Duke Cunningham

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

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

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have thousands, tens of thousands of flight hours both in the military and civilian aircraft, and in the future I plan to get thousands of more flight hours. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman is correct that we have lost a lot of lives in aviation. If I thought for 1 minute that we could pass something that would prevent that, then I would pass the amendment, but I rise in opposition to the amendment. There is nothing that stops this body from passing a funded mandate onto States or Government agencies. If we feel it is important, whether it is endangered species, clean water, clean air, or, in the case of the gentlewoman's amendment, then we should fund it. It is only logical, when we fund it we should have a cost assessment to help all the Members figure out what those costs are going to be to the States, because if we pass on an unfunded mandate, then I imagine the States, and I imagine the State of the gentlewoman and the State of California, none of us has enough money to do all of the things we want to do in the other services that we talked about, in education, law enforcement, social services and the rest. But when we pass that unfunded mandate, it makes the States take a look at a priority, and quite often those priorities are not in agreement with the individual Members passing on the mandate. So I would suggest to the gentlewoman that a funded mandate of this type-- and I would support a funded mandate, but not an unfunded mandate, to the organization because I do think we need oversight in availation safety. I personally do, and I know the gentlewoman flies home, plus I fly privately and in the military; so I think in all of those cases it is not too much off the wall to ask that we, A, have a cost assessment and, B, to fund the mandates that this body regulates on enterprise or on the States.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would like to say first of all on unfunded mandates, most of us have been fighting the battle for the last few years. It is not only a question of costs, but it is a question of States rights. I look at an unfunded mandate and I look at the document we have here on those that want to exempt hundreds and hundreds of different organizations and groups from unfunded mandates. That is what the problem is. Governor Pete Wilson from California has stated that it is breaking his State. Illegal immigration is a classic one of an unfunded mandate that the Government has refused to fund or have a current policy to change. We take a look at States rights, and I know even Al Gore, our Vice President, made a statement, ``Let us get government off our backs and walk beside the American people.'' But for too long Government has been using a bullwhip on the backs of those American people. I look at the costs. The problem most of us have on this side of the aisle is Members on the other side of the aisle have supported continuously extremist views, and those extremist views, that is a weapon. I look at the California clean water problems we have. We have a sewage problem like a lot of other areas in the United States. The Scripps again that secondary treatment is not necessary; the law was written for sewage effluents going into rivers and lakes. We have it going into the ocean, but it is the other side, and clean water and EPA have been unreasonable enforcing that which would cost just the city of San Diego over $3 billion. If they do that, if they are forced for those $3 billion, then you will hear arguments of we need more money for education and law enforcement. But when you do not have the money, there is only one thing you can do to obtain it and that is raise taxes to pay for it. What we are saying is take a reasonable look at unfunded mandates. Look at the costs of the motor-voter in the State of California. The people who blew up the World Trade Center could vote under motor-voter. It is an unfunded mandate. In the State of California there were hundreds of documented cases in the last November 8 election, but yet there is no funding there to take care of the oversight of the motor- voter. I look at the California desert bill that we passed last year. Property rights. There was even on the other side of the aisle arguments against the protection of someone receiving a fair price for their property. They did not want the Government to have to pay a higher price or estimated value. I look at the environment, the Endangered Species Act, and wetlands. We have wetlands at 12,000 feet that are frozen, and we take a look, we cannot change that or even define under a lot of people's views, wetlands. We need reasonable laws and reasonable ascertations to help the planet. We take a look at the same thing with the wetlands. We had a pig farmer in Arkansas, the President's own State, that over the last decade has raised thousands of pigs. They hollowed out an area; it was wet. They wanted to build on it; no, he could not, because that area had become a wetlands. It is not only property rights and States rights but America's rights, and I think Americans need to have a cost assessment tied in with every unfunded mandate that is forced on them by this Government.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the gentleman. Airport safety, especially in times when we had fundamentalist problems, for example, during Desert Storm, those things are required. But I say to my friend, if it is important enough--and I believe there is not a Member here who is not going to support it, I do not believe there is--that will not support safety in airports, since we all ride those things, that we would not fund that. Our only request is that, when we think something is important enough to mandate it, let us fund it, and I will support the gentleman.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, 2 weeks ago I was elected to represent the Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities with the Republican Governors on welfare reform. The No. 1 issue among the Governors, Republicans and Democrats, was unfunded mandates. They went through--there are 366 welfare programs, and under the programs--AFDC, of course, is covered by Ways and Means, then food stamps by the Committee on Agriculture, and work programs and so on by the Economic and Educational Opportunity Committee. Each one of those organizations has got mandates which go down, and we are trying to block grant those. I understand what the gentlewoman is trying to do. The Governors would have us just give them the money without any accountability or responsibility for what the money is used for. That is why I sympathize, but we do it in a little better direction. We do have to hold them accountable for certain areas. We do have to have accounting for the dollars. But what the problem is, when we give the State unfunded mandates, we blame the States because they are giving unfunded mandates, they have to literally give State mandates because of our mandate. I mean it is a vicious circle. That is what the Governors, Republicans and Democrats, vowed to eliminate because they can be much more efficient in this process. We look at well-meaning mandates, that we have given, say, for our States, for California, I say to the gentlewoman from California: The Brady bill, the motor-voter bill, endangered species, clean air, clean water, and, yes, even illegal immigration mandates that we fight. We have got to kill these intrusive mandates and focus. For example, in education we only get 23 cents out of every dollar to the classroom. Why? Because of bureaucracy and the burdensome mandates. I appreciate what the gentlewoman is trying to do, but I have to oppose the amendment because I think there is a better way to do it and we will come up with the amendment. I will support the gentlewoman's further amendment.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, 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 now has America's finest football team and we are eagerly anticipating a Chargers' victory over the San Francisco 49ers in the Super Bowl. To quote from the Associated Press, ``What happens when the cork pops on 35 years of football frustration? Come to San Diego to find out. The San Diego Chargers are in the Super Bowl, and that has never happened before.'' On Sunday, when the triumphant Chargers returned from Pittsburgh, there were 70,000 screaming fans on hand to welcome them home. For far too long, people have written off the Chargers. The Steelers made that mistake on Sunday. Before the AFC Championship, Pittsburgh was busy rehearsing for a Super Bowl video and their fans were booking trips to Florida. After the Chargers beat the Steelers 17-13, they aren't writing off the Chargers anymore in Pittsburgh. Mr. Speaker, I want to salute Chargers president Alex Spanos, who has defied the skeptics and produced a world-class team through perseverance, hard work, a little luck and a little stealth. I want to salute Chargers general manager Bobby Beathard, who has brought to San Diego his proven record of creating winners with his keen eye for talent, and a true commitment to teamwork. To coach Bobby Ross and his team of coaches who are proven motivators. Their leadership has given this team the focus to never give up and the skills to overcome the obstacles in their way, against even the longest odds. And finally to the players of the San Diego team, a team who national ``experts'' picked to finish last. They have proven that commitment, focus, teamwork and heart can win and that America's finest city has America's finest team, the San Diego Chargers.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Lt. Col. Harry ``Mike'' Murdock, USMC, who gave his life this Tuesday while trying to help his fellow marines. California has been battered by a series of storms over the last few weeks. I am sorry to report that these storms have claimed the life of Lieutenant Colonel Murdock, the commander of the Combat Training Battalion at Camp Pendleton. Lieutenant Colonel Murdock drowned in the San Onofre Creek, a normally gentle stream which was swollen by days of heavy rain. He was scouting for a safe location to cross the creek, to help 78 stranded marines return to the main part of Camp Pendleton. Tragically, he was caught in the rapid current and lost his footing. While the swift-water rescue team responded immediately, they were unable to find Lieutenant Colonel Murdock. A helicopter was brought in from MCAS El Toro, but was forced out of the search by darkness and the weather. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in saluting the valor and sacrifice of Lieutenant Colonel Murdock. His death was a tragic loss for his family and for the Marine Corps, but I know they take some small comfort from the fact that he gave his life in an attempt to help his fellow marines. His devotion to duty and comrades was typical of the marines. I know the sympathies and respect of my colleagues in the House goes out to Lieutenant Colonel Murdock's family and his comrades in the Marine Corps.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to call my colleagues' attention to a recent commentary from the News Reporter of San Marcos in the 51st District of California. My constituent, D.J. Skinner Ross of San Marcos, raises some interesting questions about the recent tragic double murder of the Smith children in South Carolina. I urge my colleagues to read ``A Question of Murder,'' as it offers a unique perspective on this sad case and on the larger issue of ethics in our society. House and ask that it be printed in the Congressional Record at this point. A Question of Murder I'm a little confused regarding some people's stand on murder; specifically the murder of defenseless children. The nation, perhaps the world, is horrified and incensed over the killing of the little Smith boys. To learn that the killer was their own mother was almost more than all of us could bear. Many were, and still are, threatening to murder her! Here is where I'm confused: (1) Where are the ``Women's Rights'' groups? (2) Where are the ``Freedom of Choice'' groups? (3) Where is the politically powerful ``ACLU''? Mrs. Smith could use your support during the terrifying, lonely time in her life. Mrs. Smith could use some of the ACLU's legal backing. After all, her side of the story is not different now than it would have been five years and seven or eight months ago-- or even as recently as nineteen or twenty months ago: these babies were interfering with the life style she wished to follow. They were a nuisance. They were fathered by a man she didn't love. (A little like ``rape'', don't you agree?) So I ask all the ``Rights'' groups, ``Where are you now?'' Before these little boys were given names and toys and birthday parties, you would have pounded your fists on your podiums and shouted obscenities at anyone who would dare to say she did not have the ``right'' to take their ``right to live'' away from them. Where is your courage to defend her now? Nothing has really changed. Those little boys hearts were beating in their mother's womb every bit as strongly as they were in the cold ``womb'' of that car's back seat. Their cries for help would have been as soundless in her womb as they were in that sinking car. The only difference between this murder and the murder of abortion is the sweet defenseless babies killed in the mothers womb drown in the amnionic fluid. These sweet, defenseless little boys drowned in the fluid of a cold, murky lake. So I ask, ``In cases such as these, exactly whose ``Rights'' have been wronged?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to call my colleagues' attention to a recent commentary from the News Reporter of San Marcos in the 51st District of California. My constituent, D.J. Skinner Ross of San Marcos, raises some interesting questions about the recent tragic double murder of the Smith children in South Carolina. I urge my colleagues to read ``A Question of Murder,'' as it offers a unique perspective on this sad case and on the larger issue of ethics in our society. Mr. Speaker, I commend ``A Question of Murder'' to the House and ask that it be printed in the Congressional Record at this point. [From the San Marcos News Reporter, Nov. 16, 1994] What's the Difference, Smith Murders, or Those Aborted? (By Skinner Ross) I'm a little confused regarding some peoples' stand on murder, specifically the murder of defenseless children. The nation, perhaps the world, is horrified and incensed over the killings of the little Smith boys. To learn that the killer was their own mother was almost more than all of us could bear. Many were, and still are, threatening to murder her. Here is where I am confused: (1) Where are the Women's Rights groups? (2) Where are the Freedom of Choice groups? (3) Where is the politically-powerful American Civil Liberties Union? Mrs. Smith could use your support during this terrifying, lonely time in her life. Mrs. Smith could use some of the ACLU's legal backing. After all, her side of the story is no different now than it would have been five years and seven or eight months ago . . . or even as recently as 19 or 20 months ago: These babies were interfering with the lifestyle she wished to follow. They were a nuisance. They were fathered by a man she didn't love. (A little like rape, don't you agree?) So I ask all the ``rights'' groups, Where are you now? Before these little boys were given names and toys and birthday parties, you would have pounded your fists on your podiums and shouted obscenities at anyone who would dare to say she did not have the ``right'' to take their ``right to live'' away from them. Where is your courage to defend her now? Nothing has really changed. Those little boys' hearts were beating in their mother's womb every bit as strongly as they were in the cold ``womb'' of that car's back seat. Their cries for help would have been as soundless in her womb as they were in that sinking car. The only difference between this murder and the murder of abortion is the sweet, defenseless babies killed in a mother's womb drown in amnionic fluid. These sweet, defenseless little boys drowned in the fluid of a cold, murky lake. So I ask, in cases such as these, exactly whose ``rights'' have been wronged?

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Shays] for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, how interesting it is to note the tone of the debate for this last bill this evening. Most of it has been spoken in bipartisanship, and I say that it is music to the ears of most. I think even the old bulls, and the young freshmen, and the sophomores, and juniors--I look at for 4 years of floor action where the outcome, most of it was predetermined before it ever came to the floor. In only 16 years, only one Republican motion to recommit passed in 16 years. That is a crime, and that should not happen from our side to the now- minority either. I would say to my colleagues, Yes, fight. I did not vote for a single closed rule in 4 years unless it had been cleared by the majority and the minority, and I would fight for continued open rules in most cases. The king-of-the-hill rule in which not a single Republican win was recorded because the outcome was afforded before it ever got to the floor, and that is not in the best interests of the minority or the majority. Most of the problems that I have seen in the last 4 years have come out of the leadership, not just the Democratic leadership, and I think the challenge is to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt] and the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Gingrich] to make sure that as much as possible the political rhetoric is taken out of these bills. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bill. It has bipartisan support, and, no, it is not perfect. But I would ask my colleagues to support it.

Mr. CUNNINGHAM

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, to cut committees, whether it is a profit margin in a business or whether it is the burden of closing bases or the infrastructure this has taken away from the central source, or whether it is from the Education Committee, I would say to the distinguished Whip we only get about 23 cents out of every $1 down to education. I have a head of a committee that is in charge of about $30 billion, but if I have $1 billion for say child nutrition, and I divide that into 52 States, and every city in that State has services, then I have 40 programs for children's nutrition, and all of those have a bureaucracy which takes away the benefit. What I am trying to do is get the money down to the children and into the classrooms and pay for the teachers. Let us eliminate the bureaucracy. If Head Start works, let us get it fully funded. If child nutrition works, let us fund it. But what we need to do is to eliminate the middleman, and in this case the Federal employees, the staff that is taking away and causing tax dollars and, yes, Federal pensions down the line, let us eliminate them and I think that will help.