Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I know Members on both sides of the aisle are anguishing on whether we send troops or not to Bosnia. Let me give a few of this Member's concerns. First of all, I have had not one constituent walk up to me and say, ``Duke, send our troops.'' Quite on the contrary, it has been overwhelmingly ``Duke, try to stop it if you can.'' Second, General Boyd and General MacKenzie, both in charge in that portion of the world in Bosnia-Herzegovina have stated: ``Stay out. It will be a disaster.'' These are the two generals that headed up our forces in that particular part of the world. I look at the cost. NATO has said that it is not $2.2, but by the end it will cost us $3 billion to $6 billion. The President just signed a balanced budget in 7 years agreement. Where is the money going to come from? Even if you have a supplemental, you have to offset it. You have to pay for it. We cannot do that. NATO is broke today, billions of dollars. France said just 2 weeks ago that we can plan on a 20-year commitment with NATO in that portion of the world. Who is going to end up paying for that, Mr. Speaker? We are. The President said that the primary source of nation building will come from Europe. It also leaves a lot of room for the United States. We are looking at billions of dollars when we are talking about a time when balancing a budget, providing for Medicare, and a lot of other things that the other side is arguing against it. I also look at the $4,000, much of it deemed. These are not the Bosnian Muslims, but primarily those from Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Albania, that are the radicals. If they are allowed to stay in that portion of the world, these are the ones that have sworn a worldwide Jihad against Jews, Christians, and all nonbelievers. They will attack our troops, and they have got to go. We have got to demand equal treatment. That has not happened in the past. Have Serbs and Croatians and Muslims committed atrocious acts? Absolutely, all three groups. But we need not to train one side. Can you imagine during this peace agreement, we go in and train any side or give arms to any side? If I was on any one of the other two, I would say that is an act of war. I think that is the plan. Who would come in with arms? France, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and yes, Mr. Speaker, even the United States, to sell arms. I think that would be disastrous. I have another concern. President Clinton is going to be in a campaign mode over the next year. During Desert Storm, President Bush was focused. Colin Powell was focused. Dick Cheney was focused on Desert Storm, not on political activities coming up. I feel that if you look at Secretary Perry, I think he is a fairly good Secretary of Defense, but with all due respect, he is not a tactician. He is a politician and a bean counter. He is not a Dick Cheney. I look at the problems of what we could end up with, as we did in Vietnam with Johnson and McNamara, that we are ill-suited for the job of the defense of our kids. We could get bogged down in Bosnia. I also look at what could happen to Saddam Hussein, in North Korea, and other areas, and the terrorist activities that could pick up. We are $200 billion below the bottom-up review in defense dollars. That is the bare-bone minimum to fight two conflicts. The GAO has said we are $200 billion. the Chairman of our Joint Chiefs said is our military ready; yes, we are, but it is a paper-thin readiness that will not last more than a few weeks. If we get bogged down there, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we will be in big trouble. I look at replies that we had from Turkey that said they would come in with 20,000 troops around Sarajevo, Russia would send in 20,000 troops to align themselves between the Croats and the Serbs, without a single U.S. soldier involved. Why has the President not taken them up on this, without committing our troops? We must not arm or disarm any party, we must not train or arm any party, we must not get involved in civil disobedience protests, we must treat all even-handedly. We must demand that all Mideast radical 4,000 Mujahidin be eliminated, all foreign regular troops be eliminated. I would like to submit for the Record this article from the Associated Press on the death of an American citizen at the hands of the radical Muslims.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 822, I was detained. I ask that the Record reflect had I been present, I would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues ask what items are not in this thing that we are taking back on the taxes. Well, I would tell my colleagues that a balanced budget in 7 years, by itself, is a big reduction in taxes on the American public. When you increase taxes $270 billion and you give back $245 billion, that is a lot. When your bill increased the marginal tax rate on the middle class and we take it off, that is a big tax back to the American public. When a $500 deduction is given to people, even my colleagues would have to admit, that is not all going to the rich. About 70 to 80 percent of it is going to people below $100,000, and most of that, down below that. So that is being given back. And by not sending billions of dollars to Russia and extensions of Somalia and Haiti and sending 25,000 troops to Bosnia, they are not going to be paying those taxes and those dollars at all. So I would tell my colleagues, we are doing a lot in the balanced budget and giving money back to people that the President did not.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would focus on the rule, except for 10 seconds ago I had talked about the balanced budget, so I am going to have to do that. It is a good rule. I think my colleagues on the other side would agree this is a good rule, and we ask for their support. Without looking at any blame, why do we need? I think, instead, of the Washington Post says we need a goal for a balanced budget, that the President is looking for a goal. And why do we need it hard and fast, without blame on any side? In the 1970's we were going to balance the budget. We were going to reduce spending for every tax dollar that comes in by 3. It was not done. Then in the 1980's they had a foolproof, they came up with a foolproof way to balance the budget. It was called Gramm-Rudman. Again, for every tax dollar that came in, we were going to cut spending by 3, or at least reduce it. That was not enforceable. Then the famous one, when George Bush moved his lips. We were all going to reduce spending. We did not there. I think, my colleagues, when we try and reduce spending, those are called cuts. You know, it does not serve any of us. We are trying to reduce, in a balanced way, to balance the budget. I think we need a hard, firm commitment out of this Congress because it is primarily with Congress that those come from, and with the President, that we need to balance the budget. He said we could do it in 5. He also said we can do it in 7. And all we would like is a commitment to do it in 7. I ask you to vote for the rule because I think it is a good rule.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, there are almost as many African- Americans murdered on the streets of the United States as are being killed in Bosnia today. That does not make it less of a problem. But I would ask and the real question is, Would it be more harmful for this body to vote today or tomorrow? I contend that it would be much worse. Do I want this President to be President? Absolutely not. But I think it would be more harmful for this country and for the President if we waited. If we vote today, I would tell my friend that it would send a message to Ohio that the agreement should not include Americans troops. It does not mean that they cannot still have an agreement. But if we wait until after, or if an agreement is signed, then can you imagine how it would embarrass the President and the leadership prestige of this country? I think it would be devastating, and I do not think most Members of this House would be willing to do that. We would have to do that. Why? It would cost, and it has been given in testimony, over $3 billion for 1 year. We just talked on this floor about a balanced budget, Mr. Speaker. We would, and General McKenzie and General Boyd, who are in charge of forces over there, said we will lose troops. I take a look at what our history has been. Look at Somalia, look at Haiti. Those are small areas. This area since 600 years ago in the time of Yugo, and then look at World War II, when the Chetniks were controlled by Maholovich and the partisan with Tito and the Ustasa with Nazi Germany. This is a question about nationalism, and if you take a look, since the beginning of this time, Belgrade had all the cards. That has changed a little bit, in the fact that most of the fundamentalist Moslem groups like Iran and Pakistan, and so forth, have been funneling arms into that portion of the world. That allowed them to execute the latest offensive. Belgrade knows it is going to get a bloody nose if it engages. It would bring them closer to the peace table. I ask for the vote today, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very important for this country and the lives of our men and women.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, a lot of us have been working very hard on this bill, and I truly believe, if we can send a message to Ohio that we are not going to include in these peace talks 25,000 troops, and then we devise a peace plan with the backing of this body, with the backing of the American people and the backing of the President, and a peace plan comes out, it will be the most legitimate thing we could possibly do. If a peace plan comes out and the troops are in there in the minds of the people that are putting this peace plan together, and then we vote against it, in my humble opinion then we desperately taint this body, we taint the American President, and we taint the prestige of this country. I apologize to the gentleman from Virginia. But I do not like the feeling that what I believe in to my bones, that it is politically motivated. I do not want these kids going to war and to be killed.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman's words to be taken down; . . . .

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor that I rise today to congratulate a very fine young man in my district. Mr. Stephen Salmon received a perfect score of 1600 on his recent Scholastic Aptitude Test. Out of 208,000 students who took the April 1995 nationwide exam with Stephen, only 137 students earned this honor. Stephen's score places him in the 99-plus percentile, and I think my colleagues would agree that this is a proud achievement. Stephen earned a perfect score as a junior at Scripps Ranch High School which is located in San Diego, CA. Stephen has already been accepted to the University of California at San Diego through the early admissions program. During his senior year, he will be taking courses at UCSD along with his courses at Scripps Ranch. He will also continue to be a member of the Academic League and the History Club at his high school. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend Stephen on his recent achievement and wish him the best of luck in his future collegiate career. His SAT scores show that he possesses a lot of talent and that he has the potential to accomplish many great things.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today this body took an important first step in returning sense and security to our national defense. In the best interest of this country and the American people, we have sent a Defense appropriation bill to the President that restores safety and national security while contributing to a balanced Federal budget. For several years our Nation's defenses have suffered under dwindling Pentagon budgets that were bogged down with frivolous social programs. Today's conference report, like so much of the legislation we are passing in the 104th Congress, represents a dramatic turning of the tide. We are revitalizing readiness. We are restoring our commitment to our military personnel and their families. And we are making the investments necessary to maintain America's standing as the world's most formidable military power. This bill includes moderate pay raises for the military men and women who work around the clock to keep us safe. Soldiers and sailors feeding their families with food stamps is an unacceptable reality, and it must stop. We also call for upgrades and renovations of military housing across the country. This appropriation also makes smart investments in the cutting-edge equipment that will keep our troops as safe as possible and help keep this country out of war. Remarkably, this Congress has done all of this while spending $400 million less on defense than the Democrats spent last year. Such a feat could only be accomplished with the sense and conviction of conservative ideals. We have placed a priority on smart spending, spending taxpayer dollars only when and where necessary. Nothing more, nothing less. Last night, we passed further proof that this Congress is committed to a balanced budget in 7 years. No gimmicks. No excuses. The Defense appropriations conference report represents our contribution to the country's physical security as well as its economic security. The best way to ensure this Nation's survival is to balance the budget, and do it now. If the President of the United States and his Democratic colleagues do not have the guts or the gumption to join us in our effort, they should step aside. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Young and full Committee Chairman Livingston for their outstanding work. I am proud to support the conference report to H.R. 2126. It is one more example of our commitment to spend taxpayer dollars wisely and restore fiscal sanity to the Federal Government.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Russia dropped five typhoon nuclear submarines last year. I do believe the gentleman says we do not need to fund the F-22 now, instead of later. Russia has built, developed, and is flying currently the SU-35. The SU-35 is superior to our F-14 and F-15's today. It cruises at about 1.4 Mach. The F-22 cruises at 1.4 mach. The F-22 carries advanced AMRAAM missile. The SU-35 carries the AA-10, which is much superior to our AMRAAM missile. And when Russia is still developing arms and engaged in global warfare, then, yes, we do have a threat. If we go to Bosnia for 1 year, estimates are between $3 billion and $6 billion to the United States. The bottom-up review is review that was set forth after the scale-down of our military, the bare bone minimum to be able to fight two conflicts. The GAO has put us at $200 billion below the bottom-up review--$200 billion. And my colleagues on the other side wonder why we are trying to increase defense a little bit. Mr. Speaker, many of us have given blood and been shot, and a person does not much care what the machine costs if it gives them an advantage over our enemy, if it will bring them home alive instead of in a body bag. I think what the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Murtha] and what the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Young] have done is appropriate to protect our men and women in the armed services. And, by the way, I would say to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], it is in the Constitution to do that.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman it takes almost 5 years just to develop the engine for an airplane. That is the problem with the F-18, the F, right now. And I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], right now in Bosnia-Herzegovina we are flying our F-18's and our Strike Eagles. The wing life of those airplanes are almost all gone. Those F-18's, they want the CD because they want the top model. That is almost gone. The Air Force has not bought an airplane in 2 years because they cannot afford it. The F-16 that Captain O'Grady flew. We did not replace that. And to protect our kids in combat and make sure our people on the ground are well protected, we need those, and I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman's time afterwards.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey] states that Russia has no Stinger anymore. Last year they dropped five Typhoons----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California talked about fairness. I know we are talking about gift reform, but there was some partisanship put in it. In 30 years the Republicans did not win but one motion to recommit because the deck was stacked. The king-of-the-hill rule in my first years here, we did not win any, because the deck was stacked. We are trying to offer three different options. Personally I feel that during the time when the Government is shut down, we have got appropriations bills to do, we have got 25,000 troops that are looking, by the President, to be sent to Bosnia, it is absolutely ludicrous for us to be doing this at this particular time. Let us take a look. I am going to support the Burton amendment. I will also support a zero, no trips, no gift, nothing, de nada, rather than partial. Let me tell you why. Democrats have got a convention coming up in Chicago. Can you imagine when a high school student volunteers time as a gift? Can you imagine someone that drives a car or a flower or anything? There is no way that the people that put on your convention or the people that are involved in it are going to stay out of prison. I guarantee you someone is going to question somebody working somewhere sometime, and that person is going to end up going to jail. I mean, it is absolutely ludicrous. I have never been on a trip myself, never once, never taken my family. I do not plan on doing it. I would love to go to Mexico where we have a lot of problems in common with California. But I have not done that. I think probably the most thing I have ever received is a T-shirt or a golf hat. But individually it does not matter. But I think for us to take and do this partially and the recordkeeping, you say it is insignificant, but I think, I really believe you are going to end up with Members on both sides of this thing in jail just because something is not reported. Somebody drops a book off, which I have received books, I have no idea what they cost. I will log it in. If it comes up over the $10 or $50, like that, somebody could bring it up, and we could end up in a lot of trouble. I would ask you to support Burton or support zero.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield, then would a charity gift at a political event be covered?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, when it boils down to whether we are talking the debt ceiling, a CR, or a balanced budget, it goes to a balanced budget. I would say to my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the President promised that he would balance the budget within 5 years. He has 2 years left on that promise. He said that it had to be scored by CBO, the only people that could really justify and certify it. Well, we had a vote on this House floor, 300 votes for a balanced budget that balances the budget in 7 years. The Senate did likewise, so both bodies, the House and the Senate, agreed, and it was CBO scored and certified in 7 years, bipartisan. Yet the President refuses to sign it knowing that we do not have enough votes in the Senate to override it. Mr. Speaker, we have the will of the people, the will of the House, the will of the Senate, but yet the President and the leftees that control this place are advising the President not to sign it. That is what all this is about. When we talk about appropriations bills that the minority side passed last Congress when they were in the majority, let us look at that. The gentleman says it was bipartisan. Not a single Republican voted for that tax and spend package. It cut COLA's. The highest tax in the history of the United States. They cut military COLA's. They increased tax on Social Security and they cut defense $177 billion. We are now $200 billion below the bottom up review in defense. In looking at Bosnia, the minority put this world at a threat. The minority promised they would have a middle-class tax cut in that package, in that bipartisan approach, but they increased the marginal rate of the middle class and put a tax cut on them. That was bipartisan?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], and I know he has worked with the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] and worked hard for balanced budget amendments, and he asked what is the problem, and he said that there is a [[Page H 12154]] time certain that we had 300 Members vote on a balanced budget. That is true. The Senate also passed a balanced budget. The American people want a balanced budget, but the President will not sign a balanced budget. The President said earlier that he was going to come up with a balanced budget in 5 years. Then he produced no budget, and then, after pressure, he produced a budget in 10 years to balance it, and it was a $200-billion-a-year increase in the deficit. The President does not want to balance the budget. Why? I say to my colleagues, ``You want a clean debt ceiling, you want a clean CR. This Member is ready to give you one. Have the President sign a balanced budget in 7 years, and you get a clean one. I mean that's not too much to ask. You said you want a balanced budget, the Senate does, the American people. The only person that doesn't want it is the President, and that's what we're asking for.'' The Republicans basically work with small business and big business. The Democrats basically work with people in the flow of Federal dollars, and that is about a pretty evil place here, Mr. Speaker, because what happens, it is about the ability to get reelected, the ability to spend money. The ability to spend money means the ability to increase taxes, which means the ability to get reelected because that flow of money goes downhill, and that has led up to $5 trillion debt, and, if we take a look, every single appropriations bill, the gentleman that is speaking now and almost every speaker on that side wants to increase the amount of appropriations except for one area the liberals in one area will cut every single time, and that is in national security at a time where increase in Somalia, and Haiti, and Bosnia have put us in a $2 billion below the Bottom-up Review. Yes, balance the budget, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, it is a big lie that Dachau never happened, and yet I hear people say it never happened in Germany. And here I heard that a balanced budget and the items in the contract and right here in appropriations were not tested. Well, it was not only tested across America, you ask any American if the balanced budget and line-item veto and Congress acting like everybody else is not tested. And then there was even a greater test right here on the House floor, Mr. Speaker. It received 315 votes, and failed in the Senate only by 1 vote, and we had two of the California Senators from the other body that voted against it, after they pledged in their campaign that they would vote for it; and, yes it was defeated in the Senate. So we place it on a bill, because we think that Americans want a balanced budget amendment. The President claims he wants a balanced budget amendment, and yet he will not sign it. The gentleman says, ``Look, we passed all of the appropriations bills when we were in power last year.'' They had the House, they had the Senate, they had the Presidency. And let us look what those bills were. They increased the marginal tax rate on the middle class after they promised they were going to decrease the tax on the middle class. They cut the COLA of the military. They increased the Social Security tax on our chronologically gifted folks. They cut defense $177 billion, after saying $50 billion would put us into a hollow force. So, yes, they passed it. And the liberals left agenda of this House, when they had all bodies, is the exact reason why we have more Democrats changing over to Republicans since the Whig Party.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand all the continuing resolutions when the Republicans were in the minority and I would like to submit it for the Record. CR, after CR, after CR involved a tactic of spinning their will, and I want to submit this for the Record. The information referred to follows: Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC, October 12, 1995. Hon. Newt Gingrich, The Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker: From 1977 to 1987, it was common practice to include entire appropriations bills in full-year continuing resolutions. Listed below (by calendar and fiscal years) are those bills carried in continuing resolutions for the full year: Calendar year 1977 for fiscal year 1978--1 bill--Labor-HEW. Calendar year 1978 for fiscal year 1979--1 bill--Energy and Water. Calendar year 1979 for fiscal year 1980--3 bills--Foreign Operations; Labor-HHS; and Legislative. Calendar year 1980 for fiscal year 1981--4 bills--Labor- HHS; Legislative, Commerce-Justice; and Treasury-Postal. Calendar year 1981 for fiscal year 1982--4 bills--Commerce- Justice; Labor-HHS; Legislative; and Treasury-Postal. Calendar year 1982 for fiscal year 1983--6 bills--Commerce- Justice; Energy and Water; Foreign Operations; Labor-HHS; Legislative; and Treasury-Postal. Calendar year 1983 for fiscal year 1984--3 bills-- Agriculture; Foreign Operations; and Treasury-Postal. Calendar year 1984 for fiscal year 1985--8 bills-- Agriculture; Defense; District of Columbia; Foreign Operations; Interior, Military Construction; Transportation; and Treasury-Postal. [[Page H 11899]] Calendar year 1985 for fiscal year 1986--7 bills-- Agriculture; Defense; District of Columbia; Foreign Operations, Interior; Transportation; and Treasury-Postal. Calendar year 1986 for fiscal year 1987--all 13 bills. Calendar year 1987 for fiscal year 1988--all 13 bills. Since 1988, bills have not been carried for a full year in a continuing resolution except for the Foreign Operations bill in fiscal year 1992. In addition to the above, in calendar year 1950, 10 bills were included in the ``General Appropriations Act,'' 1951. The only general bill not included was the District of Columbia bill. Sincerely, Bob Livingston, Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I would truly like to work in a bipartisan way, but when we talk about the real smokescreens before us, the minority has fought tooth, hook, and nail to delay, to gridlock every single appropriations bill we had. They fought against every one and they want to spend and increase in every one except one, and, of course, that is national security and defense, in which the Constitution specifically says we are $200 billion below the bottom-up review, which is the bare bones minimum to fight two conflicts. And, of course, the liberal left wants to attack that even more. The real smokescreen is we want to balance the budget and have welfare reform, but not a single Republican or Democrat voted for the President's package. If we want to take a look at the real meaning of Medicare, we want to positively come out and seek help, but yet it is Mediscare because of the 1996 elections. If we want to see a smokescreen, we should take a look at the President, who said I raised taxes too much. But the liberal left said, oh, do not say that. Please do not say we raised taxes too much, because they increased the rate on the middle class with the tax rate when they said they were going to give a tax break for the middle class. They increased the tax on Social Security. They cut out the COLA of the military and they did everything opposite from what they promised that they would do. Now, we are quite on the opposite side. We are going to balance the budget, we are going to resolve Medicare and save it and preserve it. We are going to have a welfare reform package that helps America get off and out of slavery instead of this cruel system and we are going to give a tax package back to the people because their own President said we tax too much.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor the memory of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Prime Minister Rabin was a true hero who devoted, and eventually sacrificed his life for peace and democracy in the country of Israel. My heart goes out to this great peacemaker's family and the citizens of his country, all of whom will surely miss him. Yitzhak Rabin was a courageous military leader who fought for Israel's freedom and spearheaded its rebirth. Just as he defended Israel from the threats of enemies, he also pursued peace with those who posed threats. As Prime Minister, he successfully achieved a very positive relationship with our country and won the hearts of several U.S. presidents. The strong leadership and numerous accomplishments of Yitzhak Rabin will not soon be forgotten. Although his was a tragic death, this courageous leader's ideas and progress toward peace will continue. Prime Minister Rabin wanted a free, democratic Israel where peace prevailed throughout the land. I am confident that the peace process between Israel, the Palestinians and Arab countries will continue with the same vigor and spirit that the Prime Minister dedicated to this crusade. In honor of this hero, I urge you to vote in favor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 31, Honoring the Life and Legacy of Yitzhak Rabin. Not only does this measure extend sympathy to the family and condemn the assassination, it also expresses our commitment, as legislators, to the Middle East peace process. Your vote in favor of Senate Concurrent Resolution 31 is of vital importance.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of California Avocado Day and wish to share the significance of this special event with my colleagues. As some of you may know, November 7 marks the most important day of the year for avocado growers--California Avocado Day. For the third consecutive year, California Grower magazine has organized a full day of events devoted to the California avocado industry. The events will feature important panels and presentations, the California Avocado Commission's annual meeting, as well as the industry's largest trade show. ``The Road Ahead'' is this year's theme for California Avocado Day. In light of the recent events in the avocado industry, I believe the theme to be quite fitting. It is obvious that the avocado industry is at a crossroads, and the future for avocado growers is uncertain. I an honored that today's ceremonies are taking place within my district at the Escondido Center for the Arts. Two months ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] Animal Plant Health Inspection Service [APHIS] held hearings at the same site to discuss the proposed rule to modify the 81-year-old quarantine on the importation of fresh Mexican Hass avocados. I joined with the thousands of members of the avocado industry to voice my concerns to any change in the United States policy with regard to Mexican Hass avocados that is not based on sound science. It is apparent that certain species of fruit flies and seed weevils are known to attack and destroy avocados. For years, Mexican avocado growers have been unable to eradicate pests from their crops despite the use of chemical methods unavailable in the United States. With the 1994 avocado harvest in excess of 550 million pounds, I believe the proposal to allow Mexican Hass avocados into the United States would put the crop at risk. In fact, these insects could very well devastate U.S. avocado production, altogether. Mexico is currently requesting access to United States markets for fresh Hass avocados based on conclusions from a research study and pest survey data. However, I believe that the scientific data submitted by Mexico to support its request is weak, lacking integrity, and does not justify any change to the current quarantine policy. I am also concerned with the conclusions of the risk analysis performed by APHIS. The USDA must rely on a sufficient amount of credible, hard data before a change is to be made. Never before has the USDA been responsible in designing a system of this type or scale. Therefore, before such an undertaking is to occur, I believe that the science must be sound; the model used to estimate insect outbreak must be as accurate as possible; control mechanisms must be in place; and adequate resources must be available to allow for proper monitoring of the complex system. The USDA's proposed changes would allow for the importation of avocados into the 19 designated States in Northeastern United States. As one might guess, transshipment of the avocados is inevitable. However, I am not confident that APHIS has established a reliable control system to prevent the transport of avocados into States vulnerable to pest infestation, such as Florida and California. It is quite likely that the United States and Mexico avocados will come into contact with one another. If the pests are present in the Mexican avocados, you can be sure that the United States avocados will be susceptible to infestation. Therefore, I believe this poses a great threat to U.S. crop. The United States should deny, or at least postpone, the importation of Hass avocados until we are convinced that no threat is apparent. This issue is of critical importance to the future of our country's avocado crop. Again, I wish to congratulate the industry for joining me in sending a clear message to the Department of Agriculture regarding their views on the proposed rule. An overwhelming 1,800 public comments were filed, with a majority of the comments in opposition to the proposed rule. Surely, the sentiments of such a united front cannot be ignored. I agree with the members of the avocado industry who are demanding that the avocado industry not be put in jeopardy as a result of such a dramatic policy change. The avocado growers' request that credible and sound science be employed with the decisionmaking process should be granted.