Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree with my friend. Let us stop it. You know, I made a statement that this is Afghanistan with trees. Afghanistan broke Russia. It cost them economically. It cost them with lives. And when they left, they accomplished nothing. The same thing in Somalia, the same thing in Haiti, and, in my opinion, the same thing there. Afghanistan, unlike Bosnia, is mountainous. But Bosnia is a land of many, many trees, and it is very hard to pick out those targets and very hard to maneuver, and I know some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have talked about even the main threat that exists there today. So I believe it is an Afghanistan with trees. It is going to break this Nation. It is going to stop us from some of the things both my liberal colleagues and conservative colleagues on this side of the aisle want to do, and that is focus on the problems that we have in this country right here. And I think if we shy away from that responsibility, Mr. Speaker, I think it is wrong for the American people. I think it is wrong for the kids.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. With the C-17, by the way.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Cannot operate out of the taxi ways. They have to stop down the runway, shut it down. Only the C-17, which is very controversial in the defense bill, but it has proven out for its worth.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You are going to be vulnerable.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I think I only have a couple of minutes left. I would like to kind of wind it up. Mr. Speaker, this Member, the position that I would like to take, and I hope the House, and the House has on two separate occasions taken, is first of all we not send our troops to Bosnia. All three sides in this have said they want peace. Belgrade does not have all the cards like it had before. Both the Moslems and the Croatians got pretty much of a stinger from the infusion of arms that have gone in there and the training under the Mujaheddin. If they really want peace, I think they can achieve it. It does not mean we cannot help with intel and some of our SATCOM communication type systems, and AWACs in other areas, or even with communications or even with humanitarian food. But I want to at all costs keep us out of Bosnia-Herzegovina with our troops. Mr. Speaker, I do believe we are going in, even after that. I do not think it is unfair to ask the President, what is it going to cost short- and long-term? How is he really going to protect our troops? And how do we get out, and what are the costs? Because I truly believe with all my heart that after we pull out of there, we are not going to have solved very much, just like we have in Haiti, just like we have in Somalia; billions of dollars, with very little to show for it, with personnel killed, and most of them from the United States. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friends and I would like to thank my friend, the gentleman from California, for joining this special order. I think it is in the great interest of the American people. I know in our Caucus and on the Committee on National Security, Republicans and Democrats alike said they are getting phone calls 13 to 1 against us going into Bosnia. I hope that the American people would focus on that, that they would write their Senators, their Congressmen, and do everything that they can to keep us out of there, because, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a travesty.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. 1990.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan]. I do not think there is anybody on the floor who knows history, accurately, as my friend from California. Mr. Speaker, why is it so important, the time of the Field of Blackbirds, the time the Turks took over the Serbian Empire? What significance does that have for us, today, Mr. Speaker? From 1389, June 28 to June 28 in 1989, kind of the start of the problems we have in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in former Yugoslavia, because on June 28, 1989, Slobodan Milosevic, remember he is the Serbian out of Belgrade, spoke to national Yugoslavia and spoke about a former and a greater Yugoslavia. At the same time and even prior to this, in 1980, prior to the 600th anniversary of the time of Yugo and the Field of Blackbirds, the Croatians, Franjo Tudjman spoke of the same Croatian national goals for Yugoslavia, which included the eviction of Serbs occupying the greater Croatia. The problem with that, we do not believe that either Milosevic or Tudman wanted an all-out war. It would cost too much and too much bloodshed. What they did want is as much of the Croatian and Serbian Empire for themselves under a greater Yugoslavia than they had. The problem was that at the same time, it kind of got out of hand. The Bosnian Moslems that we associate, again, primarily with Sarajevo, were kind of caught in the middle of this thing. They were the minority. They were forced, I believe, into a shotgun wedding with the Croatians, but quite often, the Moslems, the Bosnian Moslems, found themselves at odds with both the Croatians and with the Serbians, and both groups were killing the other. At a time when the Moslems thought that they had no one to turn to, the United States did not support them, the Croatians were beating up on them, the Serbians were beating up on them, they accepted with open arms the Middle East Mujaheddin groups, and there are over 4,000 of them there today. This is one of the groups we are very concerned about. This is not the Bosnian Moslems, the more moderate. This is the Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists that come out of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, and some of the other Middle East countries. They are sworn to a national Jihad. Germany sees its economic future in the hands of the Balkans. Greece is also concerned about further expansionism into Greece by the Turks and the Turkish Moslems, so it is a problem. The Germans, Croats, and Slavs are Roman Catholic. The Turks, the Bosnians, the Macedonians and Montenegrans are primarily Moslems. The Russians and Serbs are Orthodox Catholics. Now let me back up just a little bit in time, Mr. Speaker, from going from 1389 to 1989 in the history when this was significant to both the Croatians and the Serbians, when Serbia was taken over by the Ottoman Turks. During World War II, and this is prior to Pearl Harbor in 1941, Germans attacked and invaded Yugoslavia itself. the Serbians united with Russia and the United States. Let me repeat that. The Serbians united with Russia and the United States. There were two primary groups that fought with the United States and with Russia. They were the Chetniks, led by Micholevic, that were interested in a greater Yugoslavia; and then there was Tito, who was a Russian Communist, who was there to promote primarily Russian communism; two factions, but all fighting against the Nazis. The Croatians and most of the Moslems fought with the Ustase in support of Nazi Germany. Germany built a concentration camp at Janocevic and killed 1.5 million Serbs, Jews, and Gypsies. During the 1980's Croatian nationalism movement under Tudjman, and the Croatians adopted, and this is now back at 1980, you can imagine the concern of most of the Serbians and some of the Moslems when the Croatians donned the old uniforms of Nazi Germany in the nationalistic movement which Tudjman was pushing on the other side of the Serb nationalistic movement, and the fears cam to fruition. I recently attended, last year, a banquet in which over 400 allied U.S. pilots were giving homage to the Serbs. Why? I remember the old Humphrey Bogart movies when the underground got our allied pilots and French pilots and the British pilots and United States pilots, most of them were with the Army Air Corps at that time, but they got out through the underground, our allied pilots. In 1990, France and Great Britian allied themselves with Croatia against their cold war enemy, because after the war, Russia in the cold war also became the warring enemy with the United States. As early as 1991 Tudjman, again, Tudjman with the Croatians, and Milosevic with the Serbians, hoping to actually avoid a war in 1991, sat down and sought out a reconciliation at Kraziavo. They split Bosnia-Herzegovina between Serbia and Croatia, much like the Ohio agreement had done over the last month. The West insisted, however, on a Bosnia-Herzegovina Moslem state, which suited the goals of Izetbegovic, again, the head of the Bosnian Moslems. It also suited the radical Islamic movement. The Dayton agreement also splits the area, but guess who is in disconcert with that agreement the most? Izetbegovic, because again, it splits up Bosnia-Herzegovina, primarily between the Serbs and the Croatians, and gives the Moslems not the Moslem state that they originally wanted. General Lewis MacKenzie, former head and commander of the United Nations, and I quote, ``Izetbegovic wants the entire country back.'' Now, this is General Lewis MacKenzie, the Canadian and head of the U.N. forces. In testimony before the Committee on National Security, when asked if he would commit United States troops in Bosnia, he added, ``I would not touch it with a 10-foot pole.'' At the same time the media reports from Bosnia and Sarajevo supported President Clinton against the Serbs. In 1994 and 1995, Bosnian Muslims established the Mujahideen Third Corps. Today there are over 4,000 radical Islamic fighters in organizations in Bosnia, and many of those, Mr. Speaker, have integrated into the regular forces. So when they talk about, in the agreement, they are going to eliminate those forces, those are the forces that are sworn to fight against the United States. Brigadier General Bastimas, commander of the U.N. military observes in Bosnia, and General MacKenzie have said that it was a Muslim who provoked the Serbian attack on Garazde. Brigadier General Bastimas criticized the United States media campaign and President Clinton's failings to recognize the Muslim trap set in Sarajevo. Another thing that bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is that the press jumps out, and we say we are going to treat all sides equal, but yet we have the biggest dog in town. If there is an incident and the press jumps on it and the President reacts, let me give you a couple of examples. The press reported that the 40 Muslims killed in Sarajevo was through a Serbian Shell, mortar. The French, the Russian and the British bomb experts have stated, and I can publish and show you the articles and submit them for the Record, that it was a Muslim preplanted bomb, that they just so happened to have photographers there, [[Page H 14157]] that they just so happened to have the cameras there, so that they knew that they were going to lose Bosnia-Herzegovina; and these are not the Bosnian Muslims, these are the radicals, that set a bomb to go off so that the United States again would go after the Serbs and they would get a bigger piece of the pie. Remember, Mr. Speaker, when the press said that Captain O'Grady, who was shot down in his F-16 during the helicopter rescue that the Serbs fired at him. General Shalikashvili in testimony before the Committee on National Security testified that Captain O'Grady was not shot at by the Serbs, he was not shot at until after he got over Croatia. These are the kinds of things that immediate reaction, when we are going to go and hit somebody and follow the media and take a look at that, it concerns me. Because I think that General MacKenzie also testified before the Committee on National Security, and my friend Mr. Dornan was there. He said that what will happen is that these fundamentalist groups will fire a shell from the Serbian side and blame it on the Serbians just so that they can get more bargaining power. Izetbegovic is the biggest loser in Ohio. Let me read here a direct quote. I quote from Commander Abu Al-Ma'ali; he is the commander of the Mujahideen in Bosnia. ``To all of you Muslims of the world, we send you our appeal, which we have reported and are still repeating, to rise up in support of your brothers and remove the obstacles from around you. Those attempts are led by the United States in the Crusade West. We know that we will have a day in which to fight, and I quote, ``The Jews and the Almighty grant us victory.'' And we also know the best soldiers will fight the Christians. We disbelieve in the United States and its allies; we disbelieve in the transgressors and their religion, and we will have relied only on Al-Ma'ali. I would like to make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about Muslims. There are as many radicals within the Christian faith as there are, when we look at Israel that recently had the tragedy there, when we look in our own country, when we look at the Muslims across in the Middle East, there are as many fine Muslims as there are Christians, but these are radical groups we are going to have to contend with, Mr. Speaker, and it scares me. I would yield to my friend; I have gone on for a little bit with the history of this. I have more in my hour, but I would be happy to yield to the gentleman, and then I will continue with some of this education.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And I would not condone that. I would condemn it. I would also say that Senator Dole, when we came to Congress, stated that he, like most of us, would try and work with the President to find the best solutions. The biggest upset that I had in Vietnam, and I would tell my friend from California, I was shot down on the 10th of May, 1972. I can remember sitting on my knees and weeping on board the U.S.S. Constellation when I saw the Jane Fondas and the Tom Haydens, when I saw the rules and the regulations that were set forth in this Congress back during the 1970s. I can remember saying, who are those guys back in Washington, what country do they come from? We did not want to be there, I would say to my friend. But what we wanted was the support of the American people. We wanted the support of Congress. We wanted the best equipment. We wanted to be able to go through and fight with the best tactics, with the best machinery that we could, so that we could come back not in body bags but to our family. I talked to Senator Dole and that is his opinion. He knows that percentagewise the President is going to take our troops, regardless of what we do. Part of my pitch is the difference between George Bush and Bill Clinton and President Johnson, and also a friend of the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan], Mr. McNamara. But in that decision the President made, knowing that we are going to go, he wants to give our troops the most support that we can. He will still fight for us not to go there in the first place. But yes, and you have seen the resistance that we have had even among both sides of the aisle here. We have already had two votes on not going to Bosnia. But after the peace accord was signed in Ohio, the inability for us to bring it up on the House floor, and I laud my friend from California, I supported and I signed your paper to bring it up even in our Republican Caucus. But I would say that the Senator is trying to work with the President as much as he can. He is against the position, but at the same time he wants to give maximum support to our troops. I would go into the same thing, and some of the weaknesses that I also see in this Ohio agreement. I look at a time when I was fighting in Vietnam, and I look at President Johnson, and he had McNamara. I think McNamara was not a bad Secretary of Defense, but I do not think he was placed in as Secretary of Defense at the proper time and in a wartime. I think during peacetime, as far as his politics, as far as his bean counting and his number crunching and what we actually needed machinery-wise was correct, and I think he served a pretty good position. But I do not think he was there as a tactician or could give the President the best information that he could have in the tactics and the policy in Vietnam. I think that is where the problem lies. Second is that President Johnson managed, micromanaged the war from the White House. Did not let the Secretary of Defense get into the real problems. Did not trust his generals to run the war, and in my opinion we got [[Page H 14159]] 58,000 people killed unnecessarily, not just from those two individuals but through a whole lot of blunders. Now I look at President Clinton. I think Shalikashvili is a pretty good general. I think he tries to do the job. I think if he was allowed to run this just like Colin Powell was under George Bush, I do not think he would do a bad job. But I also look at the President. When he says he will review the plan that comes out of NATO, I do not have much confidence in that from just the President's history. I also look at his advisers, and I said Secretary Perry, in my opinion very good when he was an assistant secretary. When he is now Secretary of Defense in peacetime, I think he is a good Secretary of Defense. I do not have the faith in Secretary Perry in a wartime situation from a lack of experience. At the same time I look at the President's Cabinet. Not historically a pro-military organization or group of individuals. When the President said he is going to make the decision, I take a look at the advisers that he has underneath him to give him good counsel and I am afraid of that. Another thing that I have real concern with, Mr. Speaker, is that the President and this Congress is going to be in a campaign mode over the next year. In our testimony it was said that, well, the President must be not looking at the polls because he is out there fighting this when the American people are against it. Republicans and Democrats across the board and in our Committee on National Security, Democrat after Democrat, and the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie] I believe was there during the time, said their polls and their people are telling them, Mr. President, do not send our troops to Bosnia. And I think that is pretty well across the board in most States and in most districts, Republican and Democrat. Maybe it is not, but the information that I have is overwhelming. The difference between George Bush and the President, one, George Bush said he would abide by what Congress said. President Clinton, on the other hand, we have had two votes on not sending the troops and he is bypassing Congress and sending them anyway. That is why Senator Dole has come on board and said, they are going, I need to get behind so that there are not any glitches, so that we do not get any Americans killed over there. I am still dead set against it, as my friend from California and I believe my friend from Hawaii, I do not think he is in support of this, I will not speak out of turn, but he can comment on it later if he likes. But I think if we look at the whole problem that we go over there, let me ask you some real basic questions. It is been identified that it would cost about $2.2 billion, Mr. Speaker. Testimony before the Committee on National Security said no, we are not sending 20,000, we are sending 32,000 people to Bosnia. Some are already there, some are already budgeted for. But the overall operation is going to cost this country, its share of NATO, $3 billion to $6 billion. Where is the President going to find the money to pay for it? After we leave in one year, NATO is going to take over, and a long- term commitment. And we are trying to balance a budget in 7 years, we are trying to protect Medicare, we are trying to do some of the things that Members on the other side of the aisle are trying to do. NATO is billions of dollars broke. Who is going to pay for that extension in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Bosnia? I think it is a fair question to ask the President. The President in his speech also, I would say, said that the principal funding for nation-building of roads and bridges and elections is going to come from Europe. But that leaves an awful lot of room for the United States to also pick up the tab there. There is something else that bothers me. The President and many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, not many on this side, wanted to go into Haiti. We said there is no national significance or interest in going into Haiti. And at a time when Aristide has killed two of his predecessors, when the boat people from Haiti have already started coming out of there, the tortures, the neckties, and President Aristide has said that he is not going to abide by the elections, and he has reversed himself and countered that with a lot of pressure from the United States, but all the problems that are going on, and Haiti is just about to erupt again. Are we going to totally ignore Haiti? That is of great national interest, according to many of my friends on the other side of the aisle that outvoted us when they were in the majority. And I would say no. If it is of great national interest, and we are going to get into Bosnia. I think it also has a problem, that if we look at the Islamic fundamentalists, their greatest aim is to have a Moslem state in Bosnia and Herzegovina and to hurt the United States. If that is the case, how could they do that? They could tie up the United States, knowing that Haiti is a problem, and at the same time here comes Saddam Hussein and rears his ugly head. I would predict, Mr. Speaker, that within 1 year we are going to see Mr. Hussein again in a very violent way. I have gone on for a while. I would yield to my friend again to go through, and I have got some other points that I would like to bring out, but I would also yield to my friend.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And I would not suppose that they have been murdered. I hope that is not the case also.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Let me tell my friend that I control this hour. If it is going to continue to be---- announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I agree. If it is going to be a continuing of this kind of dialogue, I will reclaim my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, first of all, and I have the utmost respect for both Senator Dole, for Senator Gramm, and I know that the decisions they make are very difficult, and I believe, with all of our efforts, and I will do anything I can to support the gentleman to keep our troops from going to Bosnia, I truly believe in that initiative, and you know that I have supported you in every initiative forward that has come in that. I will speak against it. If there was a vote on the floor, I would pledge I would vote against our troops going to Bosnia, with the knowledge that I have now. I also believe that I think it is a done deal, and with that, I would take a look at some of the things that we have got to ask and ask questions and ask that they be taken care of. First of all, and first, I repeat, I am against our troops going to Bosnia. I think they are going, and I think these are minimums of what we should do. All troops, regular or otherwise, which are not associated with NATO or Russia, must be removed. That includes the freedom fighters from other countries, the 4,000 mujaheddin radical Middle East Muslims. They pose an imminent threat to our troops, and much of what my friend from California has just said; all mercenaries must be extracted from that portion of the world. They are uncontrollable, and that they [[Page H 14161]] would also pose a threat to our U.S. troops. I think there needs to be identification of short- and long-range terms; by terms of cost by the President, and how we are going to get there, not with 20,000 but 32,000 troops. Where does the President plan to gain the funding from Bosnia-related operations and post-operations? Shalikashvili testified, and so did Secretary Perry, that they plan on taking it out of the defense budget. The defense budget, and which the President cut $177 billion when he said in his campaign that $50 billion, along with Colin Powell and Dick Cheney, would put us into a hollow force. According to GAO, an independent agency, not Republican, not Democrat, we are $200 billion below the bottoms-up review which is the bare-bones minimum to fight two conflicts at the same time. I asked the general today, I said, do we have the troops to fight, if we get tied down in Bosnia, to fight in Bosnia and North Korea? The answer is ``no.'' Can we sustain a Desert Storm type of operation in Bosnia? The answer is ``no.'' Could we support Haiti somewhat? Yes, somewhat smaller. I think the President needs to ask these questions. The President has recently signed a commitment to balance the budget in 7 years. Where are we going to get the short- and long-term billions of dollars that it is going to take in this commitment, away from some of the same things my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are fighting for? I would look at nation-building and how much and what is the limit. I would look at something that the President said that we need to look equally at all three sides. We are going into a peace agreement, not a conflict, peacekeeping. But yet at the same time in this accord we are going to arm and train the Muslims and the Croatians. If I was a Serb, I would consider that an act of war. And we take a look at the training. They are going to take in from Iraq, Iran, Russia, France, all the arms nations, and probably the United States, weapons of mass destruction into that portion of the area now that the embargo; I think the President needs to say ``nyet,'' that we are not going to allow an infusion of arms into that portion of the world, causing a potential powder keg for the rest of the world. Even more important, right now, the contingencies with Saddam Hussein, North Korea, Turkey's expansion into Greece, China and Taiwan, unknown and unexpected contingencies, there are over 20 years going on as we speak today in the world, Mr. Speaker, and Haiti. I have already spoken to Haiti as far as we spent billions of dollars there. Aristide is still there, and it is about to blow up again. I look at Somalia. We spent billions of dollars in Somalia. We had to leave with our tails between our legs under guard. And guess what, General Aideed is still there in Somalia. And that has cost us. I would take a look, and there is a statement that I think my friend knows, and it is a fighter pilot rules in the area allotted to him in any manner he sees fit. When he sees the enemy, he attacks and kills. Anything else is rubbish. That was Baron von Richthoven in 1916. Baron von Richthoven never met Che Guevara in guerrilla warfare. He never met the Vietnamese in Vietnam. He never met Mesashi on the fields of the great Japanese wars. I take a look when the President says we will be the meanest dog in town. Well, in all of those cases, the dog was killed by fleas, because they are not going to fight in head-to-head confrontations. They are going to send a weapon into the chemical plant, as my friend just brought out. They are going to hit and run. They are going to cause the United States to go after one side or another for political, religious, and economic experiences and values. I think that it is a travesty. I think that it is wrong to send our troops into a portion of the world in which I do not believe that we have a direct interest. I look at the road running between Goradze and Sarajevo. Milosevic conceded it is a Bosnian Muslim focal point between Bosnia-Hercegovina and Sarajevo. I look at Izethbetovic, who was happy with the split between Serbia and Croatia. I take the Pottsylvania quarter. It is a northern Bosnia, I say to my friend, connects Serb-controlled areas with the northwest Serb territory in the east when the Croatians did not want to give it up. I look at the Croatian demand for Broko, which now is in Serb control, and it is a pivot for the same quarter up above, and if you look, neither side in the Ohio agreement could come to terms, but they agreed to put it before an international arbitration board. Now, do you think that is really what these groups are going to be arbitrated with an international board? All of these areas are potential, and I believe will become, trouble spots. General David Mattocks, commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, believes it is wrong to send in U.S. troops in the dead of winter with no replacement troops, I would say to my friend from California, no replacement troops. We are calling up reservists. We are sending our kids for 1 year. Do you know what that does to families? Do you know what that does to businesses? You know what that does at a time when we are destroying our military with defense cuts and base enclosures and other initiatives from this administration?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Remember when some of our colleagues wanted to cut the intelligence budget? If anything, we need to increase, whether we go in there with troops or not, we need to increase our intelligence folks in that portion of the world and in other portions of the world.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I would like to make this perfectly clear. When I talk about the radical Muslim Islamic movement, it is not the Muslims across this world. Just as we have in any religion radical groups, these are the groups that are sworn to take blood, to take blood of anyone that does not believe as they do. That is wrong, but yet, I do not want to make any implication that it is Christians, Muslims, or any other religious group, other than the radicals that we are talking about in the 4,000 Mujaheddin.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues this is probably one of the most enjoyable times that we have. It is that, as my colleagues know, we did away with, I think the Republicans, with a pretty good committee in the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee both under Mr. Ford and Chairman Studds. It was one of the most bipartisan committees except with the tuna bill, Mr. Speaker, and we worked pretty well together, and that is what we are doing here. It is not about the 1996 elections, it is not about partisan politics. It is about American jobs, it is about American security, it is about national security, and it is about the betterment of this country. I take a look at what we can do, and I agree with the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Harman's analysis. It is that both under Democrat and Republican rule we have not done very much for our merchant marine fleet, and I think this is a small challenge to do that. I would like to thank specifically the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bateman] who serves not only in the maritime panel, the national security panel, but on the old Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. He has done the lion's share of fighting with our leadership to make sure that we can bring this up, and I sincerely mean that. As my colleagues know, during Desert Storm we had to go back, and we used a lot of our ships that had the old boilers. We had to find merchant marine and sailors that even knew how to use those, and they were not very effective. As my colleagues know, we lost millions of dollars in strapping materials, tiedown materials that just hold down the equipment to foreign ships during Desert Storm. We had to onload and offload several ships many, many times costing millions of dollars and the dollars saved. So I do not know if it is on my colleagues' checklist on when they support a bill or not, but it is bipartisan, it is taxpayer friendly, it is jobs, American jobs, both private and union jobs, and it gives national security strength. I would look at the items that also saved dollars. During Desert Storm it cost about a $174 per ton of cargo under non-U.S. flags. With U.S. flags it was $122. That is a 30-percent savings in those areas, and, when we are getting ready, against my personal will, to go into Bosnia, the C-17 and enhancing our merchant marine so that we can carry cargo and we can put American products on American ships with American seamen, I do not see how my colleagues could not support this, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and I thank the gentleman that was instrumental in doing this.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and like I said, I have got an hour special order after this, and I will take up afterward. But what I would like to go through, Mr. Speaker, is what I found is many of the Members on the other side of the aisle, as well as Members on this side of the aisle, are concerned about the other issues that we have talked about, budget debate and across the board. They do not serve on National Security. They are not directly involved with the Bosnia issue, but it is of great concern to them, and they do not have the time to really go out and find out the information. What I would like to do first is kind of set the stage, if my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] would allow me, to just kind of go through and name the players. Later on in the evening I would like to go through the history of the portions of the world that we are talking about going into in Bosnia, from over 600 [[Page H 14155]] years ago on the Field of Flowers and the time of Hugo through the revolution where Nazis invaded Yugoslavia, the former Yugoslavia, back in the 1940's. First of all I would like to go through the players, Mr. Speaker, because, as I said, many people do not associate names, places, religions, with individual groups. For example, Alija Izetbegovic; he is a Bosnian Muslim, but when someone talks about talking about Sarajevo or Bosnia and Herzegovina, they do not necessarily tie the two together. So Izetbegovic is a Bosnian Muslim that is primarily responsible in the Bosnia and Herzegovina area, and primarily Sarajevo, which is where there are headquarters. Now Izetbegovic, like Tudjman, who is a Croatian, is of Roman Catholic descent, and you talk about Zagreb when you talk about that particular portion of their Croatian nationalism. They also during World War II, if you take a look at the two groups, their Croatians fought alongside with Nazi Germany, and they were called the Ustase. They formed the only Nazi concentration camp outside of Germany where they executed and ethnically cleansed over a million and a half Serbs, Jews, and gypsies at one time, and if you take a look also at Franjo Tudjman, Croatian, Roman Catholic, Zagreb, the World War II association was with the Ustase in Nazi Germany. If you look at Slobodan Milosevic, we talk about he is the head of Serbia, not Bosnian Serb, but Serbia, greater Serbia itself. That is a group of Orthodox Catholics. The difference between the two groups; one is Orthodox Catholic, the other is Roman Catholic in the religious affiliations, and of course Milosevic is in Belgrade, and if you look at that portion of the world during World War II, there were three basic groups: the Chetniks which fought under Mihailovic, the Ustase, which were associated with the Nazi Germans, and then you had a well-known man named Tito. He was with the partisans, which was a group of people that fought with the greater Russian Communists. Mihailovic fought for greater Yugoslavia, Tito fought for communism and a greater Russia, so that there is a big conflict, not a conflict but a misunderstanding, of the players and where they really came from. Let me go into also the number of troops under this agreement that will be placed into Bosnia. Great Britain has come up with 13,000 troops, France 7,500 troops, Spain 4,000, Italy 2,000, Germany 4,000, other NATO countries 2,500, Russia 2,000 troops; and the United States, where they say 20,000 troops, the actual number of troops there, and that will be deployed, will be 32,000 troops, not 20,300 troops. Let me go through, and then I would yield back over to my friend, if he likes, let me go over some of the history perspectives of the area, Mr. Speaker. As I said, many people that are not historians, that have not looked at the issues, have not read the books, they have not gone through the list of that portion of the world. As early as 1389, and let me repeat that so there is no confusion, 1389 on the Field of Blackbirds, some call it the Field of Flowers, saw the Serbian Empire defeated by the Turks. By the end of June, the time of Yugo, former Yugoslavia was dominated by the Turkish Moslems. June 28 today is celebrated much like our Fourth of July in Bosnia, as Independence Day, because it was 600 years of domination of the Ottoman Turks. That is how the same basic ethnic group changed from Serbian to Croatian to Moslem, and the Moslem came from the Turkish Moslem, the Suni Moslem.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Do we have to give time to that Air Force guy?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. They can use it for their child's education, for medical bills, first-time home buyers, or they can even put it away for an IRA to save for when they become chronologically gifted folks.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. He told me to mention his name three times.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Congressman who?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Congressman who?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a local employer in San Diego which has made a special commitment to advancing the use and availability of high technology in education. That employer is Sony Electronics, Inc., which has a major plant in Rancho Bernardo, in my congressional district. Technology in education is one of my great interests and top priorities. For several years, and in several ways, Sony Electronics Inc. has demonstrated a strong interest in the education of children. Sony has been an active participant in all five of my annual TechFair education-high technology symposia. TechFairs bring local high school students together with San Diego's leading high-technology employers and researchers. The students learn about career opportunities in high technology, and speak one-on-one with men and women who work in high- technology fields every day. They learn what kind of education they need to succeed in the good paying, high-technology careers of today and tomorrow. This year's TechFair, held at the new Scripps Ranch High School, featured a demonstration of Sony's new digital satellite communications technology. Partly as a result of Sony's longstanding commitment to technology in education, the 1995 TechFair was the biggest and best ever. They have also sponsored the 24 Challenge mathematics competition I initiated with San Diego schools. I have also had the privilege of addressing students participating in Sony's Student Project Abroad. Under this program, Sony selects top math and science from around the country in an educational and cultural exchange. They spend 2 weeks visiting Sony plants in San Diego and Japan, and learn about high-technology manufacturing. Most recently, on October 12 and 13, Sony participated in a distance learning conference based in Johnston, IA, with Gov. Terry Branstad and other State and local officials. They explored and shared ways to affordably link rural areas, particularly our schools, through new telecommunications technologies. The future of our work to expand the technological literacy of the next generation of Americans depends not on larger Federal programs run from Washington, or on an expansion of the huge national debt. Our promise lies in the ingenuity of individuals and private enterprise, and companies like Sony, who are willingly volunteering their personnel and expertise to inspire and teach tomorrow's scientists and engineers.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. And I still am flying fighters, so there is no such thing as a former fighter pilot. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on some of the things my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have said. I agree with one thing they said, there are some very, very good schools out there. I have some of the finest schools in Torrey Pines and San Dieguito, all up and down in my particular area. They would compete with any school in the Nation. But across the board our schools are not. We pour billions of dollars into that but, Mr. Speaker, less than 12 percent of our classrooms have even a single phone jack for fiber optics or computers or software or the programs we need to put in there. What my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are really talking about is power. Washington-based power in education. When they say we are cutting Goals 2000, the Federal power of Goals 2000 has been cut to zero. Absolutely correct. But we send the money, block grant it to the States, and the Governors have told us that they can run those programs more efficiently than letting the Government talk about it with their rules and regulations. We only control about 7 percent of the funding for our schools in this Nation out of the Federal Government. Seven percent. But with that 7 percent comes over 50 percent of the regulations and 75 percent of the paperwork to the States. We are eliminating that, Mr. Speaker, and we are giving that power to the State. If the State wants to run a Goals 2000 without all the bureaucrats in Washington, without having to file all the reports, without having to go through all the paperwork, they can do it, and they have the funds to do it and it is much more efficient. To say we cut Goals 2000 is not a fact. It is there. It is at the State level. Second, let us look at the perspective of California. We have less than 12 percent of our classrooms across the Nation, as I mentioned, that have a single phone jack. Seven percent of education, again, comes out of the Federal Government. We get less than 25 cents on the dollar back down into the classroom because of all the bureaucracy. What we are doing is eliminating that bureaucracy and absolutely on the Federal level we are cutting it and taking that power out of Washington and the Democrats' ability to spend money so that they can get reelected, so that they can have the power, and we are giving it back to the States. Mr. Speaker, I think there would be a legitimate complaint if the Republicans were taking that power and shifting it over to themselves, but they are not. They are shifting it back to the people where Government is closer to the people and more effective. But we hear time and time again from the other side of the aisle that the States do not know how to manage their own problems, only the liberals here in the Congress know best for what is good for the individual States. We will hear it over and over again, but we feel differently, Mr. Speaker. I look at the State of California, and look at how they have destroyed education. One example. The liberals voted to cut defense $177 billion. California is one of the leaders in defense. We have lost a million jobs with base closures and defense cuts. Ninety-three percent of education is paid for out of the tax dollars of the State. That is a million people. Say that half of them got jobs, probably not as good as they were in the defense industry, but take that out [[Page H 13781]] of the budget in Sacramento. How many jobs have we lost? Let us take just one governmental regulation, meant with good intentions but ruled by extremists. The Endangered Species Act, and how it applies to education. How many jobs have we lost to the gnatcatcher in California? Construction jobs. How many jobs to the spotted owl, where we could not even go in and cut timber that the beetles had destroyed, that are totally dead trees, just to keep the industry surviving? How many jobs in California have we lost in the tuna industry because of the porpoise? How many jobs have we lost in the Central Valley Water Project, that the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller] supported, with the farmers, or the salmon with the farmers? And over and over again they have cut jobs. Now, let us take illegal immigration, Mr. Speaker. We spend $1.2 million a day on the school meals programs for illegals, because there is 800,000 K through 12 illegals in the California State system, Mr. Speaker. Let us take half of that so they cannot dispute the numbers. That is $1.2 million a day at $1.90 a meal. And let us not even take the three meals, let us just take two meals, 185-percent below the meals program. That is $1.2 million a day out of education. It takes $4,750 to educate a child K through 12 per year, Mr. Speaker. That is $2 billion a year out of the education system, but yet we cannot get help from the other side of the aisle on immigration reform. I look at the other things that cost us. We have 18,000 illegals in our prison system. When they talk about cuts, we are cutting the Federal bureaucracy, Mr. Speaker. We are sending that money and the extra money down to the States. The rest of the education funding that was taken out of the Federal Government, do my colleagues know what we put it in, in the committee, some of it against my wishes? We put it in NIH for medical research, which we also feel is a national level interest. I thank my good friend for letting me have 5 minutes here but I wanted to set the record straight.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Speaker. I serve on the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. You can call me Duke and I will call you Martin.