Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would ask the gentleman, everyone has said that the Soviet Union is gone. Is the gentleman aware of how many Typhoon-class nuclear submarines Russia built last year and what they plan on doing with those nuclear tubes? They built five nuclear Typhoon-class submarines last year. Why?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, why do many of us object to the stringent control of our forces under the U.N.? First of all, I take a look at Bosnia. We have men and women committed to war, and committed and executed that war, and the President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and the Vice President did not know that we had troops at war until after the fact. That was in Bosnia, and that is a fact. Second, in Somalia. I resent the gentleman that suggested and characterized our rangers as just wanting to get into action in Somalia. A democratic majority extended Somalia. That cost us billions of dollars. The administration changed that policy from humanitarian to go after Aideed. That was wrong. The administration then reduced our troops levels, making us very vulnerable. That was wrong. Three times the commanders asked for help. Why? For armored help. Because on two different occasions we had our troops captured, and cut and quartered, and their quartered bodies drug through the streets of Somalia. That was wrong. Mr. Chairman, we had 100 rangers pinned down, that it took us 7 hours to get to, and why? It is a 20-minute car ride to where they are. Take a look at it. Why? Because the U.N. tanks that were there would not commit. The U.N. troops had never used night goggles. Many of them were not English-proficient. It cost us 22 dead rangers and 77 wounded. That is wrong, my colleagues and Mr. Speaker. I take a look at Haiti. Although a U.S. operation, the great multinational force that we were supposed to have, not a single multinational force was there when we hit Haiti, only U.S. troops. And, Mr. Speaker, there are many of us that feel very strongly about not having U.S. control, and it is logical it is not partisan.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have heard several times we are cutting children's nutrition. That is in my subcommittee on education. I have kept children's nutrition out of the welfare block grant so we will not cut it, and I have protected it. If I hear it one more time, I am going to include it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I did not. I say it is all part of the problem that we are taking away from the readiness of this country by devoting billions of dollars to foreign countries, and it is causing the lives of our people right now.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is mistaken. I was in charge with fleet core group of all the troops in Korea. There is a four-star Air Force General that is in charge with a brick over all forces, and any Navy force that goes into that gulf is in charge under that four-star except for the direction of the carrier. They are not under U.N. control. The U.S. military is in control, and what we are trying to do is take the control of Boutros Boutros-Ghali and the rest of it away from our troops. I say to the gentleman, ``I was there for 4 years and conducted it, Gejdenson. Don't you tell me who has control.''

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. The gentlewoman says no one wants to do this. In our committee, she is well aware, it was 43 to 13. It was a bipartisan bill that came out of the committee. Those that are upset are those that have tried to defund defense for the great failed society programs, including the gentlewoman from California. Take a look at the speakers that are opposed to this; they are the same ones that have attempted to dismantle national security.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I don't know if it is illustrious, being shot down.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I also would like to speak to the issue of what the minority talked about as far as the majority not supporting national defense. I can remember being on this floor, Mr. Speaker, when the majority, or the now-minority, turned their backs on our men and women in Desert Storm, would not support them, and yet we had debate on that issue. I can remember the first event that they brought up was homosexuals in the military, when the majority of military folks do not want homosexuals in the military. I remember that most of that same leadership, all of the leadership, voting for Clinton's tax bill, which cut defense $177 billion, and then also put the highest tax that they had ever had on the American people. They had increased the marginal tax rate of the middle-income taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, I can look, and when Colin Powell and Dick Cheney and then-candidate Clinton said that anything below $50 billion would put us into a hollow force, but yet these same Members that are now saying that they are hawks cut defense $177 billion. Not a single Democrat at the Democratic White House fundraiser put a foot down when military men and women in uniform were serving as waiters. It would have happened at our fundraiser, I guarantee you. I can remember at the extension of Somalia, we then in the minority voted against it, saying it would cost billions of dollars. Then I also look at how the policy was changed toward General Aideed. General Aideed is still there, by the way. Then we weakened our strength. Then they denied armor, and then we lost 22 Rangers and 77 wounded. Why? Because the Democratic leadership would not support our troops. Now they say that we are weakening national security. Twenty-two killed and seventy-seven wounded, with the father of one of those killed that received the Medal of Honor chastising the President. Mr. Hunter. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I would say to my friend, the gentleman from California, my first concern is yes, I believe looking at Desert Storm and the other, that we need to support missile defense. However, I want to tell the gentleman from California, which may not be the position that he wants, I look at the Air Force. They want the C-17, they want the B-12, they want the F-22, and they want F-15's, and the Navy wants to upgrade F-14's and the Air Force F-115's. We need to take a balanced look and see how much money is available without taking from the other services. I support missile defense, but I think we have to be real careful with the funds available, and we are cutting down everything.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, the liberal side of the Democratic leadership would tell us that there is no threat from Russia, but yet the Soviet dropped five nuclear-class Typhoon submarines last year, that is five nuclear submarines, when we gave them $1 billion to dismantle nuclear weapons. They built a MiG 35, which is superior to the SU-27, which is superior to our F-14's and F-15's. They have an AA-10 missile which is superior to our Amram missile, so they are investing in those kinds of weapon systems, while ours are going down. Mr. Speaker, if we look at what they are doing in pushing out the joint airplane, they are pushing out beyond the year 2010, when we have no chance of building up even to a Bottom-Up Review level.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank the gentleman from California. I think another important factor, and gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] brought it up. When we brought this bill up in the committee, we had 41 Republicans and Democrats vote for it. Only 13 voted against it. I want to tell you, those 13, their politics would go good only in a small island off Florida. I would also like to remind the Members, Mr. Speaker, that the contract talks about not having U.S. troops under U.N. control. Very, very important. We lost 22 Rangers and 77 wounded in Somalia. Because, for example, it took 7 hours for our troops to get to all those Rangers that lost their lives and were wounded because the U.N. control had never used night goggles, it was at night, many of them did not speak English, some of them could not even drive the equipment. We want to eliminate that, and that is another reason for bipartisan support. The part that I am upset, the liberals that have done everything in their power to cut national security, to cut defense of this country now stand up and object at the majority when it is a bipartisan bill that is coming out of the committee itself, what same minority. We are glad that that leadership exists. Let them talk.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Two Kilo class.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, my amendment requires the Attorney General and the Commissioner of the INS to develop and implement a program for interior repatriation. This amendment is in line with recommendations of the Jordan Commission which concluded, In the case of Mexico, repatriation of deported criminal aliens to the area of Mexico from which they came, rather than simply to the border. Removals should be done in coordination with Mexican authorities who may then determine if there is a warrant for the arrest of the criminal alien for crimes committed in Mexico. The Jordan Commission concluded that interior repatriation ``increases the cost and logistical difficulty to criminal aliens who try to reenter the United States. Interior repatriation can be a deterrent * * * '' One of the biggest problems we face with illegal immigration is that we are fighting the same battle over and over again. Every night, the Border Patrol picks up many of the same aliens, processes them, and drives them to the border gate. Within hours, the same aliens are crossing the border again. The INS announced this week their intention of establishing a pilot program in the area of interior repatriation. They are planning a limited trial of voluntary interior repatriation, for those involved in deportation hearings. While this is a step in the right direction, I believe we need to be bolder. My amendment is straightforward. Within 6 months of enactment the Justice Department and the INS need to get a program in place. Aliens from Canada or Mexico who have entered this country illegally at least three times are to be returned to locations not less than 500 kilometers from the border. In the midst of this larger debate over criminal aliens, we should not forget that illegal immigration is itself a crime. Each and every alien who enters this country illegally has broken our laws and is in fact a criminal alien. I believe this amendment will help to stem the tide of illegal immigration and I urge its adoption by the Committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray].

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, designated No. 3.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. If the gentleman will yield, first of all, the Jordan Commission recommended that the 500 kilometers be adopted; second, that there would be a negotiation with the host country, whether it be Canada or Mexico, where that would be resolved. I will not restate the problem. All we are trying to do is have them repatriated deep into the interior so they do not turn around and come back the next night.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] was not only a mayor in south San Diego, but also was a county commissioner, and has the expertise in this area and has seen it as well as we have in north San Diego County.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, the San Diego Chargers were picked in their division, but then the season started; our Bolts pursued a vision. Often they would fall behind. They bested the toughest teams in the AFC. In the playoffs they beat Pittsburgh and Miami. Then on Super Bowl Sunday, the 49ers won. I picked the Chargers. The gentlewoman from California, I had a 19 point advantage on her. I thought I had an advantage. Well, us males have thought that for thousands of years, and I guess we will never learn, because here I am to pay off my Super Bowl bet to the gentlewoman from California, the most prized possession that I could possibly own, El Indio chips and Mexican food, salsa and homemade guacamole, fresh from San Diego. The 49ers are champs, and they will have our respect. But all the NFL will seek the trophy they protect. Should the San Francisco team return next year, I will still bet on my Chargers.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 1995, I was pleased to be included in a critically important briefing. I was proud to help cosponsor a Safe Tables Our Priority [S.T.O.P.]--Safe Food Coalition briefing on foodborne illness. Last Thursday's briefing marked the second anniversary of the 1993 west coast E. coli outbreak. Fortunately, a forum was created to allow the individuals and families who have suffered from the E. coli illnesses to visit Washington, DC, to examine the ongoing epidemic and discuss plans for preventing future outbreaks of foodborne illness. The tragic events of 2 years ago are still fresh in my mind. While the incident still upsets me, I can only imagine the constant pain endured by the families who lost a child or who experienced the serious illness due to the contamination of ground beef with E. coli 0157:H7 bacteria. That is why I will always be grateful for the organizations, such as S.T.O.P., that seek to change the system in order to right a wrong. When it comes to a life and death situation, every endeavor to correct the system is welcome. Until the tragedies were highlighted a few years ago, I do not believe that people were aware of the inherent dangers associated with the consumption of raw meat products. It is unfortunate that a number of deaths occurred before significant changes were made to the current food handling processes. Therefore, we must ensure systematic, science- based prevention of harmful contamination into the operation of every meat and poultry plant. Industries must be held accountable for meeting its food safety obligations. I believe that positive steps can be taken by animal producers to processors to retailers to consumers in order to reduce the risk of illness. The only benefit of this issue is that significant policy changes are being made and will continue to be made as additional information and technology become available. Serious attempts have been made of late to preserve the quality of meat consumption in both our homes and restaurants. I am encouraged that the Department of Agriculture has established the principle that any contamination of raw ground beef with E. coli 0157:H7 is unacceptable. The Department has strictly enforced zero tolerance for visible signs of contamination of beef and poultry carcasses. It is now mandatory to apply safe handling and cooking labels on every package of raw meat and poultry. Antimicrobial rinses and hot water treatments will also be allowed without prior approval of the Food Safety and Inspection Services. After carcasses have passed inspection and prior to their reaching the coolers, last minute rinses and water treatments will further reduce the chance of reducing levels of E. coli 0157:H7. I urge my colleagues to support organizations such as S.T.O.P., dedicated to the prevention of foodborne illness. We cannot rest until everything is being done to protect the safety of our food, and ultimately provide for the well-being of our loved ones.