Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate David Wayne Cooper of my district in San Diego for achieving his masters degree in business administration (MBA) from National University. David has fared some long and arduous tasks in life, but did not allow these challenges to stop his determination to overcome adversity and fulfill his life ambitions. David was born with cerebral palsy, which resulted in orthopedic and speech disabilities. These disabilities would affect many aspects of David's life, however, he persevered and graduated Clairemont High School at the age of 19. In 1998, David built upon this achievement by earning a bachelors degree in science with a concentration in Information Systems from San Diego State University (SDSU). During his academic pursuits, David worked as a computer programmer at the Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) in San Diego. At SAIC, David's duties included working on the County of San Diego information systems updates and maintenance contract. While working at SAIC, David was able to take advantage of their tuition reimbursement program, earning a graduate degree from National University in his spare time. On May 12, 2002, David walked across the state at the Convention Center in San Diego and received his MBA, the culmination of a solid work ethic, dedication, and triumph over adversity. David lives in his own home, drives his own car, and goes to work every day. He has worked tremendously hard and overcome great obstacles to reach his goals. Please join me in applauding the remarkable spirit, dedication, and work ethic of David Wayne Cooper. His efforts are a reminder of the power of the human spirit.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend a business, located in my district, for producing quality products for 100 years. Buck Knives of El Cajon, California, is a fourth generation family-owned and operated business. From making their first knives using worn-out file blades, Buck Knives has become arguably the most well-known, respected, and famous American-made knives in the world. In 1902, the first Buck knife was made by a young apprentice blacksmith from Kansas, Hoyt Buck. Making each knife by hand, Hoyt combined innovation with experience to produce a better tempered steel so it would hold a sharper edge longer. During World War II, Hoyt contributed to America's war effort by substantially increasing his output to ensure that our troops were adequately supplied. Following the war, Hoyt moved to San Diego where he, and his oldest son Al, formed H. H. Buck and Son in 1947. Hoyt passed away in 1949 and Al took over the company. H. H. Buck and Son had only been in business for two years when Al took the helm and led it through the next critical twelve years, eventually incorporating the business in 1961. Innovators since the beginning, Buck Knives has continued to develop trendsetting knives and processes. Beginning with a revolutionary new blade and continuing through today with new designs, this company has continued to set the standard in the knife industry. The family tradition continues today. Chuck Buck followed his father Al as president, serving until 1999 when he handed the reigns over to his son C.J., who is the current president and CEO. While Chuck stepped down as president, he still serves as an integral part of the family business as chairman of the board. With more and more companies choosing to relocate overseas for low- wage workers and tax breaks, Buck Knives remains in the United States and is an active partner and friend of the entire San Diego community. Buck Knives employs individuals with disabilities from the local Home of the Guiding Hands to work in their factory. They allow groups within the community, such as the Boy and Girl Scouts and local churches, to utilize their facility for meetings and activities. Additionally, Buck Knives donates products for nationwide fundraising events to police and firefighters, as well as the National Turkey Foundation, just to name a few. In their quest to make our community a better place, Buck Knives has been a perpetual advocate and friend. Given their longevity in the business and their trend setting designs, it is easy to understand why when you think of a knife, you think of a Buck knife. Mr. Speaker, please join me in congratulating Buck Knives in its centennial celebration.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, for the first time in 20 years, I find myself going back to San Diego with my friend and seatmate, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), who is very much interested in national security, as I am, and missing one of our most trusted advisors at the table. That has occurred because we have lost Ulysses S. Grant Sharp, one of our great admirals and one of our great military leaders. Mr. Speaker, his story is largely the military's story of this last century. He graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1927. He served before World War II on the battleship USS New Mexico, the transport the USS Sumner, the destroyers the USS Buchanan and the USS Winslow, the carrier the USS Saratoga and the cruiser the USS Richmond. After that, and during World War II, he was awarded two Silver Stars while commanding the USS Boyd for action at Wake Island in the Marianas, the Philippine Islands, Okinawa, Formosa and the Gilbert Islands. Admiral Sharp finished the war on the staff of Commander, Destroyer Force Pacific. He was a great warrior, Mr. Speaker. After he left his battlefield command after World War II, he could see Korea on the horizon and in that war he commanded the Destroyer Squadron FIVE. He served with the staff of Commander, Seventh Fleet as Fleet Planning Officer for the Inchon invasion. In 1951 he was assigned as Chief of Staff of Commander, Second Fleet. In 1953 he assumed command of the cruiser USS Macon, and following the command, he served as deputy for Commander in Chief Pacific Fleet. But it was during Vietnam, Mr. Speaker, in 1964, in which he was appointed by the President to become Commander in Chief Pacific; that is CINCPAC, a unified command of nearly 1 million Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force personnel in an 85-million-square-mile area and, at that point, the entire Vietnam theater that he really became a very major leader of American military forces in a very critical conflict. Uly Sharp was responsible at that point to the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff for the overall supervision of the United States combat operations in Vietnam and throughout the Pacific during the 4 years that followed. After that, Mr. Speaker, he came home and retired in San Diego and was a great member of our community. He wrote a book called ``Strategy for Defeat'', which I would commend to those who follow military affairs and who need to be reminded that the way we achieve peace in this world and the way we have achieved peace in this world is through military strength. Uly Sharp was really a model citizen, a model soldier citizen in the sense that he thought that when a military person retires, their next duty is to become involved in civic and political affairs, and Uly did that. He was one of my first advisors. Twenty years ago, when I was running for office and had no chance to win, and when my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) came along in 1990 and similarly had a very difficult race, Uly Sharp showed up and worked hard and tried to drag us across the finish line, and did so successfully. He was a wonderful guy who always had time for the community, was a leader of our military community in San Diego, as a 4-star admiral, a guy who brought everybody together and imparted advice to all of those who were willing to listen about military affairs. One of my best memories of Uly is going over on a Sunday afternoon with my dad to his house at Point Loma and listening to him as he laid out the wisdom of almost a full century of service in the United States military. Uly Sharp was a model, I think, for all Americans, not just people that wear the uniform, but especially for people that wear the uniform, because he believed that every citizen had a double obligation, and that was an obligation to serve the country in uniform, and he carried that out very proudly and very well, but also the obligation to be involved in civic and political affairs. He also carried that burden and that mantle very well. So, Mr. Speaker, it is a sad thing for me personally that I will never see Uly again, going back to San Diego and sitting down with folks who give me great advice on national security. I know the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) would say the same thing. Uly Sharp was a great American and really served our country well. God bless him.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious process, and this process did not start here. It started in the battlefield in Afghanistan and in the fleet and in the expeditionary marine units that are engaged in war in a remote part of the world right now on behalf of the United States. What happens is the battlefield commanders send to their headquarters the requirements for those things that they need. They let them know if they need ammunition. They let them know if they need battlefield wound dressings. They let them know if they need spare parts. They send those things up through their chain of command and it comes up through the services and it comes up through the Pentagon and it is worked over by the folks who head the services, and they send it to the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, and they review it, and then we produce for the people who wear the uniform of the United States the equipment that they need to win the war. Now, that is what they have done, and that is what this bill gives them. It gives them bombs and ordnance. It gives them these JDAM munitions which are very accurate. It gives them the Predator attack vehicles which have proved so successful on the battlefields. It gives the infantry ammunition, and they are low on ammunition right now. It gives them M-60 helicopters. It gives them what they need right down to those battlefield wound dressings. That is what we give them. Now, we have had a great discussion today and every Member has had an opportunity to get up, Democrat or Republican, and give us his general views on the war, on life, on Memorial Day, on how we best remember those people who have served our country. The best way we can celebrate this Memorial Day is very simple. Let us give to our military folks the wherewithal to win this war. That is what we are doing. It is apparent that in doing this, we are going to have to go through a blockade, and this blockade has been a legislative blockade that has been put out here today. Let us roll the blockade. Let us supply the troops. This bill supplies the troops. Let us vote it up.

Mr. HUNTER

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, what we do have is $15.7 billion for DOD. That is $1.7 billion over the President's request. If the gentleman is suggesting that supplemental appropriations bills that come to this floor should never be passed if they have anything extraneous, then he is suggesting something that is very unrealistic, and my recommendation is that if the gentleman looks through this, and we have got money, $7.2 billion for ongoing military operational costs, $4.3 billion for personnel costs, $500 million.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, the great author James Michener in his book ``The Bridges at Toko Ri'' described the scenario, when the hero in the book who had gone off to strike these very heavily protected bridges in North Korea and failed to return, he described the captain of the ship on that carrier contemplating the state of affairs of the United States Navy and the people who served there when that pilot failed to return, and he said, and I am paraphrasing, where does America get these people? These people that join the military at great inconvenience, great separation from their families, from their livelihoods; they put themselves in very dangerous and difficult positions for this country. If they are an aircraft carrier pilot, they end up flying off of this small aircraft carrier going off to bomb a heavily defended target thousands of miles away from the United States and then, after they have successfully completed that mission, if they return, they are trying to find that little postage stamp that is out there in the ocean and they try to make a landing on that very difficult night landing, perhaps. Then he concluded, when he asked himself where do we get these people, where does America get these people? They come from our villages, our cities, our towns; and as long as these wonderful people keep coming to protect our freedom, we are going to be a great Nation. A few months ago, we had solidarity. The Members of this Congress had solidarity with the people of our Armed Forces. It was something we had not seen since World War II. We were all together. We heard tremendous speeches from both the Democrat side and the Republican side, followed by legislative action. It was quick action, and the action resulted in the material and the tools that we need to get this job done flowing to the military very quickly. We helped our Commander in Chief because he is the guy on the point of the spear, the 5-star general. We gave him the tools to get the job done. We have to get him more tools. That means we are low on ammunition, we are low on materiel, we are low on monies it takes to repair our ships and aircraft. We have to move those tools to our fighting forces. Do Members know something about these great people? We all talk about them. We see them at the parades, at the military installations. Members come back from CODELS, Democrats and Republicans, and the one thing we all agree on is that it is remarkable about these wonderful people who protect our freedom. Do Members know something? They think that we are still going to act with the same solidarity and sense of purpose today that we had 8 months ago, because they are still acting with that same sense of solidarity and purpose. They are carrying out their mission. Those special operations teams at 10,000 feet elevation up in the elements, getting beaten up by the elements and sniped at by the al Qaeda, they are carrying out their mission. The people on the aircraft carriers knocking those big jets off the decks, they are carrying out their missions. The people in Korea just south of that line, which is loaded with massive artillery and rocket power, which could devastate them if the balloon goes up, they are carrying out their mission. We are not carrying out our mission. Our mission is to win this war. I know there are lots of things in this bill that particular Members do not like and do not agree with, but we have to regain our sense of mission and our sense of purpose. Let us regain that sense of mission and that sense of purpose, and let us bring back the solidarity that we had only a few months ago. Let us win this war.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention an issue that is extremely important to all of our constituents: private property rights. We have all heard from constituents in our districts who are frustrated with the process by which the federal government provides compensation to landowners for property it obtains through condemnation proceedings. While the federal agencies obtain land for a variety of reasons, the acquisition process often takes years to complete. Though legally the property owner may develop their property during this process, realistically they are discouraged from doing so. In essence, they are being held at the federal govenmnent's whim. It is for this reason that I have introduced The Prompt Compensation Act of 2002. Currently, the federal government has two available procedures for obtaining property. The first is ``straight condemnation,'' wherein a federal agency requests that the Justice Department file a ``complaint in compensation'' with a district court. It is the court's responsibility to ascertain the value of the land. Once the court has come to a decision, the federal government has the option of compensating the property owner with the adjudicated price or moving for dismissal. However, the landowner is compensated only if the federal government accepts the adjudicated price. While the federal government forfeits its interest in the property if they move for a dismissal, the property owner has been deprived of time, revenue, and in some cases, the overall value of their land. The second and more expeditious procedure is commonly referred to as ``quick take.'' In this procedure, the United States assumes title of the property immediately by simply filing a ``declaration of taking'' along with the complaint in condemnation and depositing with the court an amount of money equal to the estimated value of the land. Normal protocol is then followed with the court ascertaining the value of the property and the balance being issued to the landowner. The Prompt Compensation Act will ensure that private land holders are not held in limbo by the federal government during a land purchase. My bill will require the government to obtain land only through the ``quick take'' procedure. The Prompt Compensation Act will make a significant impact in curbing the abuses of the federal takings proceedings, while at the same time strengthening the private property rights of America's landowners. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to cosponsor this important legislation and take the power from the federal government and place it back in the hands of the private property owners.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just remind my colleagues that when we are considering this amendment and we consider all of the things that our military uses that are space-based right now, right from a marine platoon leader's GPS, it tells him where he is, to the recon satellites that we have to, yes, the cueing system that we are going to have to hopefully be able to intercept missiles before they impact our cities, I think we are going to come to the conclusion that the American people do not have too much tolerance for the argument that is being put forward. There are no people in space. There are people in those towers that got hit by those incoming planes. If we ask the American people would you accept a space-based system that might have protected the Twin Towers, they probably would say yes. We do not care if we are violating the Marquis of Queensbury rules by somehow using assets that are in space. So this is an argument that I think should be given short shrift by the American people. We are in space, other nations are in space, and the idea that we are going to take from General Kadish, who Democrats and Republicans trust and feel is a good steward of this program, the idea that we are going to take one of his options that he has laid out to test, we are going to move it off of the table because we want to impose our judgment in place of his judgment is not a good thing. We have given him this set of options. We have let him pick them. We are going to let him go through with the test. We have a robust testing schedule ahead of us. He is going to throw the losers out and reward the winners by trying to get something that can stop incoming ballistic missiles in the next 4 to 5 years. That is a good goal. We should leave this package that he has intact. Let us let him make some decisions and let us let General Kadish have some discretion. Please vote no on this.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to join the other members of the Committee and of the House in thanking the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his great service to our country, not only in the House of Representatives, but also as a 16-year-old kid who joined the U.S. Navy in World War II. That great ethic of service to the Nation has carried through, and the gentleman from Arizona (Chairman Stump) has put together a great bill which is essential to this country right now because we are in a war. I made a few comments during the rule that I think covered to some degree my work and the work of the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development and our contribution to the bill. Basically, we are working to try and put some money into some high- leverage areas. We have done a pretty good job along those lines. There is missiles and missile defense. That is the ability to stop missiles, from the slow-moving SCUDS, or the Model-Ts of the offensive missiles, all the way up to the fast ICBMs that can be thrown all the way across a great ocean at a nation. Our ability to stop those missiles right now does not exist except in the very low-performance area, and we are moving aggressively with a $7.9 billion program. The leader of that program, General Kadish, is, I think, acknowledged by Democrats and Republicans to be an extraordinary steward of this program. We have given him some very broad funding categories in missile defense; and we have told him to go out and test this stuff, test it in very difficult situations, put a lot of stress on the systems, and throw out the losers and promote the winners. That means to spend money where it is going to be effective for American security. So we have given General Kadish a great deal of discretion. I think it is discretion well placed. We have kept that budget very well funded. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, we have put money in a couple of vulnerable areas. We have put money in the area that has been a real concern to the United States, and that is our ability to defend our ships against increasing performance of antiship missiles that potential adversaries are developing around the world. We have also put some money, some additional dollars, into our mine- clearing and mine-detection capability, a very important area for us because now we are moving from the deep ocean Navy and deep ocean conflict scenarios into the so-called littorals, right up against the shore where minefields are going to play an increasing role. So we have put money there. Also we see some potential adversaries building now these new submarine classes, mainly diesel subs, but subs that are very quiet that can hold choke points that can cause us severe problems in strategic areas of the world and where our ability to detect those submarines is critical. So we have put more money in research and development against those areas. Our members participated fully, Mr. Chairman; and I think we have put together a good package. I want to again thank the chairman of the full committee for this opportunity.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to do 2 things. The first is to mention, and I neglected to mention in my opening statement, that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has been my partner on the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the Committee on Armed Services, and has done a wonderful job and has helped us to walk this bill through the subcommittee mark and the full floor mark, and I really appreciate his great work on this bill. I also wanted to talk for just a minute about an area that I think is pretty important to all of us from an environmental standpoint and also from a security standpoint, and that is our reserve fleet of ships, many of which are in very bad condition, which presently are at anchor in the James River, and our great colleague, Herb Bateman, worked on this issue for many years, the idea of trying to take care of these ships in an environmentally responsible way. It requires a lot of money. It usually requires about $2.5 million per ship if you are going to scrap the ships in an American yard. You can give them to a foreign entity, but you are not really guaranteed that that entity is not just going to take the ships out and dump them, complete with PCBs and oil and other materials in the ocean, thereby creating another environmental problem. So we have come up, in working with a working group that is headed by the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis), very much a part of her creation, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) who has a nearby district and also the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock) who has a near district, we have come up with an idea of how to make some lemonade out of these lemons, and that is to use these ships in the States where reefs are required and would, in fact, be a benefit to those shorelines. Now, today reefs are used by a number of States to not only protect shorelines from erosion, but also to provide great opportunities for fishing enthusiasts and also for scuba divers and lots of other folks who are interested in recreation. So we have in our bill, originally in the mark in our maritime panel mark, and now in the full bill, a provision that will send some money to the States as grants from the MARAD administrator so that they can pay for towing, cleaning up and ultimately sinking these ships as reefs in these States that would like to have this new asset along their shorelines. So I want to thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) for her great work on this and also her colleagues that she has brought into this process, including the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), who have a real interest, because they have the surrounding districts. We have already hooked up with some of the sport fishing associations, and we are going to move forward with this working group and take direction from the Members of Congress led by the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) who have a real interest in this issue because it is in their districts. We are going to move forward with this working group and I think we can find a home for these ships in such a way that we not only take them off our hands and eliminate this prospect of the ships sinking in the James River and the pollution that would attend that. We can not only take those ships out of inventory, but we can also provide an asset for the States that want to have this new shoreline presence of reefs that we can provide by sinking these ships. So this could be a winner for everybody, and I look forward to working with the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) on this issue.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon) for yielding me the time, and I thank him for his leadership in this area. We have moved from the era of confrontation with the former Soviet Union to what I would call the era of engagement, and the engagement needs to be pursued in a number of areas. A couple of areas that are very important to this Member, and I know a lot of others, is the idea of disposal of weapons-grade materials, making sure that all of the ideas of stockpile security that we adhere to are adhered to also in the former Soviet Union. Also, the idea of making sure that the genius of the scientists' population in the former Soviet Union that put together that massive weapons complex in the weapons that they produced, to make sure that that genius does not migrate to nations that at some point may be adversaries to the United States is of utmost concern to us, and I think that this amendment makes good sense, and the engagement that it promotes is going to serve those ends. I thank the gentleman and commend him for his leadership and everyone on both sides of the aisle who worked on the amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the distinguished gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we are in this amendment proposing to kill what could be the centerpiece of a certain deterrent capability that is important to us. We want to send a message to anybody who would strike America, whether on a conventional battlefield or in a terrorist manner, we want them to know that we will hunt them down and find them and, if necessary, dig them out, wherever we have to. That means no safe havens. One way you ensure that there are no safe havens is to be able to go deep. Unless we do a lot more research and development and we find some quantum breakthrough in conventional systems, to go deep is going to require a nuclear capability. That is a good message to send to people who would hurt this country, because if you look at the array of fixtures that are going to be buried by potential adversaries, you see several things. You see their command and control; you see their development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; and, most importantly, you see the people themselves who ordered the strike on the United States. That is where leadership goes. Leadership, in terms of our potential adversaries, will go deep. They will go as far underground as they possibly can go. They need to know there is no safe haven. That requires that we vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that there has been a policy among a number of nations in the Western democracies, including our allies, that would respond to chemical or biological attack with nuclear systems. We have never foreclosed that.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon). (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, this is a three-sentence amendment. When it takes a colloquy to explain what a three-sentence amendment means, we know we are in trouble. This amendment, as it is written, would freeze our present programs with respect to testing missile defense. Please vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues, we are in space. We are in space in a way that is inextricably linked with not only our missile defense system but almost all of our systems. If we take a look at the architecture for our space systems, we have in space literally everything from weather and the environment, to navigation, to surveillance and reconnaissance, to missile warning, to communications. The successful intercepts that we have made now out of the Kwajalein Test Range took place 148 miles above the surface of the Earth. I want to read the amendment of my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney): ``No funds appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the Department of Defense may be used for a space-based national missile defense program.'' Now, in the first place, we simply have a missile defense program, not a national missile versus a theater missile defense program, because we are now dealing with a number of missiles which have varying rates of speed and distances. For example, we have the old Model T scud that goes fairly slowly, several hundred miles, all the way up to the fast-moving ICBM that will go several times the speed of a high-powered rifle bullet when it reenters the atmosphere aimed at an American city. So we are putting in place an architecture which is layered, which will give us, hopefully, several shots at these missiles as they progress toward either our troops in theater or the United States of America and our cities. We have to have space assets to be able to intercept those incoming missiles. Now, one thing we have seen in this debate today is what I would call the new imposition of Marquis of Queensbury rules on our side. We just had an amendment in which the other people may drive an airplane into an American tower and destroy thousands of American civilians, but it is against the rules for us to go after their leadership if they are buried deep underground and we use a nuclear penetrator. That is not Marquis of Queensbury rules. And no matter what the other side does, we must play by the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Well, we are already in space. It does not make any sense to have a very broadly worded amendment that, if we take it literally, would ban the very systems that we are testing right now. There is another aspect of this, and that is this: we had the predator over in Afghanistan, and the predator is our unmanned aircraft. And from that aircraft we take certain recon capability, certain sensors, and we target the enemy. And then we use another platform, whether it is from a ship or a plane or a land-based unit, to hit that enemy that was targeted by the predator. And our war-fighting commanders, who were trying to win the war over there, with as few Americans as possible being killed, said this: They said, maybe we should just use that airborne unit up there. Instead of just using that for information and relaying that information to the ground, why do we not just put a hell fire missile on that particular UAV and go ahead and strike the enemy with the UAV? In other words, let us use this recon unit for both a reconnaissance and for the attack shot. So we are becoming more efficient in the way we use technology. So the idea that we have to play by some obscure Marquis of Queensbury rules that says we cannot use space to stop a missile that may be incoming to an American city does not make any sense. So I would just urge all Members to vote against this amendment. This is a dangerous amendment. If taken literally, it freezes our present programs in place. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Taylor of Mississippi

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. The problem here is we are not dealing with the amendment as the gentleman from Massachusetts would rewrite it. We are dealing with the amendment as it is written, because that is the amendment that is going to be dealt with by DOD lawyers. It says, ``No funds appropriated for fiscal year 2003 for the Department of Defense may be used for a space- based national defense missile program.'' The point is we have to deal with the law as it is written, not as he would rewrite it. If he is going to rewrite it, I would recommend he come back next year with another text. This thing would basically put a freeze on the programs that we have right now.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, until it is amended.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, is it in order for me to offer the substitute at this time?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as a substitute for the amendment.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time. I think it is clear now that as we enter this new century that we entered with such great optimism a few months ago that this century is going to be as dangerous as the last one in which we lost 619,000 Americans killed in battlefields around the world. Going into this new century, it is more important than ever that we develop what I would call broad military capability. And that means that we, and I think Democrats and Republicans on the Committee on Armed Services understood and marked up a bill, that toward those ends that we must have the ability to deter and, if necessary, to fight a number of different types of conflicts. That means that we have to be able to stop a conventional armored attack like the one that was launched by Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War. We have to be able to handle a guerilla warfare operation. Obviously we have to be able to handle a terrorist and to deal a blow to those who would strike us on our homeland. We have to stop this new threat, this emerging threat of incoming ballistic missiles, the first of which killed our troops in the Gulf War almost a decade ago, in fact, more than a decade ago. So we have to have broad military capability. We cannot have a specialty military like a lot of our allies have. That means we have to spend money. I think, frankly, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Procurement of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), did correctly state that we are behind the curve in terms of modernization. If we replaced all the tanks, trucks, ships and planes on a steady-state basis that are now aging, we would be spending an additional $30 billion a year on national security. We have turned the corner. We have made the down payment. We are expensing about $71.8 billion this year, although we have a baseline of about 90 that we should be achieving. Now we should also perhaps be spending a little bit more money on missile defense, in my estimation. But we do have a pretty good tranche of money in there. We have a good guy, General Kadish, who is working this program, who will be accountable to this Congress, who is going to throw out the losers and he will award the winners in missile defense, those systems that work. And so we are on a pretty good track there. Lastly, we do some good stuff for our people, and our people in this ongoing war, this conflict we are fighting right now, have proven to be, as usual, our greatest assets. We have the 4.1 percent pay raise. We have more targeted to certain areas where we need a little more help, but all in all we do a pretty good job for our people. So people, modernization, the ability to defend against incoming ballistic missiles, and some good money on some new technology in the future with R&D is in this package. Please support this package. It is the right thing. And every Member should remember as we vote this bill today, we are in a war right now. We need to get the tools that our military needs, that the President needs to carry out this mission. Please vote this bill up, vote the rule and vote the bill.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I just wanted to follow the minority leader's comments with the observation that we are in a war right now. We have people on the battlefield whose survival depends on good training. At many of our training bases around the United States, the environmental encroachments have become so strong that today at Camp Pendleton you can only use about a third of the training ground that is available. You have to build foxholes only where you have tape that has been laid out in an environmentally-sensitive manner. The Marines that replicate the Iwo Jima-type assault on the beaches have to dismount from the landing craft and get in buses and be bused up to an environmentally-acceptable point to where they can commence their assault to practice to give their lives to this country. Go to bases like Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, where only one plane at a time can train on the training field, which is like having one football player on the team be allowed out on the field at the same time. These are reasonable positions that we have taken, reasonable restrictions on the environmental laws to help our people stay alive on the battlefield.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there is no plan, no funding, no blueprint to use nuclear-tipped interceptors. In fact, we do not have them. We used to, and we disassembled them. But the Soviet Union, now Russia, does indeed have them; and we are doing precisely, if we vote for this motion to recommit, precisely what the Gipper did not want us to do, and that is for Congress to take all the chips off the table when the President has an opportunity to maybe negotiate down or negotiate out that nuclear-tipped Galosh force that Russia maintains around Moscow right now. So let us win one for the Gipper; let us not vote for this motion to recommit. Let me just say one other thing to my Democrat friends. I was all set for a motion to recommit on base closing. What happened to that motion to recommit? I thought that would be what they would offer up here. I would recommend to us that we kind of keep our eye on the ball. The ball is, we are providing in this bill for the Armed Forces of the United States of America. This bill has been the product of literally thousands of hours put in by Members on both sides of the aisle, by the staff. I do not know how the rest of the Members feel, but the last 8 months, I have felt a little bit like it must have been after Pearl Harbor. We were hit by a sneak attack in this country. It killed thousands of our citizens. We came together, and a wave of patriotism and spirit moved across this country. We stood behind our military people. We sent our uniformed forces out to hunt down the enemy and engage them in combat. They have been doing that very, very effectively. I think it is entirely appropriate that we name this bill in honor of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), because he is one of those World War II veterans who joined at the age of 16. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) mentioned to me that it might be a good time to mention the other World War II veterans, because we do not have a lot of them. They are a great asset to this Congress. I would just ask, if they are here tonight, if they can stand: the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). If we have missed anyone, please stand up. Let us give them a round of applause. And the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger). Now, Mr. Speaker, we have come together. We have put in thousands of hours with staff and Members. We have put together a great bill that does what we are supposed to do, and that is, we have given the President and our troops the tools that they need to do the job. They are doing their duty, and 1.2 million Americans in uniform across the world are doing their duty to serve this country. Let us do our duty. Let us pass this bill.