Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is not an English-only bill. It is an official language of the Government bill. If it were an English-only bill, it would apply not only to government but to private businesses, to churches, to neighborhoods and homes, and the bill does not do that. The gentlewoman talks about diversity. We encourage diversity and we encourage other languages, as in my own children. H.R. 123 does not apply to homes and churches, and neighborhoods, and communities, to public health, and safety, national security, international relations, the teaching of languages, the census, certain civil lawsuits, rights of crime victims or criminal defendants, or oral communication by the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, when talking about diversity, the census study shows that there are going to be 20 million Americans that either do not speak English or are limited English-proficient. What hope does that person have or that family? None. In my own district, I can walk precincts and go in entire blocks where no one in that house except maybe the child that is going to school speaks English. No one. What help does that child have when they go home on geometry or chemistry? None. It is because the Government has subsidized and sent information, and there is no intent to ever learn English. Some of the people there have been there since 1986 where we waived the rights for illegal coming in. Some of those same individuals have never even left that block. you talk about imprisonment. All we are doing is saying that we want the Government to operate in the official language. I would say that the State and the local have got full right to communicate. In many instances in this bill we do not prohibit the Members from communicating with their constituents. I appreciate Members' support for the amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent that 15 minutes of the 30 minutes I control be controlled by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Knollenberg].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of Kansas [Mrs. Meyers]. (Mrs. MEYERS of Kansas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to ask the gentleman from Rhode Island a question. Has he ever volunteered for service? Has he ever volunteered to go fight those wars himself? I thought not.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. King].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], the Speaker of the House.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me say I agree with some but not all of the findings of the substitute offered by my friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano]. I know the gentleman is well-intentioned, but his substitute goes in the opposite direction of the bill itself. I would again acknowledge that we are a nation of immigrants, no doubt about it. Our history has been shaped by many cultures, religions, languages from around the world. We are proud of our Nation's ability to assimilate people from around the world in one cohesive society. On that, the gentleman and I agree. But it is our common language that binds us together as a nation, and it is the English language which empowers newcomers to the access of the American dream. First, the substitute states that English is the primary language of the United States. If that is the case, then the opponents should have no problem designating English as the official language in statute. Second, the substitute implies that the supporters of H.R. 124 believe the Nation was founded on racial, ethnic, and religious homogeneity. Not true. We recognize the diversity in this country, and so state in the findings to H.R. 123. Third, the substitute, H.R. 123, recognizes the importance of multilingualism in the context of international relations and national security. There are exceptions for each of those situations in the bill already. Fourth, the substitute talks about a threat to the status of English. That is not the issue. The issue is are we going to continue down the road of a Balkanized, piecemeal language policy, program by program, with 320 languages in this country? Or are we going to establish a national, commonsense, common language policy of the Federal Government which 23 States have already established as the official policy, and over 80 nations, and the President of United States, when he was governor of Arkansas? Fifth, the substitute mischaracterizes H.R. 123 as an English-only bill. It is not an English-only bill. It is an official language of the Government bill. If it were an English-only bill, it would apply not only to the Government but to private businesses, churches, neighborhoods, and homes. H.R. 123 does not apply to homes, churches, neighborhoods, communities, public health, safety, national security, international relations, or the teaching of languages. My friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Becerra], asked me to recognize that the bill decouples bilingual education. It has nothing to do with the bilingual education issue. I would say to my friends that the intention of this bill is to empower people, empower our American children, because there is a growing need to educate children in the English language, and the tendency has gone otherwise.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], and I ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to control that time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], chairman of the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema]. (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If we wanted to accept by unanimous consent the Gutierrez amendment, which was dropped, would the gentleman agree to that?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The Gutierrez amendment that was dropped, would the gentleman agree to that, which allows Members of the House to send out their information?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, yes, I am opposed to the motion.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there are people on both sides of the issue that believe strongly that they are in the right on this thing. First of all, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Serrano], my friend, is a good example of a bilingual citizen, but unfortunately in this land many are not, and that is what we are trying to help. I would also like to thank my friend for his service to this country in Vietnam, and I recognize that and I laud that. I also thank my friend for being my friend, and he knows I mean that sincerely. We are friends with a difference of opinion on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I would say, first of all, that some of the amendments that the gentleman was talking about were actually made in order were withdrawn, and we asked to accept them and they would not accept their own amendments back. Mr. Speaker, I would say that this is a version of the same vote that we just had and it still goes in the wrong direction. It does nothing to address the piecemeal language approach of the past and it encourages a continued policy of printing documents in many languages. I would like to state, first of all, and I have got four pages here of people that support it, and I would like to mention a few: The AARP, the American Association of Women, the American Legion, California NEA, Daughters of the American Revolution, Federation of Women's Clubs, Heritage Foundation, Islamic Society of North County, and many, many others. But let me tell my colleagues more about what is good about this bill. First of all, Bill Emerson created this bill, worked with the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Roth], and there was not a mean bone in Mr. Emerson's body. It has over 200 cosponsors on this. I think they are a very well-meaning group of people who believe in this bill and what it stands for. Yes, over 80 percent of the American people support it. I do not think they are mean spirited. They see a problem that we can help with. The English language unites us as a nation of many different immigrants and, just like the Speaker said, at the swearing in, you see people from all over the world united when they are sworn in under the English language. That is in the bill. We are better able to move about and interact within our society itself. With 123 languages spoken in the United States, we need to declare English as the official language. Let me close with a quotation from one of our witnesses, Maria Lopez- Otin: From the immigrant's standpoint, knowledge of English is critically important to success in American society, and discussions about immigration, bilingual education or English as a second language are but distractions from the issue at hand, the merits of English as the official language of the United States. And on that point, on whatever level you consider, education, employment, politics, a social grounding in English is imperative. Now, does this mean rejection of our roots, our heritage, our original language? Of course not. What it means is that as Americans, we cannot hope to reach our fullest potential unless we speak the language, and that language is English.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just passed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, why support this bill? First of all, the United States has fallen under an encumbrance of having to have observers on a boat. This is in light of they have actually reduced the number of thousands of dolphins killed down to 4,000. My colleague, the gentleman from California, says first of all the number increased 20 percent. Then just a minute ago he said it increased 30 percent, which we need to know what it is. I can tell the Members what it is. It goes from 4,000 to 5,000. Let me tell the Members why. Currently, currently the other nations that are involved or have the restrictions on them can go out and kill thousands of dolphin at will. But because of this agreement, the Panama Agreement, they fall under the same umbrella that we do. Fishermen have gone down to 4,000. Dolphin-safe does not have to be dolphin-safe under this current law. Under this bill, we will know that 100 percent of the tuna under as dolphin-safe label will be dolphin-safe, because every single boat will have an observer, not just U.S. boats, but all 12 of the other nations. Why would my friends oppose that? The gentleman from New York, Mr. Sherry Boehlert, called it ``ideological purity.'' We have some of those on our side. I recognize that. I think both groups need to moderate their positions. I think that has been done by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], people that are known for their environmental record, and on your side as well, I would say to the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. I do not apply any motive to this. I think the gentleman has a purely intensive feeling about his support of his own amendment. Let us take a look at the groups that support this. Earth Island. They have made millions of dollars managing the dolphin-safe label, managing the dolphin-safe label from Starkist. Fact. Earth Island, who makes millions of dollars from this, is generating fundraising dollars for their efforts. It is an economical issue for them. But yet on the other side we have the Vice President of the United States; Al Gore, who is your champion for the environment. If we have any radical group on our side, it is the AFL-CIO. They endorse this. But on the other side we have the gentleman from New York [Mr. Boehlert], the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Gilchrest], the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Saxton], and many others who normally vote with a green vote. Because they feel that this is an honest effort to protect a resource that under the current conditions, you catch turtles because you fish for immature tuna, and you catch swordfish and the rest of it, and all that bycatch is wasted; killed. This method prevents that. It also saves the resource for future generations. That is why the President and Al Gore and many Members on your side of the aisle support this bill, as well as on our side. I would ask the gentleman in good faith, and I think he knows I am sincere in this. I truly believe that this will save dolphins. I think it will help our fishermen. I think it will move Mexico in not just this but in other ways. Already Mexico has worked very closely with us on our sports fishermen's rights and moved in that generation. Unless we adopt international agreements and enforce them, and I will work with the gentleman to make sure that these are enforced, then I think that we have slipped backwards.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I proudly rise to support the conference report for H.R. 3734, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, as a former teacher and coach, and as a dad, I understand the need to take into account the needs and interests of children. I cannot imagine a policy that is crueler to children than the current welfare system. Certainly it was born of the good intention to help the poor. But in the name of compassion, we have unleashed an unmitigated disaster upon America. Today's welfare system rewards and encourages the destruction of families, and childbirth out of wedlock. It penalizes work and learning. It poisons our communities and our country with generation after generation of welfare dependency. It robs human beings of hope and life and any opportunities at the American Dream. In the name of compassion, and with good intentions, the welfare status quo is mean and extreme to children. It is mean and extreme to families. It is mean and extreme to the hard-working Americans who foot the bill. Thus, without a doubt, we must replace this mean, extreme, and failed system of welfare dependency with work, hope, and opportunity. We can and must do better as Americans. And we will, by adopting this compassionate, historic legislation. Our measure makes welfare a way up, not a way of life. It replaces Washington-knows-best with local control and responsibility. It replaces a system that rewards illegitimacy and destroys families, with a family-friendly fighting chance at the American Dream. Now, President Clinton promised in his 1992 campaign to end welfare as we know it. He also made several other promises, including starting his administration with middle class tax relief. Unfortunately, the President has not kept his promises. He raised taxes. And twice, he has vetoed legislation to fulfill his own promise to end welfare. The President who pledged to end welfare as we know it has twice vetoed legislation to end welfare for illegal aliens. Let me speak for a moment about illegal aliens. Illegal immigration is breaking our treasury, burdening California, and trying America's patience. It is wrong for our welfare system to provide lavish benefits for persons in America in violation of our laws. I am proud that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act ends welfare for illegal aliens. It ends eligibility for Government programs for illegal aliens. It ends the taxpayer-funded red carpet for illegal aliens. Our plan is to send a clear message to those who jump our borders, violate our laws, and reside in America illegally: Go home. Stop freeloading off of hard-working American taxpayers. Let me address the matter of legal immigrants. America is a beacon of hope and opportunity for the world. That is why we continue to have the most generous system of legal immigration that history has ever known. It is in America's interest to invite those who want to work for a better life, and have a fighting chance at the American Dream. But we will not support those who come to America to be dependent upon our social safety net. Thus, our legislation places priority on helping American citizens first, and represents the values held by Americans. For we are determined to liberate families from welfare dependency and get them work and a chance at the American Dream. We understand that for many single parents, child care can make the difference between being able to work or not. That's why or bill provides more and better child care, with less bureaucracy and redtape, and more choices and resources for parents striving for a better life. Here are the facts: This conference report provides $22 billion for child care over 7 years. That amounts to $4.5 billion over current law, and $1.7 billion more than President Clinton's plan recommends. And we dramatically increase resources for child care quality improvement. By investing in quality child care, we provide more families the opportunity to be free from welfare dependency and to strive for the American Dream. In the end, this bill is what is about the best of America. We are a compassionate people, united by common ideals of freedom and opportunity. The great glory of this land of opportunity is the American Dream. Families trapped by welfare, and especially their children, have had this dream deferred. We can do better. And we do, through this legislation, because this is America. I urge the adoption of the conference report on H.R. 3734.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of H.R. 2391, I thank you for recognizing me in support of this important legislation, the Working Families Flexibility Act. In San Diego County, families work hard to make ends meet. They have some of the county's longest commutes. They struggle to make time with their children. According to a Yankelovich poll cited in the June 16, 1996, Wall Street Journal, 62 percent of parents ``believed their families had been hurt by changes they had experienced at work, such as more stress or longer hours.'' And the Department of Labor finds that 70 percent of working women with children cite balancing work and family responsibilities as their No. 1 concern. Families want more flexibility in their work schedules, to help accommodate soccer games, school awards, or just time with the children. That's why the Working Families Flexibility Act is so important. Given the fact that many employees are working overtime, the Working Families Flexibility Act brings the Fair Labor Standards Act into the 1990's. It gives employees a choice: get paid time-and-a-half, or take time-and-a-half off with the family. All that's needed is a mutual agreement between the employer and the employee. Workers can accumulate up to 240 hours of comp time. Any comp time that is not taken must be paid at time-and-a-half. And all comp time must be cashed-out once a year into time-and-a-half pay. This is the right thing to do. Three out of five workers working overtime would like to take comp time instead of time-and-a-half pay. Interestingly enough, Congress granted similar flexibility to public sector employers 11 years ago. But the private sector and small businesses are prohibited by the FLSA from offering this kind of family-friendly flexibility to their own employees. If this kind of flexibility is good enough for Government employees, it's good enough for the rest of America. Last Month, President Clinton joined the bandwagon in support of more flexibility in family work schedules. But the President's proposal does not do the job for America's working families. It creates unnecessary bureaucratic paperworker for employers. And it does not allow employees to bank any sizeable amount of their comp time, as the Working Families Flexibility Act does. Nevertheless, we appreciate the President's interest. The Working Families Flexibility Act gives working families a better chance to get what they want and what they need: time with their children, with their family, friends and loved ones. It includes important protections for employees and employers. It is a balanced, reasonable approach to the work and family environment of the 1990's. I urge all members to support it, because families support it, too.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman that spoke in the aisle a minute ago said to increase the minimum wage. If my colleagues remember the last time the minimum wage was raised before this, it was raised by Ronald Reagan and the Republicans. Why, when the Democrats had both the House and the Senate and the White House, if the minimum wage is so important now, did they do nothing? They had control of all three of the areas in which they could have raised the minimum wage and they chose to do nothing. The President even said the minimum wage is not the way to empower people. But now it is important because it is a political year. No, Mr. Speaker, they do not raise the minimum wage and they talk about a do-nothing Congress. Well, Democrats did a lot of things in the 103d Congress. They increased taxes the highest level ever. They promised a middle-class tax cut and they increased the marginal rate on the middle class. Mr. Speaker, we tried to live up to that bargain and give money back to the middle class with a $500 tax deduction to working families for every child, and my Democrat colleagues fought that. Why? Because they want the power and the ability to spend money out of Washington, DC, so they can rain it down to their liberal interest groups, so they can get reelected. That is what is cruel. Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues want to help the American people, balance the budget and cut out the extra spending. Let me give another classic example. In education, the liberals have cut education year after year after year. How? The President's direct lending program cost over a billion dollars more just to administer. One year in operation they have lost $100 million and they cannot account for it. That is cutting education because those dollars are not going to the classroom. We took the savings from that and increased Pell grants and increased students loans 50 percent and Democrats said Republicans are cutting education. What we did is we cut their power in River City and we capped the administrative fees on direct lending. AmeriCorps where it is $29,000 per volunteer, and in Baltimore it was $50,000 per volunteer; the wasteful spending that we have in Washington, DC. If my colleagues want to help American families and get them a minimum wage, then balance the budget and take off interest rates. They will have more money for schools and car loans and home loans and they will have a good life. But no, Democrats want to make it political rhetoric in an election year, when they absolutely refused to do it when they had the total House, the total Senate and they had the White House.