Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, that was a good decision, I might say to the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just remind my colleague who just spoke that there are a couple of things that General Kadish did agree on with respect to the test. First, the intercept was made. The interceptor missile, traveling three times the speed of a high-powered rifle bullet, fired from Kwajalein Island did intercept a target missile coming from Vandenburg that also was going three times the speed of a high-powered rifle bullet. Literally, a bullet hit a bullet 138 miles above the earth in the mid-Pacific. That is a fact. It is true that we monitored this test with a lot of technology, that it is an in-depth test. There is a lot of analysis going on right now, and we are going to see how much information we harvest from this. But I would just tell my friend that I went on record before this test happened saying that I was going to support the continued funding of this program, whether it succeeded or failed, because I believe that this is an important national priority. That is my position. But, nonetheless, if the gentleman looks at the enormity of American effort that went into this test, over 35,000 people in the uniformed services and out participating; and if this was a space shot, if this was an exploratory shot into space involving the Challenger or some other aspect of what I would call domestic space exploration, this test would have been given great publicity and great kudos by the media and the United States. I would remind my colleagues, these folks in the uniformed services who work on missile defense work just as hard, put in just as many hours and are just as ingenious as the folks that work on domestic space exploration. I thought it was absolutely fitting, and I still do, to give them recognition. We have made it very clear. We say that there are going to be lots of failures as well as successes, and we understand that. This is not an attempt to change the ABM Treaty. It is an attempt to acknowledge the American genius that played itself out on Saturday night. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would say that all Americans remember the fact that some 19 Americans were killed in Desert Storm by ballistic missiles. Those Americans who were killed by those incoming Scuds were not killed by tanks, they were not killed by machine gun fire, they were not killed by fighter attack aircraft, they were killed by ballistic missiles. Those Scud missiles were going faster than a bullet, and we threw up some Patriot missiles, defending against those incoming Scuds. We got some, we missed some. There is a discrepancy as to how many we got and how many we missed. But at the end, when the smoke cleared, 19 Americans were dead and some 500 were wounded. We have troops around the world, and at some point, and I think we have reached that point, we have to acknowledge that we are squarely in the age of missiles. Missiles will kill Americans in the future, I think we can predict that, unless we build defenses. The idea that unless we build a perfect defense, we do not have any defense, does not make any sense. Certainly some of those young people who were in Saudi Arabia who were the targets of those Scud missile attacks did come home alive because some of those Patriot missiles that we had defending against the attacks did hit their targets, and some of those Scuds were knocked out of the sky before they could kill Americans. We have slow missiles, the Scuds; we have medium-speed missiles, the missiles like the SS-20s; and we have very high-speed missiles, like the Minuteman missiles like the target we shot at over the Pacific. It is very clear these tests are going to get tougher. They have to get tougher to replicate what we think will be operational conditions. We are going to have lots of misses in the future. But for us to not pursue this capability to defend our troops and our people in American cities would be disregarding our obligation as a Congress of the United States to preserve national security. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, to conclude this debate, we are saying to the men and women of the Armed Services, to the men and women of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, and all those folks in big and small businesses, the 35,000 people that made this test a success, good work. It was a job well done. Now let us roll up our sleeves and go on to the next challenge. General Leave

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) mentioned a golf course. The Republicans did beat the Democrats in the annual golf tournament yesterday, with the leadership of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). I know he will be interested in that.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on behalf of H. Res. 160, a bill that I have cosponsored which calls on the Chinese government to immediately and unconditionally release from prison Dr. Li Shaomin and all other American scholars of Chinese ancestry. As you know, in recent months we have seen the shocking arrest of United States citizens and permanent residents by the People's Republic of China (PRC). These prisoners represent some of the best and brightest of the U.S. academic and business communities, and they have been falsely and tragically charged with committing crimes of espionage and violation of ``state secrets'' laws while traveling in China. In most cases, these prisoners have been held for long periods of time without formal charges filed against them, without the ability to meet with their attorneys, and without communication with their families and loved ones. Although the Chinese government has said that many of these individuals have confessed to their crimes, our own State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Abuses contains condemning data showing the PRC routinely denies prisoners basic due process rights, and regularly extracts confessions by coercion. As we know, this behavior by the Chinese is nothing new. We remember the brutal way that their government suppressed a movement toward free speech in Tiananmen Square a decade ago, and we have seen no redeeming conduct since that time that would lead us to believe that they intend to change their ways. It was just several weeks ago that an American military aircraft was shot down while flying in international waters, and the service members aboard held hostage while the Chinese government attempted to force an apology by the United States. To this date, we still have been unable to retrieve our own aircraft from their country. This unending succession of events is being watched on the world stage by nations that the PRC would do well to please in order to secure their place in the world economy. However, China neither feels contrite regarding their actions, nor do they exhibit acceptable efforts to improve their lot with democratic countries. Unfortunately, the United States consistently regards them for their provocative and brutal actions by extending to them a privileged trade status ideally afforded friendly and democratic nations. Madam Speaker, this legislation's passage would send a strong signal to the Chinese government that their actions are barbaric and unacceptable. When confronted with situations that threaten American citizens abroad, it is absolutely necessary to speak in a united front. We should also refuse to award them with the riches gleaned from an unbalanced trading relationship that comes at the expense of American jobs and national security.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, June 20, 2001, marks the 100-year anniversary of water coming to the Imperial Valley. For my colleagues who are not familiar with the desert portion of my district, it lies in the southeast corner of California, along the U.S. international border with Mexico. Fertile land, and the hardworking farmers of the Imperial Valley, are responsible for many of the fruits and vegetables that our country enjoys throughout the year. As with any desert region, having water is of paramount concerns and the creation of the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) was an instrumental part of allowing the Imperial Valley to survive. I wanted to take this time to recognize their efforts and accomplishments. Pioneers began to settle in the Imperial Valley in the 1890s. At that time, the California Development Company (CDC) was responsible for making water available to the new settlers. Men such as Charles Rockwood, Perry Paulin, and Anthony Heber obtained the financial backing necessary to conjoin the waters of the Colorado River with the Colorado Desert. Their plan was to construct a headworks on the river just below Yuma, Arizona, that would connect to a 54-mile-long canal. Water would be delivered by force of gravity to its destination in what was variously called the ``New River Country'', or the ``Imperial Settlement'' and finally, the ``Imperial Valley.'' It was not until 1900, when George Chaffey became associated with the CDC, that work began in earnest on the canal-building project that started at Pilot Knob, extended into and out of Mexico, and eventually found its way to Cameron Lake, later to become known as Calexico, California. Chaffey struck a deal with Rockwood and the other officers of the corporation to finish With the means to deliver water from the Colorado now in place on both sides of the border, the settlers of Imperial County were ready to welcome easier times. Unfortunately, the flood years of 1905-1907 created a difficult situation when the swollen Colorado River suddenly changed course, sweeping away the original headworks at Hanlon Heading and sending its entire flow not to the Gulf of Mexico, but to the Imperial Valley. A disaster for CDC resulted. Only the intervention of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which had its own investment to protect in the Valley's continued reclamation and settlement, staved off the inevitable collapse of the CDC, and with it the hopes and dreams of several thousand new settlers. The dilemma facing the railroad was whether or not to abandon its existing lines in the Imperial and Mexicali Valleys, which were now under water, and build new ones, or to throw its considerable resources into stopping the break, saving both valleys. Southern Pacific Railroad executives opted for the latter choice, spending a total of $6 million over the next two years to close the break. As the company's largest stockholder, the railroad was forced to assume day-to-day management of the CDC during the midst of the flood years. To the approximately 3,000 settlers who had come to the Imperial Valley this meant that the company responsible for bringing water to their burgeoning communities and distributing it to the mutual water companies and their farms was no more. Southern Pacific Railroad, however, was reluctant to be in the Imperial Valley irrigation and land business and made the decision to cut its losses before it acquired any new ones. A group of disgruntled local investors had the same idea and called for the dissolution of the CDC and the sale of its remaining assets. It was against this backdrop of natural and man-made disasters that the first settlers of the Imperial Valley took a series of affirmative steps to ensure the future of their community. The first step was a vote in August, 1907, designating El Centro, with its 41 registered voters, as the county seat over Imperial, the Valley's oldest and most populous community with 500 registered voters and one-third of the total electorate. There were five towns in the Valley then: Imperial, Calexico, Brawley, Holtville and El Centro, the first three having been developed by a syndicate of Los Angeles investors and the latter two by Mr. W.F. Holt, who underwrote much of the Valley's early growth and development. The Imperial Valley was now its own county and El Centro its geographic and governmental center. The first Board of Supervisors was elected on that same August day in 1907, as was the very first district attorney, Mr. Phil Swing, and the county's first sheriff, Mr. Mobley Meadows. Duly constituted as an official body by the state, the young county was ready to begin addressing its most pressing concern: What to do about the water situation, so closely tied to the future of the Imperial Valley? For a time, the federal government appeared to offer a solution. Responding to pressure from the Southern California delegation, Congress appropriated $1 million in 1910 to construct new gates and levees near the site of the former break. An unexpected surge in the river, however, washed away eight months of work and killed one of the workers. Despite opposition from the mutual water companies, county officials began to circulate the idea of forming an irrigation district that would be owned by the people through the California Irrigation District Act. The legal analysis was furnished by Mr. Phil Swing, the newly- elected and politically astute D.A., who would later serve in Congress. He became the motivating force behind the Boulder Canyon Project. Swing argued that private ownership had been tried and failed, the federal government could not be counted on to fill the void left by the railroad and the mutual water companies could not be trusted to represent the people's best interests. According to Swing, what the Imperial Valley needed was an irrigation system owned by the people it was meant to serve, a public agency with municipal powers similar to a city, but one that was also autonomous from county government. The call for local control had immediate appeal in an Imperial Valley still recovering from the flood years and captured the populist mood of the voters. An election was held on July 14, 1911, and the vote in favor of establishing the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) was passed 1,304- 360. Members of the IID's first board included Mr. Porter Ferguson, a Holtville farmer; Mr. Fritz Kloke, a farmer and banker in the Calexico area; Mr. W.O. Hamilton, an El Centro farmer and merchant; Mr. H.L. Peck, an Imperial farmer and merchant; and Mr. Earl Pound of Brawley, a farmer and real estate broker. At its first meeting on July 25, 1911, Porter Ferguson was named president of the board, and members were asked to contribute $150 toward the good of the cause, with the $750 going to help defray ongoing expenses. Their cause was self-determination, which most people believed could only be realized through the eventual purchase of the water distribution system already in place, including the 52 miles of canals owned and operated by the Compania de Terrenos y Aguas de la Baja California, a Mexican subsidiary of the CDC. Both companies and their assets were tied up in the courts, but the ITD intended to acquire these properties out of receivership. In the meantime, it would have to generate the capital needed to implement its ambitious acquisition plan. By 1912, with the Mexican Revolution going on just across the border in Mexicali, an opportunity was presented for an open discussion regarding the need for an ``All American Canal,'' the first recorded reference to the massive project that would be completed, along with Hoover Dam, some 30 years later. At the same time, the IID was negotiating directly with the railroad and with the American and Mexican receivers in an effort to purchase the assets of the CDC, which it did in 1915 for the price of $3 million. A bond issue for $3.5 million was passed later that year and condemnation of the defunct company was initiated by the IID. Both actions were popular with the people, if not with the mutual water companies, but individual board members did not enjoy Finally, the entire board of directors resigned as a body and the County Board of Supervisors had to appoint five new IID directors, naming Mr. Leroy Holt as president in 1916. It was this Holt-led board, serving during those first tumultuous years of 1912-1916, that skillfully pursued the acquisition of the CDC's existing waterworks and placed it in the hands of the people. The IID purchased the last of the ``mutuals'' in 1922. It was during this period that the East Highline was built, along with the Westside Main Canal and other important features of the canal network that are still in service today. The IID's first four years in existence were a chronology of great accomplishments, coupled with competitive politics. Its real achievement, however, was delivering to the people of the Imperial Valley some measure of certainty in the future and, with it, a reason for optimism. With the flood years and the period of receivership behind it, the IID, on behalf of the people, picked up where the CDC left off. There was only one difference, the IID never stopped. Thank you Imperial Irrigation District for your years of dedicated service, for saving the Imperial Valley and for all that you continue to do for the citizens of Imperial County.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would take the well and talk a little bit about the hearing that we held today in the Subcommittee on Military Research and Development of the House Committee on Armed Services concerning the issue of missile defense. What we did today, Democrats and Republicans, is talk to General Kadish, who heads the missile defense program for this administration, for this Nation; and we talked specifically about tests: where are we, what have we done, what works, what does not work, and where do we need to go. One thing that General Kadish led with, which I thought was very important for Americans to understand, is that we have made progress and that we have accomplished some very important things for America. The first one goes back to the killing of 28 Americans in the Desert Storm operation when Iraqi scud missiles, which are ballistic missiles, they go about 50 percent faster than a 30.06 bullet, came in and hit a concentration of American troops, resulting in 28 deaths. We fired back as much as we could with the then Patriot missile system. At the end of that conflict, we had MIT come in and analyze whether or not we had gotten any of those missiles. One of the experts from MIT said he did not think we got any. The Army said they thought we got about 80 percent, they were not sure, but that we did have some problems. Well, since that time, since the early 1990s, during Desert Storm, we have developed a missile defense system, now called PAC-3, the Patriot 3 missile defense system, which can shoot down on a regular basis, on a consistent basis, on a reliable basis, those incoming scud ballistic missiles. We have now had eight tests, and every one of those eight tests has intercepted. I hear a lot of folks talking about whether or not we can hit a bullet with a bullet, because it sounds so impossible. Well, a bullet from one of our Capitol Hill policemen, a 38 bullet, for example, goes about 1,200, 1,400 feet per second. A scud missile goes maybe 7,000 feet per second. That is a scud ballistic missile. So it goes as much as four to five times as fast as some bullets. And even if we take a very high velocity bullet, a big-game rifle or a rifle that one would use on the battlefield, like a 30.06 that goes about 3,000 feet per second, a scud missile even goes about twice as fast as that bullet. And the Patriot missile system that we fire at that thing, goes in excess of 4,000 feet per second. So both the target missile, that is the ballistic missile, and the missile that we shoot up to knock it down, go faster than a bullet. And eight times in our tests, we have successfully hit a bullet with a bullet. What does that mean. Well, it means to Americans who are thinking, as they sit around the breakfast table with their family and child who may join the armed services and be stationed in the Middle East or on the Korean peninsula, it means that this country, in response to the missile threat, working as hard as it can in developing technology as quickly as possible, has developed a defense, at least against these scud missiles that are being proliferated around the world, which we are apt to see in a conflict in the near future. It means when you have a base camp with a Marine expeditionary unit filled with 19- and 20-year-old kids from all of the farms and cities of this country or a part of the 101st Air Mobile Brigade out of Fort Campbell, Kentucky or an Air Force unit stationed somewhere enforcing the no-fly zone, it means if our adversaries launch a ballistic missile, that is a pretty slow ballistic missile as they go, but still as fast as a bullet, if they launch a scud missile attack at that contingent, our PAC-3, our Patriot 3 system which we are now in the business of fielding, we have tested it, would be able to handle that attack and allow our young men and women to come home alive. So we established that. Now, General Kadish, having established that, showed the members of the Committee on Armed Services the footage of a number of tests that we have made. He said, We have missed some; and we have hit some. He laid out a program that we need to undertake in the next 5-10 years to develop a capability that is better and better. We are moving ahead. We are going to have robust testing. We are going to defend America.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a good friend from the San Diego area, Mr. Irv Refkin. Irv will be celebrating his 80th birthday next month and I wanted to take this time to say congratulations. Irv has lived in Coronado for 20 years and has always been a great supporter of the San Diego community and all its causes. He has never been afraid to speak his mind and when you ask his opinion, you better be prepared to get it. For five decades, Irv has been involved with the U.S. Navy and several aspects of shipbuilding and repair. Since 1976, Irv has been President of Pacific Defense Systems, a very important ship repair company in National City, California, where he is responsible for all operations. Throughout his service, I can always count on Irv to come up with innovative ideas that help the little guys. I enjoy working and knowing Irv. He is a world traveler, having just returned from a trip to South Africa, Rome and Madrid, knows how to enjoy fine dining, and is a tremendous asset to the San Diego community. Happy 80th birthday Irv.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this time to talk about a great loss to San Diego, a great loss to journalism and a great loss to our Nation, and that is the untimely passing of Steve Green of Copley Press. Steve had a long career in journalism. He worked as a reporter for the old Washington Star. He used to get the scoop on his better- financed opposition and adversaries in the Washington Post. He later went on to the Washington Post and worked for them during the Watergate period and was the kind of guy who really knew how to get a scoop, how to follow a story until he got everything out of that story. He later went to work for Copley Press and was ultimately the bureau chief in the Washington Bureau of Copley Press, and it was there that I and the other members of the San Diego delegation and lot of other folks in politics in Washington, D.C. got to know Steve. The reason I am talking about Steve today is because I think that Steve Green represented the very best of one of the most important aspects of this democracy, and that is journalism. Steve was a guy who was in the middle, in the heart of a lot of the very fundamental, earthshaking events in the last 34 years in Washington, D.C., and he was in the middle of the Watergate scandal. He covered a lot of national stories that had a great deal of importance to this country and to this town. After he left the position of bureau chief for Copley, he went on to become the editor who covered the Pentagon and the United States military, a very, very important issue, especially for those of us from San Diego. Throughout this stint of covering very important issues, issues which often revealed the sordid side of politics, like the bribery scandals and, to some degree, the Watergate scandal, Steve Green was a real person, was a real human being. He was a guy who had a great sense of humor, a great sense of evenness, a great sense of decency. And those people, people with good hearts, are very important to this democracy, especially in a position in the center of journalism in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I got to know Steve when he was covering the San Diego congressional delegation, and you noticed in Steve's stories, Steve was a guy who got all the details. You could not pull the wool over his eyes. He knew what was going on, and he always kind of knew the story behind the story. He also wrote those stories in a way that was very even, very fair- handed, without an agenda, and I think with a little sense of humor also, and with a sense of civility. With this entire city searching for civility and, of course, the President asking for it and using that as a trademark for this new administration, it is guys like Steve Green in Copley Press who really manifest that civility, because they do it in writing evenhanded stories and portraying to the great public out there what is really happening in Washington, D.C. While sometimes there are sordid sides and bad sides for the story and stories that reveal some of the darker parts of human nature, he also liked to write a story that would reveal the better sides of human nature and justice and triumph in the end and the good things about America. To be able to cover this period in which a lot of journalists turn to cynicism when looking at Washington, D.C. and this great Capitol, this people's House, to remember Steve Green sitting here in the Speaker's lobby with his pencil and his paper out taking an interview after a vote on the floor or after something happened, and doing it in his evenhanded manner, his optimistic manner, always looking for the good aspect of the story was something that was very important to myself and to the other Members of the congressional delegation. So Steve passed away, Mr. Speaker. He leaves a great legacy for Copley Press and for anybody who wants to be a journalist and cover the great national theater of action which is in Washington, D.C. with the Congress and the President and all of the aspects of a new administration like the one that is in place right now. In fact, Alison, his daughter, sent me a few notes on Steve's life the other night, and I could tell from her conversation that she is kind of a chip off the old block. But he leaves Ginny. His widow is a wonderful lady. We all wish all the best to Steve's family.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has stated to the world that he is going to embark on a program to defend the American people from incoming ballistic missiles. This position, this statement, has started the machinery of dissent throughout the United States, and indeed, in some of the forums of government in adversarial states and in some of our allied states, with some of our friends around the world. Mr. Speaker, today it is against the law for the United States of America to defend itself from incoming ballistic missiles. It is against the treaty known as the ABM treaty. That treaty has the force of law in this country. That means that if Russia, for example, should launch a ballistic missile to the United States, we have agreed, we have promised in a treaty, not to try to destroy that missile but to let it land in the United States and destroy millions of Americans, presumably, if it hits in a major city, or if it hits in a military installation, destroy thousands of American uniformed service personnel. Now, we made this agreement with Russia, which seems like a stupid agreement, I think, to most people looking at it intuitively for the first time, we made this agreement with Russia when they had an extremely large nuclear arsenal and we had an extremely large nuclear arsenal. We thought that the best way to prevent a war from starting was to say that neither one of us would protect ourselves. So if they threw the first the first rock, we could not stop that rock, but we could respond with an overwhelming fusillade of rocks ourselves, that is, nuclear weapons, and both nations would be totally destroyed by these nuclear explosions. This doctrine was called the doctrine of MAD, mutually assured destruction. Because of that, we adhered to our treaty not to ever build a defense against an incoming nuclear weapon. Now, President Reagan did not like that. He said the best way to defend this country is to truly defend it, not simply to wreak vengeance on someone who throws that first nuclear weapon. The way to be most humane and not to destroy cities and not to kill millions of people is to have a shield, to have a shield or a protection against that incoming ballistic missile. That was some 17 years ago, Mr. Speaker. Today President Bush renewed that idea and that philosophy, and said it will soon be manifested in an American missile defense program. Now, even for those people who thought that MAD, mutually assured destruction, was a good treaty to have between the United States and Russia, then the Soviet Union, it does not apply anymore. The reason it does not apply anymore is because there are now lots of countries that never signed any treaty with the United States who now are developing missiles with the capability of carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical warheads into the United States. For example, China never signed that treaty. They are building ballistic missiles right now and aiming them at American cities and telling us, it is your obligation not to defend yourselves. North Korea now has recently tested a missile which, if we extrapolated its flight, would have enough stretch, enough distance to get to the United States, or at least parts of the United States. Iraq and Iran are now testing missiles with increasing capabilities. They never signed any ABM treaty or agreement not to defend themselves, or for the United States not to defend itself against incoming missiles. They never signed the ABM treaty. North Korea did not sign the treaty. China did not sign the treaty. As time goes on, we are going to see that this is the age of missiles. More and more nations are building those missiles. To some degree, we are like this country was in the 1920s when General Billy Mitchell came back to the Coolidge administration and said, ``You know something, we live in an age of air power. We had better start building airplanes, because lots of other people, including potential adversaries, are building airplanes. If we do not build airplanes, if we do not get into the aerospace age, we are going to lose a lot of Americans dead on the battlefield of the next war.'' We did not pay too much attention to Billy Mitchell. In fact, we court-martialed him for saying the Nation was unready for war. In fact, we were moving into the aerospace age. Although we lagged with our industrial base, we were able to catch up. It was because of American aerospace dominance in World War II that we were able to prevail in that war. Ever since then, our country has dominated the skies with respect to aircraft. By the same token, Mr. Speaker, we live today in an age of missiles. In fact, it was in the Desert Storm operation that we saw for the first time Americans killed by ballistic missiles; slow missiles, but ballistic missiles. For that reason, President Bush, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely right on to launch this program that will defend uniformed American servicemen and our citizens against incoming ballistic missiles. The American people should get behind it.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Merchant Marine Panel of the House Armed Services Committee, I rise today to address a matter under the jurisdiction of my panel which is of the utmost importance to the national security and the maritime capability of the United States, namely the need to reauthorize the Maritime Security Program (MSP). The MSP program was established by the Maritime Security Act of 1996. The program was designed to maintain the continued presence of an active, privately-owned, U.S.-flag and U.S.-crewed merchant shipping fleet that would provide sustained sealift capability in time of war or national emergency. That Act phased out the operating differential subsidy program, provided reduced payments to vessel operators who agreed to make vessels and associated intermodal assets available to Department of Defense (DOD) upon request, and authorized $100 million annually for MSP program funding. Without the MSP program, U.S.-flag vessel owners would have been forced to shift their operations to foreign flags with foreign crews in order to remain internationally competitive. This would have been detrimental to our national security interests. The MSP has proved very successful. Today, 47 U.S.-flagged commercial vessels, crewed by U.S. citizens, participate in the MSP program. These vessels are engaged in the foreign commerce of the U.S. and are enrolled in DOD's Emergency Preparedness Program to ensure that such vessels and associated worldwide intermodal transportation and management assets are incorporated into DOD sealift plans and programs, and are immediately available to meet military sealift requirements. Without the MSP the cost to DOD would be substantial--approximately $800 million annually would be required by DOD to provide similar sealift and related system capacity on its own for the rapid and sustained deployment of military vehicles, ammunition and other equipment and material. Authorization for the MSP is for a ten-year period up through September 2005. To ensure the continued operation and viability of a maritime security fleet of privately-owned, militarily-useful U.S.-flag vessel operators, Congress needs to move forward with the reauthorization of the MSP. This would provide the industry with the timely assurance they need that the MSP program will continue beyond the year 2005. Additionally, I am concerned over rumors that U.S. citizenship requirements for this program could be modified. I strongly believe that reauthorization of the MSP program must ensure that current United States citizenship requirements continue to apply for operators of U.S.-flagged, U.S. crewed commercial vessels. The MSP program now requires that priority be given to MSP vessel operators that are owned and controlled by United States citizens (such operators are commonly known as ``Section 2 citizens'' under section 2 of the 1916 Shipping Act). Such U.S.-ownership and U.S.-control requirements are critical to the continued viability of the MSP program and must be preserved. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this vital effort to enhance the national security of the United States while ensuring that critically important U.S.-ownership standards are maintained.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I want to remind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), my good friend, that while Norm Sisisky wanted you to go with that aircraft carrier and I wanted you to go with more B-2 bombers, that we launched the Ronald Reagan the other day, an aircraft carrier; but we have no B- 2 bomber that has been launched lately under the Ronald Reagan name or any others, so Norm was pretty effective in securing the interests of the United States Navy and American naval power. Mr. Speaker, I think one thing that Norm's passing does for us, for all of us, is to give us a sense of the value of our own service of this House. I think the value of our service is manifested in the people we serve with. Sometimes we do not appreciate our colleagues and sometimes we do. I feel good now about all the times that Norm and I would stand at the back and I would put my arm around him or he would put his arm around me and we would talk about national security and what was happening. Norm was, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) just said, great counsel. He had this wonderful insight, he had a businessman's common sense, and he tempered it all with a lot of wit. I think one has to have a little sense of humor in this House of Representatives when working on these national issues. So we always looked forward to serving with Norm. When he would come in and take his seat there in the Committee on Armed Services and we were going to review a major issue, one could count on Norm Sisisky to give a lot of insight, shed some very valuable light on the subject, look at the subject very seriously, but at the same time maybe reflect a little humor, and there is a lot of humor out there to reflect on. Mr. Speaker, I used to reflect on the fact that Norm was probably the best dresser in Congress, and it always delighted him when I would tell the assembled group, wherever it was, that his tie cost more money than my pickup truck, and it did. In fact, Norm was very kind when he remarked on the fact that I had recently put a new tire on my $600 car. He was always very perceptive, and he saw I had a new tire on that a couple of months ago and he commented on that, and he made me feel very good about it. Norm was a guy who was so valuable to this country, because he had the purest of American motives, and that was the national interest, at heart and we knew that. So whether one was talking to the Secretary of the Navy or the President of the United States, and I saw him engage with him here just a few months ago, one knew that he was going to cover an important subject. As a member of the team, if it was the Committee on Armed Services, you knew that your team was covering all the bases, because Norm was out there making the points and collecting the information and analyzing and doing the right thing. So the question came to me, it just hit me when I heard about Norm's death today, where will we get that wisdom? It is true that we will not; we will no longer be able to avail ourselves of that great wisdom and that great insight in making these judgments that are important to the country; and that is a real tragedy. Mr. Speaker, I think Norm would like us to go on and to remember that when we have a few harsh words for each other, which we sometimes have, and when our interests diverge; when it is necessary for us to get political, which at times we do, if we can just leaven all of that with a little smile and a little sense of humor, then we will be able to reengage and go forward and work for the national interest. Mr. Speaker, when I think of Norm Sisisky, I think of the national interest.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, national defense is in trouble. We need to spend an additional $30 billion a year on equipment; we need to spend an additional $6 billion to $10 billion on people to raise their pay up to a level commensurate with the private sector; we need to spend an additional $3 billion or $4 billion per year on ammunition, and an additional $5 million or so for training so that our pilots can get the requisite number of hours per month. We have a lot of holes in defense. This budget is one of the few budgets that recognizes the problem and, in fact, raises the defense spending to $350 billion, which is a $25 billion increase from the baseline that we have established over the last several years. It is excellent in that sense. I want to remind my colleagues that the administration, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, have promised that when they have finished their review, they are going to come in with a different defense number. I hope it is upward and I think it will be; and the reason I think it will be is because of the great analysis that has been done by the Republican Study Committee and the leaders who have put these numbers together, including the defense budget. Help is on the way, and my colleagues have helped to be leaders in that area.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, defense does need to be rebuilt. In the wake of the outgoing administration, the CBO estimates that we are spending $30 billion just on equipment, that is on replacing the tanks, trucks, planes, ships. The army tells us we are $3.5 billion short on what they call critical ammunition supplies. The CBO estimates that we have underfunded training by about $5 billion; this is all per year. We are not giving our pilots enough time to train. We have a people-pay gap of about 10 percent. That means a difference between people wearing the uniform and people in the private sector. If we add all of those costs up, just people, equipment, training, ammunition, we come up with a shortfall with respect to the baseline that we have been spending over the last several years of about $310 billion. Now $320 billion was the last Clinton estimate; we come up with a shortfall of about $50 billion. I agree with that. I think it is at least $50 billion short. Now, against that background we have a new administration coming in. They got into the saddle late because of the late election. When we would call up Assistant Secretaries and Secretaries, they were just then getting into their positions in the Pentagon, and the President told us he wants to do a review before he comes up with his budget on defense. Now, that leaves us in a difficult position. But their decision has been to get the review first and then come with the numbers, and the Committee on the Budget has made an allowance for that by accessing the strategic reserve under which this administration can come in with a new request in a couple of months and increase the top line for national security. Everybody realizes we are going to have to increase it. I want to salute the conservative Democrats for having more dollars for defense; I want to salute the Republican Study Committee who put in an additional $25 billion per year, which is a big step toward closing this gap. But the Committee on the Budget chairman and other Members of the House have been working with the administration. Our chairman of the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), has been working, and they said help is on the way. We can expect that they are going to come in and increase the top line on defense. In the end, Mr. Chairman, we have to rely on people. I will rely on Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Don Rumsfeld to bring that help in a couple of months. I, therefore, strongly support the Committee on the Budget's product.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill that will benefit millions of Americans directly, substantially and quickly, including most notably single mothers and students. Furthermore, this legislation will lift some of the heavy burden of government off thousands of small businesses. My bill is very simple. It calls a tip what it is: a gift. All tips given, not to exceed $10,000 annually, would be tax free. This puts hundreds of dollars a month back where it belongs, with the individual who earned it. Those who work in the service sector, who rely principally on tips to supplement their income, work in a system transacted largely in cash. Accounting for small amounts of cash for income tax purposes is not only unworkable, it is unenforceable, even if a paperwork scheme could somehow be conceived. Small amounts of cash, received through hundreds and hundreds of transactions, and almost never while standing behind a cash register, should not be taxable. Washington bureaucrats lack an understanding as to just how impractical the present system is to all those who labor so hard for their tips. The system simply breaks down. Tips cannot possibly be reported accurately, and law-abiding citizens who work for tips do not wish to be labeled cheaters by people who don't understand the realities of their work. It is time to change that. My bill caps the tax-free earnings of those who make waiting on tables a career in high-end restaurants and resorts, at $10,000. But for the 95% of those in the service sector who receive tips, it's time to change the tax law covering income from tips. Under current law, service employees who typically earn tips are assumed to have made at least 8 percent of their gross sales in tips. This tax is applied regardless of the actual level of the tip. Further, if the service personnel earns more than 8 percent in tips they are expected to report them accordingly. The end result for these employees, many of whose base salaries do not exceed minimum wage, is that they may have to pay taxes on income they didn't receive. In addition, accounting for tips and gross sales is a burden on every restaurant, bar or other small business whose employees are regularly tipped. They are constantly under threat of an audit, where the IRS will hold their business responsible if the agency determines tip skimming to have occurred. By putting in place a reasonable annual cap and strictly defining a tip, this tax relief bill is clearly focused on low- to middle-income households. According to the industries involved, most of the employees that will be helped are either students or single mothers. In addition, most of the employees are at the beginning of their careers. Those in the service sector who rely on tips to supplement their income are a special breed of people. Those who work for tips see a direct relationship between effort and reward like few others. Night after night, day after day, weekend after weekend, the millions of bell hops, valet parking attendants, coat checkers, taxi drivers, hairdressers, bartenders, waiters and waitresses are on the job, working hard and providing vital services to people of every walk of life. Let us give a break to those who labor so hard for their living. Let's show them for a change that the Federal Government is not so out of touch and understands the special needs of those at the beginning of their career. The time has come for government to get out of the way of our Nation's most prolific entrepreneurs, service personnel and their employers. I hope other Members will join with me in this common sense proposal that will help millions of hard working Americans.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago we passed a resolution offering our deepest sympathies to the victims of the tragedy at Santana High School in San Diego County. Today offering our prayer is Reverend Rebecca Hartvigsen who participated with what she described as a multitude of spiritual leaders whose counseling of parents and students has started the healing process in east San Diego County. We offer all those spiritual leaders who have taken on this burden of the heart our warmest thanks.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, my many thanks to my friend from Delaware, I thank him so much for putting this resolution on this morning. To my San Diego colleagues, I thank them for coming together with all of us and giving some real value to this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I thought I would mention those students and others at Santee High who were in fact wounded. Barry Gibson, Heather Cruz, Scott Marshall, Travis Tate-Gallegos, Melissa McNulty, Trevor Edwards, Raymond Serrato, James Jackson, Trison Salladay, Matthew Heier, Karla Leyva, and campus supervisor Peter Ruiz and student teacher Timothy Estes have been in the thoughts and prayers of, of course, all of the Santee residents and all Americans who have heard about this tragedy. They will continue to be in our thoughts and prayers. Mr. Speaker, there will be political discussions that arise out of this tragedy. That is going to happen. We are a political body. We respond to occurrences like this. I would just ask all my colleagues over the next 3 or 4 weeks to observe a standard, maybe an arbitrary standard that I have set for myself, but I would hope we would all observe it and, that is, this is a tragedy, this is a time for grieving, a time for mourning, a time for healing in Santee, California; and I would ask everyone to not attach a political agenda to this occurrence until a month has gone by. Maybe that is an arbitrary time, but I think that that respects the families and the students in Santee, California. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I would hope if people who watch this resolution, that fathers and mothers and grandparents and uncles and aunts, as a result of watching us and contemplating these events, would resolve to spend a little more time this week, this month, this year, maybe starting today, with their children, then this resolution will have had value.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I salute and thank my colleague for putting this resolution together and allowing us to be here today. Mr. Speaker, all of San Diego, California, all of San Diego County California, all of California, all of America was impacted on March 5 when a senseless shooting at Santana High School took the lives of Bryan Zuckor and Randy Gordon and wounded 13 others. Do my colleagues know what? This time the feeling in this capital, when an event like this occurs is usually one of helplessness, because there is no legislation, there is no resolution, there is no law that can reverse what happened. But in San Diego, California, I want to let my colleagues know hope is reviving, with students and parents and teachers coming together to rebuild this community. There is one small thing that we can do here, and that is that we can condemn in the strongest possible terms the atrocities that occurred on March 5, 2001, in Santana High School. We can offer from this House our deepest condolences to the families, to the friends, and to the loved ones of those who were killed and wounded in this shooting. We can express hope for the rapid and complete recovery of those wounded in the shooting. And we can, Mr. Speaker, very importantly applaud the hard work and dedication exhibited by our local and State law enforcement officials and by all the others who offered support and assistance. They numbered, Mr. Speaker, in the thousands in this community. We can commend the rapid response by the faculty and staff of Santana High School in evacuating its students to safety and efficient and effective manner. And we can encourage communities to implement a wide range of violence-prevention services for the Nation's youth. Mr. Speaker, we can encourage the people of the United States to engage in a national dialogue on preventing school violence such as this. Mr. Speaker, God bless our community, God bless the students at Santana High School; and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues and all of our citizens to see to it that events like this never occur again.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I wish today to honor a distinguished public servant from my district in Imperial County, California. Don H. Cox retired on December 1, 2000 after serving for 12 years as a member of the Board of Directors for the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). He represented district 4, which includes the city of Brawley where he and his family reside. Don was elected to the Board in 1988 and reelected in 1992 and 1996. He served as Board President in 1991 and 1997, and served as Vice- President in 1990, 1995, and 1996. Don also served on the District's Water, Budget, EPA, Geothermal, Salton Sea, Energy, and Salton Sea Emergency study groups. He was appointed by the Governor of California to serve as a director of the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Colorado River area and also served as a member/director of the Colorado River Board of California, the IID Water Conservation Advisory Board, California Farm Water Coalition, and the Association of California Water Agencies' Water Rights Committee. I had the pleasure of working closely with Don through his leadership on the Salton Sea Authority since its inception in 1993. Don served in the United States Navy during World War II and upon returning from the war, earned his degree in agriculture economics from the University of California, Berkeley. Following his studies, Don returned to the Imperial Valley to farm with his sons, which he has done for over 40 years. He is a past member of the Imperial Valley Vegetable Growers Association and was involved with many cotton boards. Despite his recent retirement, Don remains involved in the farming community as a newly elected member of the Board of Directors of the Imperial County Farm Bureau. Don has been a member of the Brawley Rotary Club for over 30 years, a member of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks-Lodge #1420 for over 40 years and a lifelong member of the Imperial Valley Navy League. He has also served his community as a member of the Brawley Union High School Quarterback Club. Throughout my many years in Congress, I have valued Don's insight into, and knowledge of, the many important issues facing the IID and the farming community in the Imperial Valley. It is my distinct privilege to honor my distinguished friend.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. I wanted to add my voice to those of my California colleagues who dealt with Julian and knew Julian over the years and appreciated so much his comity, his ability to reach across the aisle in his friendship and his warmth. In California, we are sometimes different from other States. I remember coming in as a freshman in 1980, and while sometimes in Texas it is tough to tell a Texan apart in terms of philosophy, in California we were pretty strongly polarized. And it was guys like Julian, and particularly Julian, who had that great ability to reach across the aisle and talk to friends. And we really knew we were Julian's friends, because he was so genuine and so good and established that relationship that allowed us to work on lots of projects together. He could look across the wall of contention and combat and competitiveness that marked the election and get together. So it is interesting. We look back at our colleagues that we have served with, and often we cannot remember all the issues, or we cannot remember all the details; but we always remember the person. We are a people who remember other people. This institution manifests itself not in the walls and the columns but in the people. Julian Dixon was a wonderful, wonderful person. I hope we can all remember him, and sometimes when we are having those fights that may tend to get a little bit bitter, remember Julian; and I think we will all be a little better to each other and to the institution.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest) for yielding me this time and taking the leadership, along with the Democrat side of the aisle. I note that this is bipartisan legislation supported by the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray) in the San Diego delegation. Mr. Speaker, this is a fairly straightforward bill. This involves some 8-plus acres of land in the community in Alpine, California, in my congressional district in San Diego County. It is land that was purchased with Community Development Block Grant funds. This land was purchased with these funds for the purpose of constructing a health clinic for the seven tribes that presently live or are located in that particular vicinity; and, indeed, the clinic today supports some 10,000 visits per year. Not only are tribal members admitted to the clinic but also nontribal members, so it is a valuable asset. Part of the land was put in the name of one of the tribes, the Cuyapaipe tribe, which is a wonderful tribe, some 17 members whose traditional homelands are about 50 miles away. They propose at this time, Mr. Speaker, to build a casino on this health clinic land that was purchased with CDBGs. We think, Mr. Speaker, having looked at this, that this is a fairly substantial departure from the tradition of allowing the autonomy and all of the activities that take place once the reservation status is attached to a piece of land to allow that to be expanded to change a health clinic, which has been purchased with Federal taxpayer dollars and which resides on land that was purchased with Federal taxpayer dollars, to allow that to be converted into a totally different use; that is, one of a casino. So this bill puts a 2-year moratorium on this transfer for this purpose. We hope that that is going to allow the tribes to try to work out some type of an adjustment, maybe some type of an arrangement. We think it is appropriate to pass it at this time to keep this project from going forward. Again, this is supported by all the Members of the San Diego delegation. It is a bipartisan bill, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner) is a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, we have some very serious issues on the table during this national campaign, one that involves truly all the Members of the House of Representatives, many members of the Senate and, of course, the Presidential candidates. In the last debate between Vice President Gore and Governor Bush, Vice President Gore said that he had increased a number of Army divisions. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for the American people to know that is not the case. When the Clinton-Gore administration took over in January of 1993, we had 14 Army divisions. Today, we only have 10. So under President or Vice President Gore's leadership, along with that of President Clinton, we have actually cut the Army to 10 divisions; we have not increased it. So somewhere along the line he inadvertently invented four U.S. Army divisions. Mr. Speaker, along with slashing the size of the Army, this administration has, I think, cut the Navy to 316 ships from 546 ships. That is a cut of almost 40 percent. They have cut the Air Force from 24 active fighter airwings to only 13. It is time to rebuild national security. The interesting thing about these massive cuts in force structure, meaning we have about 60 percent of the military that we had when this administration took over, is that generally speaking, one would expect, when we cut a sports organization or we cut a business organization, we would think that when we cut it down in size, the half that one has left, if one cuts it in half, is going to be better prepared, better equipped and better trained than the big operation that one had earlier. That core should be a good, highly-efficient, highly-prepared operating core, whether it is in sports or in business or in the military world. Well, the sad thing about this cut in our military force structure, cutting the Army from 18 to 10 division, cutting our fighter airwings from 24 to 13, and cutting our Navy from 546 ships to only 316 ships, the tragedy is, the small military we have today after these slashes is not as prepared as the big military that we had during Desert Storm. The chief of staff of the Army has told us that we are now some $3 billion short on ammunition for the Army. The Marine Corps has told us that they are $200 million short on ammunition. The Air Force chief of staff has told us that we are roughly 50 percent short on precision munitions. Those are the munitions that we have, where instead of carpet-bombing a bridge, one can fly in and put one precision munition, very, very accurate, on one strut of that bridge and knock the bridge down. It is a highly-efficient way to project American power. So the Air Force told us they have cut those munitions down to the point where they only have 50 percent of what they need. The Navy has informed us that they only have 50 percent of their requirement for Tomahawk cruise missiles. Those cruise missiles are what we use to go into an area that is heavily defended, where if we send pilots in to drop bombs out of planes, we might lose some of those pilots. So those cruise missiles, those Tomahawks are very valuable; but today we only have 50 percent, according to the Navy, of what we need. Now, along with that, we see the mission capability rate of our frontline fighter aircraft just dropping off the cliff. Mission capability rate is how many of our aircraft work. If I ask my neighbor, what is your mission capability rate of your cars and he said, a minute and I will tell you, and he went outside and he tried to start them, and he had two cars and only one started, he would come back in and say, it is 50 percent, only one of the two cars starts. Well, the mission capability rate for our frontline fighters, the F- 15E and the F-16, has dropped into the 70 percent rate. That means that it has dropped about 10 points from the 83 percent-or-so mission capability rate to an average of about 72, 73 percent. That means out of 100 aircraft, 30 of them cannot get off the ground and cannot go do their job. So now there is this shortage of fighter airwings, these 13 fighter airwings we have, are only about 70 percent ready to go. That means we really only have about nine airwings that really are ready to go out and engage the enemy. So Mr. Gore has not presided over a resurrection of the U.S. military; he has presided over a decline. Mr. Speaker, I think that help is on the way.