonesia, controls a $12 billion financial empire operating under the umbrella of the Lippo Group. The family patriarch, one son, Stephen Riady has served as Lippo chairman since 1991. James Riady lived in Arkansas in the 1980's and there came to know then Governor Bill Clinton. The Riady family has an unusually big stake in maintaining most-favored-nation status for China since Lippo maintains enormous investments in Hong Kong, which is also the company that Mr. McDougal worked at. The China connection. A Justice Department investigation into improper political fundraising activities has uncovered evidence that representatives of the People's Republic of China sought direct contributions from foreign sources to the DNC, the Democratic National Committee, before the 1996 Presidential election. Mr. Speaker, our intelligence--the FBI and CIA--warned Janet Reno directly that China was attempting to influence the White House in policy decisions through campaign finance reports, much like they did in the port that we just talked about, by giving cash donations. The Justice Department task force has discovered that in early 1995, Chinese representatives developed a plan to spend nearly $2 million to buy influence in Congress, this body, and the Clinton administration, and investigators are apparently trying to determine if any of that money was received by John Huang, Charlie Trie, among others. So the FBI has given us warning and the CIA that the Chinese are trying to influence our Government to make decisions in their favor. And then the Clinton administration gives them a $50 million coal burning plant, gives them a $127 to $137 million loan to build Chinese Communist ships. Then they give them access to Long Beach Naval Shipyard and complete control of it. We think that there is a direct problem. John Huang, the Commerce Department and Lippo. John Huang, with no background check, with no background check, received top-level security clearance for work at the Commerce Department while still working for Lippo. This, despite Mr. Huang's ties to a Lippo bank that was ordered to cease and desist money laundering and despite Lippo commercial ties to China and its intelligence services, was granted access to top level intelligence services within the White House. President Clinton attended a September 13, 1995, White House meeting with John Huang, James Riady of Lippo Bank, Bruce Lindsey, and C. Joseph Giroir, the lawyer who hired then-Governor Clinton's wife, Hillary Clinton, to the Rose Law Firm and who is now doing Riady business in China. It was at that meeting that the transfer of Huang from the Department of Commerce to the DNC was arranged. A January 13, 1997, letter from the Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor says that Mr. Huang got a weekly intelligence briefing centered on the People's Republic of China and the materials related to those briefings were under the control of the CIA. And again there was no security clearance whatsoever, although they were warned, the administration, that this man had ties to Communist China. Senior White House aides learned that Commerce Department officials had concerns about John Huang in mid-1995, several months before the White House helped place him in a sensitive fund-raising job in the DNC, the Democratic National Committee. People at the Commerce Department itself described Mr. Huang as ``bad news.'' According to several people familiar with the matter, officials at the Department were worried that Mr. Huang's government work posed a conflict with his past employment with Lippo and direct ties with Communist China. In his second week on the job at the Commerce Department, Mr. Huang and Webster Hubbell, who has recently been in the news and who was then employed by Lippo, met for lunch in Washington. At the time, according to the internal White House documents, administration officials were monitoring Mr. Hubbell's cooperation with the Whitewater independent counsel. That evening, Mr. Huang joined Mr. Riady and Mr. Clinton at the President's birthday party. It is no secret that these were some of the individuals that gave Mr. Hubbell over $500,000, quote, as a friend. John Huang received 37 CIA-documented intelligence briefings at the Commerce Department, saw more than two dozen intelligence reports, and made over 70 phone calls to a Lippo-controlled bank in Los Angeles, his former employer. Mr. Huang's message slips from the Commerce Department also showed calls from one Chinese Embassy official in February 1995 and three calls from the Embassy's commercial minister in June and August of that year. Mr. Huang's desk calendar entries had three meetings scheduled with Chinese Government officials. He attended policy breakfasts at the Chinese Embassy in October 1995 and visited the Indonesian Embassy on October 11, 1995. In March, President Clinton, after this meeting in Indonesia by Mr. Huang, in March 1996, President Clinton reversed a key administrative policy on immigration following a $1.1 million Asian fund-raising dinner, the most successful Asian-American political fund-raiser in United States history. Held the previous month and organized by, who else? John Huang, a former employee of Lippo. President Clinton had previously opposed the practice of allowing foreign-born siblings of naturalized U.S. citizens to come to the United States, based on recommendations of a commission he appointed himself, and affirmed his desire to halt immigration in an early 1996 letter to the Speaker of the House. But in March 1996, President Clinton made a last-minute about-face, after the Indonesian meeting with Mr. Huang and after the fund-raising of $1.1 million, and reversed his position and put top priority recommendations made in a strongly worded John Huang memorandum to Bill Clinton. And then, and now former, Senator Alan Simpson said: I never in 18 years in Congress, and I quote, saw an issue that shifted so fast and so hard. After receiving $1.1 million from Indonesia, Mr. Huang began aggressively arguing for U.S. trade policy toward Vietnam only 1 day after joining the Commerce Department, and again with no security clearances whatsoever or background check, in July 1994, and pushed the idea for the next 17 months when Lippo Group sought to expand its investment empire into Vietnam itself. He also attended interagency meetings of an Indonesian working group. The next month, a United States trade mission to China resulted in a $1 billion power plant that Lippo would finance and benefit from. This is at the same time when the President agreed to give Communist China $50 million for a Chinese coal-burning plant. In 1992, Candidate Clinton described as unconscionable Indonesia's treatment of the East Timorese, 200,000 of whom had perished since Indonesia had annexed East Timor 20 years ago. The administration even supported the United Nations resolution criticizing Indonesia's East Timor policy. Around the same time, Mark Grobymer, an Arkansas lawyer who golfs with Mr. Clinton, joined Mr. Huang and Mr. Riady on a trip to East Timor. In April the three men visited Mr. Clinton, and, guess what? The President reversed his position. Human rights activists claimed the administration's concern for Timor would be looked into. John Huang helped raise $425,000 from an Indonesian couple whose primary bread earner was as a landscaper. When it was looked into, and that checks were made concurrently by the same source and it was brought up to the press, the DNC returned the money. John H. K. Lee, of Cheong Am America, United States subsidiary of a South Korea company, gave $250,000 in illegal contributions to the DNC following a private meeting with President Clinton, and arranged by guess who? John Huang. The money was returned following a press story. Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to show is that there was a direct link between fund-raising of foreign powers and the takeover of a national security base, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, by the Communist Chinese. And that if we allow this to happen, that in the interest of national security and economic security, that this administration has sold itself out to fund-raising interests from overseas. On March 9, 1995, Margaret Williams, Chief of Staff to Hillary Clinton, accepted a $50,000 donation to the Democratic party from Johnny Chung, a California businessman who emerged as a central figure of the Justice Department and congressional investigations into Democratic fund-raising. Mr. Chung made a $50,000 donation to Democrats the same week as he escorted COSCO and also the gun runners that were there at the White House, a $50,000 donation to the DNC from these groups. After that visit, President Clinton told his aides that he was not sure we want photos of him made with these people circulating around, end quote. Mr. Chung told Mrs. Williams earlier in the administration that he wanted to give money to the Clintons personally, sought to exploit his contributions to excess commercial gain. Associates of Mr. Chung have said that he used his political access to submit business deals with investors from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong, bringing them to the White House events for fund-raisers. National security warnings ignored: Robert L. Suetting, a Chinese specialist on National Security Council, warned that Mr. Chung was quote a hustler who appeared to be involved in setting up some kind of consulting operation that will thrive by bringing Chinese entrepreneurs into the town for exposure to high level United States officials, that is, COSCO. Three months later Mr. Suetting expressed concern to Anthony Lake, who was at the time President Clinton's national security adviser, after the White House learned that Mr. Chung was leaving for China and planned to get involved in the sensitive case of imprisoned Chinese dissident Harry Wu. Mr. Chung visited the White House 51 times, records show. Twenty-one of these times he was cleared for entry by the office of the First Lady. Mr. Chung made 17 visits to the White House after the April 1995 Committee on National Security memorandums identify him as a hustler and urged caution, and 8 visits after the second warning memorandum was sent to the NSC, Director Anthony Lake, in July 1995. In March 1997, in her first extensive public remarks about the DNC fundraising controversy, the First Lady said she did not know why Johnny Chung had as much access and was spending so much time around her staff offices in the executive office building, but yet 21 of the 51 times it was the First Lady's office that granted direct access to Mr. Chung. In March 1996, Charlie Trie, a Little Rock restaurateur and long-time friend of President Clinton, presented Michael H. Cardozo, executive director of the Presidential Legal Expense Trust, a defense fund set up for President Clinton and Mrs. Clinton to help pay their legal bills, with two manila envelopes containing checks and money orders for more than $450,000. The fund returned about 70,000 immediately but deposited $378,300. Two months later, after the fund ordered an investigation, the rest of the money is returned. The investigation found that some of the money came from sequentially numbered money orders, supposedly from different people in different cities, and apparently signed in the same handwriting. And guess what? It was done by Mr. Trie and Mr. Huang again. According to a defense fund trustee, Harold Ickes and Hillary Clinton had knowledge of the corrupt money and did nothing to stop the flow of it until newspaper columns and stories triggered Ickes' tip-off to the DNC that maybe Trie's fundraising would be linked to John Huang and James Riady and, yes, Mr. McDougal. A Justice Department FBI task force investigating allegations that China may have directed contributions to the DNC, charges that the Chinese Government denies, is focusing on a series of substantial wire transfers in 1995-96 from a bank operated by the Chinese Government. The transfer, made from the New York office of the Bank of China, and usually made in increments of $50,000 and $100,000, came at a time when Mr. Trie was directing large donations, again to the DNC. The Democratic National Committee has returned $187,000 that Mr. Trie personally contributed and plans to return another $458,000 he helped raise from others. The DNC said the donations appear to have foreign sources, which would make them illegal, and they returned them. Some of the donors invited to the White House who participated in events with the President include: Mr. Russ Barakat, a south Florida Democrat party official who, 5 days after attending a White House coffee session in April 1995, was indicted on criminal charges and ultimately convicted of tax evasion. A Florida newspaper was full of the stories about Mr. Barakat's problems with the law before the executive mansion get-together. Mr. Wang Jun a Chinese businessman and the head of a military-owned arms company, while a part of the United States Government, was out investigating Wang Jun for allegedly smuggling in arms to this country, that is, 2,000 AK-47's. He was with Mr. Clinton at a White House coffee courtesy of Charlie Trie. I will not speak about Eric Wynn because there is no tie. Chong Lo, convicted of tax evasion in 1980 under the name of Esther Chu, who was another visitor at the coffee of the White House Clintons, has since been arrested again on 14 charges of falsifying mortgage applications, to which she had pleaded not guilty at the time. In March 1997, Mr. Speaker, former White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta acknowledged that the 1996 Clinton reelection committee played a role in the spending of some $35 million to $40 million in soft money contributions on campaign commercials. Mr. Panetta's comments marked the first time that a member of Mr. Clinton's inner circle publicly stated that the President's reelection campaign helped direct the spending of these funds. When asked if it was illegal for the Clinton campaign to use soft money, Mr. Panetta replied it was not because the money was spent as a part of overall Democratic strategy in confronting the Republican Congress. The key witnesses in the Democratic fundraising probe, Webster Hubbell, John Huang, and former White House aide Mark Middleton have reportedly invoked their fifth amendment rights and refused to turn over subpoenaed papers to the White House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, although in recent developments in the news, Mr. Hubbell has been forthcoming. The Democratic National Committee has said it will return $3 million in illegal, improper or suspicious donations including $1.6 million raised by Mr. Huang, $645,000 raised by Charlie Trie and $366,000 raised by Johnny Chung. What I would say, Mr. Speaker, is we need to take a look. Is there a conflict of interest between payments to the DNC, to the White House, and to the takeover of a Communist-controlled COSCO in Long Beach Naval Shipyard, a company again that shipped in AK-47's, a company that is owned by Communist China. Another company that actually made the arms, owned by Communist China. Another company that directs the sales of those and delivery of those arms owned by Communist China. All three corporations, their CEO is Communist China. And what future developments could we have by Communist China completely controlling and having access to Long Beach Naval Shipyard? Again if they want to have a right to port there like they have over the 15 years, we have no problem with that. Our problem is it gives them complete control of the 145 acres and access, and where things go. Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the takeover of Long Beach Shipyard by a Communist Chinese power. Recently Communist China has increased its military spending by over 30 percent in one year. They recently purchased 250 SU-27's which outclass, nonparity, our F-15 Strike Eagles and our F-14-D's. Their AA-10, AA-11 and 12 missiles that they bought from Russia outclass our AMRAAM to where we do not have parity, even with those fighters. Russia has currently a follow-on to that, the SU-35. Communist China and COSCO have illegally shipped nuclear weapons to all of our former enemies, including Iraq, Iran, and Syria. They have been cited for shipping chemical and biological weapons to Iran, Iraq, and Syria. That, with the threat to the United States that if we got involved with one of their holdings, Taiwan, that they would threaten us with nuclear retaliation on the city of Los Angeles, is that a country that we want to have control and access to our port? I say no, Mr. Speaker. I believe in China, and I believe in trade, that it is hard to change a 10,000-year-old dog, and I think we need to get involved in investment with China. But currently we have one of the largest deficits, trading deficits with any other Nation with China. When we talk about trade, we need to talk about fair trade. We do not want access of Chinese-controlled government, we do not want them to slap us in the face with the threat of Taiwan. I think under Republican and Democratic administrations, Mr. Speaker, that our weak link is our State Department. I think our new successor in that department is probably the absolute best person we could have. She is tough, she is tough on negotiations, and I think she will stand up for our workers' rights over trade with China. But it has not happened in the past. And Madeleine Albright, I think if anybody can do it in the administration, she can, and I support that, because she is tough and that is what we need for a change in our trade negotiations. I supported NAFTA and I supported GATT, but yet our administration now and under Republican administrations in many of my colleagues' opinion has not stood up for our workers. Yes, we do need to trade with China. We do need to trade with other countries. But not when they keep slapping us in the face, and currently and in the future pose a national security threat to this country. Mr. Speaker, all these facts are documented in newspaper articles.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I would think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to at least take a look at this in the committee of the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton]. Maybe we can do it a different way. In my State, Cosco, a Chinese-owned and operated shipping company, has just been awarded to take over the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. Cosco is the same company that just took out the pier in New Orleans. It is the same company, I would say to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer], who passionately believes against assault weapons, and that we have too many weapons in this country, which we do; it is the same company that smuggled in the AK-47's, 2,000 of them, the same kinds of fully automatic weapon that was used in the Los Angeles bank robbery 2 weeks ago. We have M-2's and grenade launchers that are going down to Mexico City out of Long Beach and could affect, in the next 90 days, the elections to put an anti-United States legislature within the Mexican Government and destroy anything, or the gains we have made. The Coast Guard has violated Cosco six times this year and designated them unsafe. Yet both the arms dealer and Cosco gave money to the DNC, the President went along with Long Beach to go ahead and certify them, and at the same time this is the same company that is going to occupy, as of last week, both ends of the Panama Canal. Remember last year when the Chinese went after Taiwan and shot missiles? They made this statement: Do you prefer Los Angeles or Taiwan? I think that is a national security interest that my friends would want to look into. That is why we are asking to take a look at this, because we feel it is a very important national security issue, not even a campaign issue.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today, I introduce the 21st Century Classrooms Act for Private Technology Investment. Our children and our country's future depend upon the investment we make today in their classrooms. We know that advanced technology has improved America's economic competitiveness, transformed commerce and communications, and improved the quality of life for millions of Americans. By the year 2000, some 60 percent of American jobs will require technological skills. Unfortunately, the revolution in technology has not yet transformed the education of our children. Our classrooms lack the technology our children need to succeed. More big Government is not the answer; I believe that only by harnessing the power and ingenuity of private enterprise will we bring our classrooms into the 21st century. We can hasten that work through my new proposal: The 21st Century Classrooms Act for Private Technology Investment. It provides new, expanded incentives for businesses to invest equipment and cash to prepare 21st century classrooms. By taking advantage of employers' constant need to update computer systems, schools, and certain nonprofits can vastly multiply the technology available to our young people. First, it encourages employers to donate computer technology, equipment and software for K-12 education. It does this by expanding the incentive that encourages donations to scientific research institutions to also include donations to schools and nonprofits involved in K-12 education. Second, it provides employers a 110-percent tax credit for cash contributions to K-12 education to purchase computer technology, equipment and software. Every dollar contributed for this purpose reduces the employer's taxable income by $1.10, up to the usual limits. And third, and most importantly, these new incentives will increase private involvement in our local schools. That's something everybody agrees we need more of. Members of the House have already received a packet of information and the text of the 21st Century Classrooms Act. It is also available on my Internet website, http://www.house.gov/cunningham, on my ``What's New'' link. America is confronted with three possible solutions to the gap in technological literacy. First, we can do nothing, which has a huge cost in terms of our future competitiveness, our well-being as a nation, and the lives of our young people. Second, we can create more Federal programs and increase Government spending. Or third, we can harness the power and energy of private enterprise to create true 21st century classrooms, which is the motivation behind my 21st Century Classrooms Act. As a former teacher and coach, as one who once trained the Navy's Top Gun fighter pilots, and most of all as a father, I am tremendously excited by the potential of this initiative. I welcome Members' support. Section-by-Section Analysis 21st Century Classrooms Act (By Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, R-CA) section 1: short title ``21st Century Classrooms Act for Private Technology Investment.'' section 2: findings and purpose The purpose of the legislation is ``to direct the innovation and energy of private enterprise to the education of our young people, expand technological literacy, and bring the education of our young people into the 21st Century.'' section 3: Contributions for computer technology and equipment for elementary or secondary school purposes This section establishes tax incentives for corporations to donate equipment or cash to help being classrooms into the 21st Century. (a) Section 170(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by creating a new special rule (6) for contributions of computer technology and equipment for elementary or secondary school purposes. (A) When a corporation contributes computer technology or equipment to a qualified recipient, it may deduct from its taxable income an amount to one-half the market value of the donated material, not to exceed twice the cost of producing it. (B) A qualified contribution is a charitable contribution of computer technology or equipment by a corporation that is: (i) Made to a public or private elementary or secondary school, or to a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization that is ``organized primarily for purposes of supporting elementary and secondary education;'' (ii) Made within two years after the property to be donated was either acquired or produced; (iii) To benefit K--12 education; (iv) Donated free of charge, except for shipping and installation; (v) Productive to the recipient's education plan; (vi) Beneficial to K--12 educational and donated free (except for shipping and installation), in the case of a recipient that is a non-profit that is not a school. (C) A corporation's contribution of computer technology or equipment to its own private foundation, particularly if the foundation is not ``organized primarily for purposes of elementary and secondary education,'' is eligible for the tax deduction in (A) if: (i) The contribution is made within two years after the property to be donated was either acquired or produced, and donated free of charge, except for shipping and installation; (ii) The recipient foundation forwards the contribution to an eligible school or non-profit within 30 days, and notifies the corporate donor. (D) Applies a technical definition relating to the determination of contributors' stake in the donated property. (E) Applies current law definitions of computer technology and corporations into the Act. (b) Amends Section 170(a) of the Internal Revenue Code so that corporate contributions of cash for schools and qualified nonprofits to purchase computer technology and equipment are provided a 110 percent credit against the corporation's taxable income. (c) The Act takes effect at the beginning of the taxable year following enactment.