Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I just heard my good friend, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] talk about that they do not make it up. In California, we had a judge named Rose Bird who was opposed to the death penalty and found every single thing that she could to stop the death penalty, even of those that were guilty. I have also heard the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] state that there are processes which, if they find new evidence, that they can bring this forward. I have heard him state it on the floor, and I also heard that the have a Governor that can take a look at the case, and so there are several mechanisms that enable, if someone is innocent, either new evidence, or the Governor, or due process, that that can be brought forward. And I agree. We did have the Alton Harris case of a person who was guilty, and I appreciate it because of the sympathy, because it does drag out a process where the guy admitted, yet we kept on going, and I understand that is not what we are talking about. But this gentleman feels that we do have a process in which someone that is innocent could bring that new evidence forward and that, if we allow the gentleman's amendment, we have got a hundred Rose Birds out there that will oppose any death penalty.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Say Elton Harris, who admitted to his guilt after 14 years and said that he admitted he was guilty. You are telling me there is no way that if we had DNA evidence or if someone admitted to the guilt, that he would not be protected?

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

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. So there is surely a way in which, if a person is innocent and evidence appears, that person has many motives to----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. What happens if someone comes up and admits to the crime? Would that person also have the same rights?

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have a question for the gentleman from Florida, and let me ask a question. If, say, for example, DNA results came up of just recent technology that proved that the individual was innocent? Would they have a right to retrial or to be----

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 1995, I was pleased to join my colleagues from San Diego in introducing H.R. 794. Representative Bilbray's bill, H.R. 794, is intended to amend the Clean Water Act to exempt San Diego from secondary sewage treatment requirements of its wastewater. Current law requires every city, no matter its environmental conditions, to handle sewage at the secondary level. However, study after study has concluded that sewage treated at advanced primary levels and released into ocean depths greater than 300 feet does not harm the environment. With this in mind, it upgrade a system to secondary treatment when our ocean waters are adequately protected at the primary levels. The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has been trying to force San Diego to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant, at a cost of billions, to comply with the act. The Clean Water Act mandates that cities use secondary treatment of sewage which removes at least 85 percent of the solids from sewage. However, San Diego's Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant uses advanced primary treatment to remove approximately 82 percent of the solids before it is discharged 4.5 miles out into the ocean. For years, San Diego has argued that because of its deep ocean outfall, secondary treatment of its sewage is unnecessary and costly. According to noted scientists from Scripps Institute of Oceanography, it may even be detrimental to the environment. That is why I am encouraged that H.R. 794 would allow the city of San Diego to be free of the requirements regarding biological oxygen demand and total suspended solids in the effluent discharged into marine waters. Such modifications will not alter the balance of our marine life and viability. As a Representative of San Diego, a retired naval officer, and all around sea-lover, I have immense concerns for the proper treatment of our waters. San Diego is unique in its ability to discharge of its waste into deep waters. We are unlike so many cities that must discharge into lakes and rivers. I believe this issue should be treated as a matter of common sense. According to current law, San Diego would be required to waste money to alter a system that has proven successful. The intent of H.R. 794 is to allow San Diego to treat its sewage in a cost-effective, as well as environmentally safe, manner. Finally, I would like to thank Representative Bilbray for his efforts in this regard. This legislation would help to right a major wrong for San Diego. I look forward to the consideration of H.R. 794 in the near future. Speaker Gingrich has also stated his concern for this unique situation. Speaker Gingrich has proposed that 1 day a month be set aside in the House for the consideration of bills, such as this, targeted to eliminate specific activities of Federal agencies that are deemed stupid. I believe this is a perfect example of an unfunded mandate at its worst. As witnessed by majority votes in the House and Senate, there is a need to prevent Congress from imposing mandates, often unnecessary, on States without providing the proper funding for them.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Members on both sides of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, I think are genuine in their concerns, and I think also that Members on both sides of the aisle often feel that there are too many laws that protect the criminals and not enough for those that are persecuted, and that is the victims. Who supports the exclusionary rule? Gestapo storm troopers? No, it is all of our local law enforcement agencies and the district attorneys. Why? Because often, too often, Mr. Chairman, those criminals are let back out onto our society because of small technical reasons. We are not taking a look to storm into people's houses. We are looking where there is evidence found on good faith that that evidence can be used in a court of law. That is not unreasonable. Some of the same Members that are fighting for the fourth amendment, we fought desperately for the same rights under the second amendment. We said, ``Let's force and let's put minimum mandatory sentences on those that violate the law using a weapon, any kind of a weapon, and not go against the that issue, and I am sure it will be muted again. We do not want to let criminals go on technicalities. I would ask Members on both sides of the aisle to look at the items in which we can really strengthen a crime bill, habeas corpus. We had a gentleman named Alton Harris in San Diego that shot two boys and then ate their hamburgers, he spent 14 years habeas corpus after habeas corpus on death row, but yet many of the same Members will fight against that. We need to go after the criminals and protect the innocent in those kinds of things. I had three Russian generals in my office, and they said that the No. 1 right that they value in the new Russia today is to own private property and those rights, but I see it violated time and time again on this floor, and I would say to the gentleman that quoted The Beast, ``Many of us consider Damien was killed on November 8.'' Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. What we are trying to do is the Presidents, the early Presidents, had the right of a two-thirds majority to control that, that a bill came to them as a single bill. Now we have got hundreds of bills wrapped up into one. Jefferson and Lincoln and the Presidents had to have a two- thirds vote to override their veto, and that is all we are asking under this. And, second, we have precedents by our Governors having the same kind of a thing, and it has been very successful.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Gutierrez], my good friend, we have chatted many, many times. I also know he has had great courage in the past. I know by his own leadership he was chastised for coming out in support of what he really believed, and I respect the gentleman for that. However, I would like to reiterate this is a Democratic amendment, the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], an amendment in the committee. I do not know what the gentleman meant about how we get appointed on those committees. I asked for my specific committees, and I am sure that my friend, the gentleman from Illinois, asked for his committee, as I did. The only thing that I would say, we are being chastised for coming up with a line-item veto when the minority party had power for 40 years, and refused to come up with a line-item veto. It is like I wanted to buy a Ford all these years, and now I am buying Chevys and Fords and I am getting chastised for it. It is just not logical. The line-item veto is very important, whether it is a Republican President or a Democratic President. The pork that we need to take a cut at is all the pork. I agree with the gentleman on that. However, we are trying to do something in the contract that we feel is very, very important. That is to give the President of the United States what many of the Governors have. That is a line-item veto. I think that this case of 100 play level, especially since it was adopted in the committee, I am quite serious, I have not looked at it. I am not even sure what it is. However, I also know if it was adopted in the committee, it must have had pretty good bipartisan support to make it. I will take a look at it seriously before we come up on it.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Most of the time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, they begged us to take them, too, right after the S&L, and no one would take them.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. It was suggested that an obtrusive, Socialist government or President might arise and abuse the line-item veto. It is our contention that every leadership over the last 40 years has tried to prevent the line-item veto, and now they want to sunset it. Second, it will affect future generations. A balanced budget amendment, unfunded mandates, and line-item veto will keep this Congress from spending our children's and children's children's future away. The other side has had 40 years to pass this, and in the next 40 years they may have, or the next thousand years, they may take the majority again. We want to establish a line-item veto in which a President is answerable to the American people for that line-item veto on every item that he forces. If he abuses it, he himself will be answerable at election time.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act. As an original cosponsor of this bill, I believe it is long overdue. In fact, this is a historic occasion. This is the first time that freestanding line-item veto legislation has been allowed to come to the floor of the House. For years, the Democratic Congress refused to allow an honest vote on line-item veto legislation, despite the request of Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. Finally, under Republicans leadership, Congress will move to take this necessary and important action. For years, Americans have been outraged by the provisions snuck into much larger bills by individual Members of Congress. With appropriations bills routinely running into the hundreds of billions of dollars, many Members of Congress grew quite adept in adding their pet provisions. Because the President's current veto authority is limited to an up-or-down decision on a bill, Presidents have been forced to sign bills containing Members' pet projects. Here are few examples: In the fiscal year 1994 Agriculture appropriations bill, Congress added $221,000 for blueberry research at the University of Maine and $140,000 for swine research at the University of Minnesota. The Commerce/Justice/State bill contained $683,000 for fish laboratory repair in South Carolina and $400,000 to deal with the algal bloom crisis in Maui. The Energy and Water bill contained $50 million for one road project in West Virginia and $4 million for a program at Florida A&M University. The Treasury/Postal bill included $120 million for a courthouse in Phoenix and $96 million for a courthouse in Oregon. All of these items were cited by the Citizens Against Government Waste because they were either only requested by one Chamber of Congress, not specifically authorized, not competitively awarded, greatly increased in funding over the prior year, mainly of local interest, or not requested by the President. Current rescission authority under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act hasn't worked. Last year, Congress made several sputtering attempts to enhance rescission authority. Given the extreme reluctance of Congress to take up actual rescissions, one wonders if the zeal for enhanced rescission in the past wasn't more directed toward keeping the line- item veto off the agenda than to truly improving the system. H.R. 2 gives the President a permanent legislative line-item veto. With this authority, the President may strike or reduce any discretionary budget authority or eliminate any targeted tax provision in any bill. The President must prepare a separate rescissions list for each bill and submit his proposal to Congress within 10 days after signing the original bill. The key to why line-item veto authority is better than enhanced rescission is in what comes next. Under line-item veto, the President's proposed rescissions are approved unless Congress passes a disapproval bill within 20 days after receiving them. Enhanced rescission legislation, on the other hand, disapproves the recommendations unless Congress acts. With line-item veto, the upper hand goes to the cutting side, where with enhanced rescission, the advantage goes to the spending side. H.R. 2 sets out clear procedures for dealing with a line-item veto. The list sent by the President is unamendable. There are expedited procedures to bring a line-item list to the floor of the House and limits on debate time in the Senate. The line-item veto will not solve our budget crisis. It will, however, do something equally important--help to restore the confidence of the American people in their government. It is time to give the President the same authority that 43 of the 50 Governors have. It is time for Congress to enact the line-item veto.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the gentleman for the clarification, but again, I would repeat, he has had the majority for 40 years and they have not come up with a single line item veto. We are trying to do that today, but yet they are still trying to chastise us, or maybe to look at it better, maybe they are trying to improve it. I compliment the gentleman for that. However, it is very, very important that we get it. It is bipartisan. I ask for the support of the line item veto.

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Joint Resolution 50, to designate the visitors center at the Channel Islands National Park after our former colleague, Robert J. Lagomarsino. An an original cosponsor of the resolution, and a cosponsor of similar legislation in the 103d Congress, I his efforts. This is a fitting way to honor Bob Lagomarsino. During his nine terms in the House, Bob worked tirelessly for the preservation of California's natural resources. Perhaps the centerpiece of this mission was his successful effort to establish the Channel Islands National Park in 1980. Bob Lagomarsino is a Republican in the finest tradition of Teddy Roosevelt, recognizing the importance of preserving our environment and working to include unique areas in the National Park System. Bob had a major influence on landmark environmental legislation including the Alaska Wilderness Act, the Strip Mine Control Act, and the Land and Water Conservation Act. On a personal level, I miss Bob's presence in the House. He was a thoughtful, productive, and diligent representative for the people of his district and the State of California. Bob Lagomarsino was one of those nuts-and-bolts legislators who would take up the less publicized but still important causes. His efforts on working to improve the status of the territories, for example, got him little attention in the media or from his constituents. But, typically for Bob, he devoted countless hours to this issue. He worked in a bipartisan manner, never compromising his principles, but never grandstanding either. We also remember Bob Lagomarsino's years of dedicated service in the foreign policy arena. Bob took a passionate interest in fighting the spread of communism and played a key role in making the Reagan doctrine a reality. His efforts in Central America, for example, put America on the side of freedom. At a time when it wasn't fashionable to talk about spreading democracy and liberty around the world, Bob Lagomarsino never shrunk from his belief in this country and what it represents. Bob Lagomarsino's efforts to protect the Channel Islands before his service in the House of Representatives. While serving in the California Senate, Bob Lagomarsino introduced and passed legislation to make the Channel Islands off limits to oil drilling. When he arrived in Washington in 1974, he introduced legislation to establish the Channel Islands National Park. After years of effort, Congress passed Bob Lagomarsino's bill in 1980. Even after the establishment of the national park, Bob's commitment to protecting the Channel Islands and the fragile California coast continued. He worked for a number of years to secure funding for the park. He expended great effort to convince major oil companies to end shipments of oil through the channel. He worked with the International Maritime Organization to have the Channel Islands designated as an ``area to be avoided'' by international shippers. He persuaded President Bush to withdraw leases for offshore oil in the channel. He authored an amendment to bring offshore oil operations under State and Federal clean air standards. Mr. Speaker, the United States has benefitted greatly from the public service of Bob Lagomarsino. It is most appropriate that we honor that service with this resolution. Were it not for Bob's persistence and dedication, there would be no Channel Islands National Park. I think it is fitting and proper that Americans visiting this treasured part of California appreciate something of the man who made this park possible. Again, I salute Elton Gallegly for his work over the last few years on this legislation. I urge its adoption by the House.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Barton three-fifths tax limitation balanced budget amendment. As an original cosponsor of the Barton amendment, I believe it is the best choice of the various options before the House today. It is clear that Congress is utterly incapable of controlling the growth of spending. Solution after solution has failed to get the deficit under control. We have raised taxes and found that the deficit has increased. I think the key to understanding why the three-fifths majority is essential is to examine the recent history of tax increases. Since 1977, there have been seven major tax increases that would have failed under Barton. Had the Barton amendment been in place over these years, a total of $558.9 billion in tax increases would have been blocked. That's half a trillion dollars that would have been spent by Americans on their priorities--new houses, new cars, college educations, and so forth. Instead, the American people got half a trillion in Federal spending, much of it on wasteful projects that benefit parochial interests. One, the 1977 Social Security tax.--This $80.4 billion tax increase increased both tax rates and the taxable wage base for employers and employees. The conference report passed the House by a vote of 189 to 163. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would have failed. Two, the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act.--TEFRA was the first of the series of packages that was going to take care of the deficit problem. The bill increased taxes by $99 billion and cut Medicare and Medicaid by $17 billion. It passed the Senate by a 50 to 47 margin. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would have failed. Three, the 1982 Transportation Assistance Act.--This bill increased gasoline and highway taxes by $22 billion. The House adopted the conference report by a 180 to 87 vote. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would have failed. Four, the 1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.--This bill contained a variety of tax changes and user fee increases totaling $11.9 billion. It passed the House by a one-vote margin. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would have failed. Five, the 1992 Tax Fairness and Economic Growth Act.--This bill increased taxes by a total of $77.5 billion, including a permanent increase of the top tax rate, surtaxes on incomes above $250,000, and other tax and fee increases. It passed the House by a 211 to 189 margin. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would have failed. Six, 1992 urban aid tax bill.--A variety of tax changes totaling $27 billion. The conference report was adopted by the House by a 208 to 202 vote. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would have failed. Seven, 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act.--President Clinton's tax bill increased tax rates, the gas tax, taxes on Social Security benefits, and many user fees. This $241 billion tax increase was the largest in history. It passed the Senate by a margin of 50 to 49. Had the Barton amendment been in place, this tax hike would have failed. Now, Mr. Speaker, I support the Stenholm-Solomon amendment. It is solid legislation and will make a genuine difference in the way we deal with the budget. It will force Government to live within its means and insure that we will no longer allow deficits to spiral out of control. However, the Barton amendment is better because it takes this debate in a new direction. Not only are we going to balance the Federal budget, but we are also going to insure that there will be no more one- vote margins for tax increases. If we truly want to restrain the power of Government, I believe the Barton amendment is essential. Over the years, the Government has shown that it lacks the discipline needed. We have been far too eager to see the people's money as the answer to our spending problem. For that reason, I believe the Barton amendment is the best alternative before the House today.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss H.R., 5, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and share with the House the observations of San Diego Mayor Susan Golding. Recently, I had the pleasure to meet with Mayor Golding to discuss this bill and other issues before the Congress. Mayor Golding provided me with a partial list of current Federal mandates placed on the city of San Diego. She said that besides the up- front costs, each mandate contains a hidden burden of paperwork, record keeping, and reporting. Each of these mandates has some Federal agency reviewing compliance. Moreover, most of these mandates carry penalties for noncompliance. The most egregious example involves the requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency that the city of San Diego move toward secondary treatment of wastewater. The problem is that the regulations were designed to protect rivers and lakes--fresh water. San Diego, however, has a deep discharge into the Pacific Ocean. The world renowned Scripps Institute of Oceanography has concluded that secondary treatment is unneeded in San Diego. Yet the Federal Government still insists that the city of San Diego expend some $1.4 billion to upgrade to secondary treatment, no matter what the best scientists say. After years of litigation, the stalemate continues. The list of mandates ranges from the obvious to the obscure. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the city must spend $100,000. Swimming pool operator training costs $1,500. The level of sand in sandboxes at city-run tot centers is monitored by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, costing San Diego taxpayers $75,000 a year. Reporting requirements for the CDBG program add $20,000 in costs. Monitoring of groundwater at city landfills costs $130,000 annually; gas monitoring adds another $34,000. No one questions that some Federal regulations are needed. Federal standards for health and safety have saved lives and improved the quality of life for all Americans. If an issue is important enough to demand action by the Congress, then by definition, it ought to be important enough to be funded by the Congress. The city would meet many of these health and safety standards anyway. The problem arises when the Federal Government issues these mandates, burdening the city with record keeping, paperwork, and the potential for litigation and fines. We know that H.R. 5 won't solve the problem of existing mandates alone. But it is still vital that Congress pass this legislation. The commission established by H.R. 5 will be chartered to review existing mandates and report recommendations for change to Congress. Further, this bill sends a clear message to our beleaguered cities, counties, and States that this Congress will no longer conduct business as usual. The experience of San Diego is typical. I know from my discussions with other mayors and local officials that they also shoulder these burdens. In some cases, smaller communities are hit even harder than cities, as they lack the resources and staff to comply with Federal mandates. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the bill. I urge prompt passage of H.R. 5. This bill does nothing to threaten the health and safety of the American people. It is a significant step toward reforming our attitude here in Washington.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, for 40 years, 40 years, this body failed to pass a balanced budget amendment. No line-item veto. And yet the Gephardt bill tries to scare you with the Social Security card. Well, if you are so concerned with the Social Security card, all those arguing with the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], then why not support the three-fifths to raise taxes, because it would take a three-fifths vote to increase the tax on Social Security. But no, it is smoke and mirrors. You want to raise taxes at will. You want to be able to pass on unfunded mandates, the big tax and spenders. I would say there is not a Member of the Black Caucus except the only Republican that did not vote in the last Congress to increase the taxes on Social Security. No Republican voted for it. There is not a Member that is arguing here today, except maybe the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Stenholm], that did not cut Medicare by $56 billion, and not a penny went for health care. Why? Because not a single Republican or Democrat voted for it in the Committee on Ways and Means. Do you get the picture? Why not vote for Gephardt? Because Gephardt kills the rule of three-fifths in his bill to raise taxes. He kills the limitations to raise the debt ceiling. They want to be able to raise the debt. Does that tell you something about the real issue on the balanced budget amendment? What about the limit on cutting spending. Gephardt kills that. And to support the three-fifths that would stop those things and also the unfunded mandates. Why does the gentleman from New York [Mr. Schumer] and the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] and the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], the last Congress they voted to cut Medicare, they voted to cut Social Security, and they also voted to increase the marginal tax rate of every middle-income American. All of them. But yet now they switch their story. I guess it is easier to switch than fight. Take a look at the leadership and the Rivlin memo to Gephardt and the Rivlin plan. The plan is to cut Social Security. The plan was to cut Medicare. The plan is to cut veterans benefits and further dismantle the military. But yet now we are talking about protecting Social Security. I will bet you will not find hardly anyone, if anybody, that wants to touch Social Security in here. Then support the three-fifths, let us not have the smoke and mirrors. The gentlewoman from Colorado says we had hard choices in the Clinton tax package, that the liberal leadership twisted arms and only passed by one vote last Congress, one vote. Well, she did. She cut Medicare and Social Security. Those were the hard choices. They cut in 1986 IRA's. Now they want to support them back. They cut the annuities for senior citizens. Get a life.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the Members the disdain I have for some of my colleagues for not supporting the San Diego Chargers. I rise today to pay tribute to the new champions of the American Football Conference, the San Diego Chargers. It is no secret that America's finest city has now America's finest football team. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute president Alex Spanos and general manager Bobby Beathard, who have defied skeptics and produced a world class team through perseverance, hard work, and a little luck and a little stealth; to coach Bobby Ross and his team of coaches who are proven motivators; and, finally, to the players, the San Diego team, a team who the Nation's experts picked to finish last. I would say to the minority, Mr. Speaker, never ever not support your home team, but always take the point spread, and I would say to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Pelosi], the Sees candy is going to taste great.