Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my thanks to the great gentleman from Texas for his hard work. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to another gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who has done a great job in working through the very difficult issues of the Terrorism Subcommittee.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), ranking member of Oversight.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the last gentleman who spoke, I want to thank him for his kind words. But I am reminded that the chairman has been the guardian of professional military education and his work has been to try to make sure that our officers have a context in which they can place the activities in this very real war that many of them are engaged in in our history and to see situations that have gone before and to gain insights from that history, and I want to applaud the chairman for that. I want to yield 3 minutes to another gentleman who has been a great worker on this committee and a leader, a guy who has moved over from the Rules Committee, finally traded up and got back to the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Georgia (Dr. Gingrey).

Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman who just spoke for his kind remarks. I want to yield 2 minutes to another gentleman who has come back from the Rules Committee, traded up to come back to the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman who has such a large set of military facilities in his district and pays so much attention to those facilities and to the national issue of security, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we have, I believe, no more speakers left, so at this time let me just say that our ranking members and our chairmen have covered the waterfront of what this bill does. They've taken it from personnel, the pay raise that the chairman started off talking about, the 3.9 percent pay raise, the end strength increases in the Army and Marine Corps, the quality of life increases that we've delivered to our people in uniform, to the equipment side, to the force protection that we are sending additional to Afghanistan and to Iraq, MRAPs, extra armor capability, extra technical capability to be able to defend our forces and help them accomplish the mission, to the modernization side, the platforms that we are building with the modernization part of this budget, to the readiness part of this budget, which is so critical to ongoing operations, and to some of the technical aspects of the budget that I think the Strategic Subcommittee spoke to so effectively, including the programs that involve space, involve missile defense. And so, Mr. Chairman, I think we've described the bill fairly effectively. And I think also we've described the people. At least I want to make sure we understand how wonderful the people are who put this bill together, not only the ranking members and the chairmen of the subcommittee and our great chairman of the full committee, Ike Skelton, the man from Missouri, but also the wonderful staff that we have that's worked long hours to put together what is a very large bill, in many cases, very technical, and yet they did it with great precision, and we owe them a debt of gratitude. Let me just say in my closing seconds here, Mr. Chairman, that I talked about the horizon that I think we face in terms of military challenges. I think that part of that horizon must require a focus on China. The fact that China is now outbuilding the U.S. in submarines by more than 3-1, with their acquisitions from the Russians, it's much more. They're acquiring great technical capability, and they are building an industrial base that, in many areas, such as building warships, could outstrip the United States very quickly in production. And just as our great chairman mentioned, that it takes more than just a military to win wars and to carry out foreign policy, it's going to take some changes in policy to maintain the United States as a premier military force in the world. Some of those changes are going to require changes in our tax law, in our tariff law that will allow our industrial base to stay in the United States, that will stop these companies that are key to national security who are being advised right now by their financial advisors to move their production offshore, changes in our law that will cause them to stay in the United States, because the environment, the business environment in the United States and the tax environment will be such that they will not be induced to move offshore. Also, with respect to the hemorrhage of technical information which is going on with the acquisition of American companies on a very selected basis by companies and by nations that are targeting American military technology. This committee has moved toward stopping that hemorrhage by adopting several important provisions with respect to security, site security at companies that do classified information. But there's much more work to be done there, and I know that the committee is moving in that direction and undertaking a great strides in that direction. But that's a direction that's going to require the participation of the entire body, Mr. Chairman, in fact, the entire government. So we have a big challenge ahead of us. Again, I want to thank the chairman for putting together a bill that passed unanimously out of the Armed Services Committee, and should pass unanimously off the House floor. So once again, a job well done to the gentleman from Missouri. I would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I would yield to the Republican leader, Mr. Boehner, the gentleman from Ohio, as much time as he might consume.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentlelady from San Diego, my seat mate, Mrs. Davis, in this resolution. Mr. Speaker, the Bible tells us, greater love hath no man than he who lays down his life for a friend. Close behind are those who have served America in war, been captured, been held for long periods of time incommunicado sometimes, from their own colleagues in the particular prison or internment camp, and certainly from their loved ones back in the United States. Those who have to endure in this case, as our POWs did in Vietnam, beatings, brutality, harsh interrogations; and yet those Americans have, in most cases, come out of that furnace of incarceration strengthened. Indeed, as the gentlelady has mentioned, Pete Peterson, John McCain and our own Sam Johnson, who serves with us today, are examples of Americans who endured great difficulty and great hardship, and yet were strengthened and were inspired and had a certain energy that propelled them into this body, and in other cases into the other body, into the U.S. Senate, and they became national leaders. Mr. Speaker, James Michener wrote in his book, The Bridges at Toko- Ri, when the subject of that book, the hero, the guy who had flown off to hit those bridges again and again didn't return because he'd been shot down, in the book, the commander of that aircraft carrier walks out on the deck after it's clear that this pilot's not going to return, and he reflects and asks himself the question, where does America get such men? People who will join the military, who will get into these high performance aircraft, in the case of a Navy pilot, fly off a carrier, which is a little postage stamp floating at sea, go through enemy air defenses and in a very dangerous situation, hit the target and then try to find that small floating postage stamp once again to recover. And of course the counterparts to those Navy pilots are Air Force pilots and Marine pilots who fly off that tarmac, and, in the case of North Vietnam, encountered new technology, Russian-made surface-to-air missiles which were extremely deadly, and knowing that if they didn't get back out to the ocean, where they could at least, if their plane was hit, where they could at least parachute into the ocean, they had a high likelihood of being captured. And again and again and again they got into those aircraft and undertook those missions. Sam Johnson was one of those guys and was shot down on his 25th mission. As the gentlelady said, he earned in his service to our Nation two Silver Stars, three Legions of Merit, the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star with the V device. But he earned something more than that, and that's the gratitude of every American, certainly every Member of this body, and in a way he's very symbolic of this incredible group of heroes known as the American POWs from Vietnam, because he's a lot like a lot of the others that I've met, Mr. Speaker, and I know you've met a lot of them too. Self-effacing, modest, great character, and continuing to serve this country. So I think it's absolutely appropriate that on this 35th anniversary of Operation Homecoming that we honor everyone who served as an American prisoner of war, and especially honor the one who serves today in the House of Representatives, Mr. Sam Johnson. I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the Republican whip, Mr. Blunt, the gentleman from Missouri.

Mr. HUNTER. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman) 2 minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like now to recognize the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs committee, Mr. Buyer, for 2 minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Buyer, for your very eloquent statement. Mr. Speaker, at this point we have one speaker remaining, and that's the man from Texas who stiffens our spine, who gives us resolution when we start to lose our resolve in this House of Representatives, who reminds us that freedom isn't free and that we achieve peace through strength. I would like to yield the balance of our time to Sam Johnson, the gentleman from Texas. (Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. We have no more speakers and would yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding, and I want to join with her and all of our colleagues who knew Lionel Van Deerlin. You know, Van's trademark was his intellect and his wit. In fact, in our first debate in 1980, I noticed, I looked over and I saw my dad roaring with laughter at every one of Van's one-liners. And I had to ask him after the debate was over whose side he was on. Some good things do come out of political contests, and one thing that came out of ours was a 28-year friendship. A lot of people here, in fact, I just talked to John Conyers here who remembered Van, and a lot of us remember his political skills. He will be known in this city for political skills. But for those who really knew him in San Diego and around this country, they'll remember him as just a wonderful, wonderful human being.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding. And the gentleman from Iowa is indeed an expert on renewable energy, and I've spent a lot of time in his wonderful State examining that program, which is very robust right now. I thought the gentleman might be interested, because this is a subject that's near and dear to your heart, in the recent progress on the border fence and the recent actions that have been undertaken by the administration. The gentleman from Iowa and I have linked arms on a number of occasions to do several things: one, pass the border fence legislation that mandates the construction of a double fence across the southern border for about 854 miles. And as we know, that legislation was watered down some in December by the Senate, but it remains a mandate to do at least 700 miles of fence. And the administration just undertook the waiver of environmental regulations that would keep the fence from being built for many years. In fact, I remember that when we tried to fence Smugglers Gulch, where a great deal of cocaine came into the United States between San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico, we were delayed for 12 years by a series of lawsuits and regulations being invoked. I think the last regulatory delay revolved around whether or not a gnatcatcher would fly over a 12-foot-high fence, and after a year I think the experts concluded that indeed that gnatcatcher could clear the fence; so we could build it. So the administration has invoked this waiver, and I want to commend Secretary Chertoff for undertaking that waiver because it's absolutely necessary if we're going to get the fence built. Otherwise, we will never get it built. And today the southwest border, and particularly Texas along with Arizona, are absolutely on fire with the smuggling of drugs and illegal aliens. And last year they moved about 22 metric tons of cocaine across the border, across the southwest border, and about 368 tons of marijuana. So it's still a trafficking corridor or a series of corridors which are flowing relatively unimpeded by this relatively small force of Border Patrolmen and Customs and DEA agents who attend the border. But getting that double-border fence up, and in some cases it's a single fence--I would like to see a double fence all the way across--but getting that fence up is going to have a great, very salutary effect on law enforcement in the United States. And I'm reminded that when we built the double fence in San Diego, the crime rate by FBI statistics in the county of San Diego dropped by 56.3 percent. And I think if we indeed get the series of fences up across the southwest border, you're going to see fewer criminal aliens being incarcerated at the Federal, State, and local level. And right now there are 250,000 of them in incarceration. So since the gentleman has been my partner in these endeavors, I knew he would want to hear the report. A hearing was chaired by the Committee on Resources and two subcommittees in Brownsville, Texas, and I think we aired the issues very fully. And if you listened to all the testimony, a couple of things were clear: One, we need the fence because no one has an alternative; and, number two, if we don't get the waivers, we will never get the fence built. So I thought the gentleman would be interested in that progress, and I just wanted to report that to him. And I thank you for yielding.

Mr. HUNTER. Of marijuana.

Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield. What that really amounts to is that this industry of moving this poison across the international border to the United States is cocaine that poisons our young people. That is such a massive industry now on the southern border of the U.S. that the drug gangs are fighting each other for control of this lucrative industry. That is what it represents. That is another reason why we need to build that border fence. Incidentally, we had 202,000 arrests in the area where the fence has now been constructed between San Diego, California, and Tijuana, Mexico. After we constructed it, we went down to 9,000 arrests. That is a reduction of more than 90 percent. And in the Yuma sector, where we have also now constructed double fencing, we went from 138,000 arrests to a little under 4,000. That is more than a 95 percent reduction. So of all the things that we have tried with respect to controlling the border, we have discovered that one thing does work and that is a border fence. The President and Mr. Chertoff should be commended for invoking this waiver that we gave them so we can move ahead on this very, very important part of the people's business, and that is keeping their kids safe. The last statistic that I would give the gentleman that I brought up in Brownsville was this. Last year, we intercepted 58,000 people coming across the border from Mexico who were not citizens of Mexico. They came from virtually every country in the world. More than 800 of them came from Communist China, 14 came from Iran, and 3 of them came from North Korea. That means that anybody in the world with a television set can understand very quickly that the way to get into the United States illegally is no longer through the airports, because they have been effectively blocked. It's to get to Mexico and cross the land border between Mexico and the U.S. Another reason to build the border fence.

Mr. HUNTER. No. As long as you have a modicum of manning, that is if you leave a fence totally alone, obviously a person can come in, sit down for hours with welding gear and cut through anything, or bring in heavy construction equipment and cut through anything. As long as you have a modicum of manning. That is why you have the Border Patrol road in between the fences, so the smuggler has to come across the first fence, cross a high speed Border Patrol road, sit down with his welding gear and work on the second fence, or carry that 22-foot ladder. Then the question comes back to the person who makes that statement-- incidentally, that statement was made by Governor Napolitano, who is the Governor of Arizona. Now, let me see. She said, You show me a 20-foot fence, I'll show you a 21-foot ladder. She derided the fence. And in her district where we built the double fence at Yuma, we have brought down the arrest rate from 138,000 to 4,000. So apparently the smugglers haven't read her statement that they should have no problem with this fence. But it does work and, incidentally, the other thing it does is it leverages the Border Patrol. Because we were able to pull Border Patrolmen off our fenced area and move them to other places on the southern border. You don't need as many Border Patrolmen when you have an impediment, that is when you have the fence in place. So for those who say the question is, How many Border Patrol can we get? You free up a lot of Border Patrolmen by having the fence. Incidentally, you need to have that double fence because you trap the smugglers in between the two fences. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his great work on this important issue. We will continue to work together.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding. He truly is the resident expert on ethanol production and it has been very interesting to listen to him. Another aspect of providing enough energy, of course, and becoming energy independent, which really is a national security issue at this point, is that we have to use all of our sources. And it is important for this body and for the other body, for the U.S. Senate, to pass finally permission for us to drill in Alaska. Right now we have got an abolition on drilling, a lot of impediments to moving forward and increasing the amount of petroleum product that is available to the American people. If we drill in Alaska, and, incidentally, the Alaskan pipeline has not hurt any wildlife species. You can see caribou rubbing their summer coats on the Alaskan pipeline. They are that worried about it. If we drill in Alaska, we are going to find new oil. We will also be able to utilize the production that is available there. And every drop of oil that we produce in this continent is oil that we don't have to worry about coming through the Straits of Hormuz. That is that narrow channel of water where the Iranian gunboats came out and harassed an American naval ship here a couple of months ago, where we are constantly watching a short-fused situation with very unstable countries, monitoring that particular dangerous part of the world. Having energy independence for this country is a very, very important part of national security, and we should open up Alaska so we can utilize in a very responsible way the petroleum resources that lie under that great State. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER. Well, I would say to my friend, I think he has made an excellent point. The way you bring down the price on any commodity is to increase the supply. And we have got a number of leaders in this House who have undertaken, if you look at their legislative record, undertaken a major campaign to stop the supply, to strangle the supply, to diminish the supply of petroleum production. And every time we take wells out of production or we don't produce, where we know we have known reserves, then we are handing part of our future to people in another part of the world who don't have America's best interests at heart.