Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, over the last 5 years we have provided $45 billion above the President's budget. The commandant of the Marine Corps said it best. He said if we had not provided it, the Marines would be the 9-1 force instead of the 911 force for this Nation.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his compliment which is undeserved, but let me tell my friend from South Carolina where we really have an obligation to those men and women and those service veterans of World War II who are departing at the rate of about 30,000 a month. Most of those folks now have young people, sons and daughters, serving in our armed forces around the world. I will tell him the best way to serve them, and I will tell him how this budget serves them. We are short on ammunition. We are short on spare parts. We have so few precision munitions for our pilots, most of them do not even get a chance to train with one before they are sent into battle. We have a shortage on shipbuilding. We are building to a 200-ship Navy. We are short on military construction. I have got one of those veterans that the gentleman from South Carolina talked about. He is my uncle. But one thing he has got in his house is an old picture on the wall. That picture is of my cousin, Son Stillwell, who was killed in Korea along with 50,000 other people because the United States was not ready to fight. The budgets that President Clinton has been presenting to the United States have taken us into a state of unreadiness where we cannot win a major war without massive casualties on our side. The best service we can give to those senior veterans is to make sure that their children have the ammo, the spare parts and all the other things that they do not have right now to be able to fight effectively and to survive and come home. With the $45 billion in extra money that this budget provides on defense, which the Democrat budget does not provide, of course you have got the head space for the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Personnel, to work a beautiful health care plan along with having something called ammunition. The tragedy of the Democrat budget is it makes the service choose between having ammunition for the young people who are out there defending the country and having health care for the senior retired people. That is a choice that we should not make them have to come to. I thought the gentleman was going to come with a Democrat budget that would offer $40 billion, maybe $50 billion above this baseline Clinton budget on national defense, and he did not do it.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill critical to the future of our domestic shipbuilding industry. This bill, aptly named the ``All American Cruise Act of 1999,'' takes steps that are long overdue to promote the construction of cruise ships by U.S. shipbuilders. My bill is a prime example of a ``Made in the USA'' initiative. The United States is the largest cruise ship market in the world. In 1998, 120 foreign-built, foreign-registered cruise ships serviced the American market, which consists of nearly seven million passengers annually. Experts anticipate that by 2003 there will be 10 million passengers and 160 foreign-built and operated ships servicing North America. American shipbuilding firms have been placed at a decisive disadvantage in the global shipbuilding market due to U.S. tax laws and European subsidy policies. European builders of cruise ships receive numerous tax incentives and other assistance from their governments to reduce the price of their ships. Foreign cruise companies operating from U.S. ports pay no U.S. income tax, an immediate price advantage for the foreign competitor. For example, Carnival Cruise Lines, a Libyan registered company, is reported to have earned $652 million in tax-free income during 1998, yet 90 percent of their passengers are Americans. The All American Cruise Act is designed to bring this industry back to our shores through tax parity desperately needed to encourage our domestic industry. My bill, among other recommended changes, would implement the following: tax credits to U.S. builders of cruise ships of 20,000 gross tons and greater; U.S. cruise ship owners will be exempt from paying U.S. corporate income tax; cruise ship owners will be able to depreciate their ships over a five-year period rather than the current 10-year period; the current $2,500 business tax deduction limit for a convention on a cruise ship would be repealed to give the same unlimited tax deductions for business conventions held at shore- side hotels; and a 20 percent tax credit will be granted to U.S. companies which operate ships using environmentally clean burning engines manufactured in the United States. While some of these tax provisions may at first glance seem costly to the U.S. Treasury, it should be noted that, since cruise chips are not presently built domestically nor operated as U.S. companies, current tax revenues will not be impacted. In fact, when this bill is passed, hundreds of thousands of high technology and high skill manufacturing jobs will be created. Although my bill has not yet been scored by the Joint Tax Committee or the Congressional Budget Office, I am confident that it will actually contribute to the U.S. Treasury as well as to the U.S. manufacturing base. In addition, the All American Cruise Act has national security implications. At this time there are only six private-sector shipyards in the United States. These shipyards are located in California, Connecticut and Rhode Island, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, and Virginia. Taking legislative action to ensure a robust domestic ship building industry will ensure that U.S. taxpayers have access to competitive prices, technology, and a ready supply of ships and labor in time of conflict. A recent Congressional Research Service Report (RL 30251) stated, ``. . . competition in defense acquisition can generate benefits for the government and taxpayers by restraining acquisition costs, improving product quality, encouraging adherence to scheduled delivery dates, and promoting innovation.'' Further, ``achieving effective competition in Navy ship construction has become more difficult in recent years due to the relatively low rate of Navy ship procurement . . .'' It is in our best interest as a nation to do all we can to ensure that there is a viable and productive United States shipbuilding industry that will meet our national security, cargo and recreational needs long into the future. The All American Cruise Act will also stimulate revenue for our nation's ports. With U.S. built and operated cruise ships in operation, American cruise lines will be able to dock at more than one U.S. port per trip. This will ultimately benefit both passengers and local ports. It is also important to emphasize that ships built in the United States and operated by Americans adhere to the highest construction, labor, and environmental standards, unlike ships that are neither built nor operated to America's high safety standards. Our citizens deserve better. My bill will give American tourists the safety they deserve when vacationing at sea. The All American Cruise Act is supported by both industry and labor. In fact, I am submitting letters in support of this legislation from the following organizations: the American Shipbuilding Association, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, the American Maritime Officers, and the American Maritime Officers Service. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in sponsoring this legislation. Throughout our history, seafaring vessels have played a critical role in our military, cargo movement and entertainment. The time has come to bring the cruise industry back to America's shores. Support the All American Cruise Act of 1999. American Shipbuilding Association November 9, 1999. Hon. Duncan Hunter, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Hunter: On behalf of the shipbuilding industry, the American Shipbuilding Association (ASA) would like to express to you its strong support of your legislation, entitled the ``All American Cruise Act of 1999''. This bill will provide American shipbuilders, owners, and crews with tax parity with foreign builders and owners of cruise ships that operate almost exclusively from U.S. ports and derive over 90 percent of their income from U.S. citizens. As you have recognized, American shipbuilders, ship owners, and crews have been placed at a severe competitive disadvantage in the American cruise ship market because of the U.S. tax code that rewards companies that build and register their ships in foreign countries while penalizing American companies who wish to build and register their ships in the United States. For example, the 120 cruise ships that serve the North American market depart U.S. ports with vacation tours bought by U.S. citizens. These ships, however, are built in foreign countries where governments provide tax credits and other assistance that equates to as much as a 50 percent reduction in the price of these ships. The ships in turn are operated by companies that register them in foreign countries to avoid U.S. corporate income tax. By building and operating these ships foreign, these companies avoid America's high environmental, labor, and safety standards in the construction and operation of their ships, and jeopardize the lives of American tourists. Some in Congress would propose that the United States just surrender the U.S. cruise ship market to these foreign entities by repealing the American Passenger Vessel Services Act, which requires ships carrying passengers between two U.S. ports to be U.S.-built, owned, and crewed. Our industry believes there is a better way--your way--which would create an All American industry built by Americans for Americans. Your legislation would retain U.S. high safety standards in the construction and operation of cruise ships, while providing American builders and owners tax parity with foreign builders and owners of cruise ships that operate from U.S. shores. Your bill would create hundreds of thousands of high technology, high skilled manufacturing and seagoing jobs for Americans; strengthen the American defense shipbuilding industrial base; and ignite a powerful engine that would propel all segments of the U.S. economy toward strong growth and prosperity into the 21st Century. Furthermore, American tourists would be assured that they would be vacationing on the safest constructed and operated ships in the world. The American Shipbuilding Association commends you for your legislation and urges your colleagues to support the All American Cruise Act of 1999. Sincerely, Cynthia L. Brown, President. American Maritime Officers Service, Washington, DC, November 9, 1999. Hon. Duncan Hunter, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Hunter: We understand that you are considering introducing legislation to address the inequities facing the creation of a domestic U.S.-flag, U.S.-built cruise industry. We have reviewed the draft bill and on behalf of the American Maritime Officers Service, we would like to express our strong support for your effort. As you know, the United States is the largest cruise ship market in the world and represents one of the largest growth markets. Yet all of the large oceangoing cruise ships serving the American market are built and operated by foreign companies to avoid U.S. tax laws. This anomaly has created a market barrier to U.S. companies are to have an opportunity to develop an American cruise industry to serve our market. Your legislation will provide American companies tax parity with their foreign competitors and create hundreds of thousands of high technology jobs, highly skilled manufacturing and seagoing jobs. In addition, your legislation will increase port revenues in the United States. Again, we wish to commend you for your efforts and urge you to introduce the ``All-American Cruise Act of 1999'' at the earliest possible date. Please do not hesitate to call me if I can be of any assistance in gaining support for your efforts. Sincerely, Gordon W. Spencer, Legislative Director. American Maritime Officers, A National Union Celebrating 50 Years, Washington, DC, November 9, 1999. Hon. Duncan Hunter, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Hunter: We understand that you are considering introducing legislation to address the inequities facing the creation of a domestic U.S. flag, U.S. built cruise industry. On behalf of the American Maritime Officers, the largest seagoing officer's union in the United States, we want to take this opportunity to commend you for your efforts. This proposed legislation is critical if Americans are to reenter a market currently being dominated by foreign built and foreign-crewed ships. The United States is the largest cruise ship market in the world and represents one of the largest growth markets. All of the large oceangoing cruise ships serving the American market are built and operated by foreign companies to avoid U.S. tax law. This anomaly has created a market barrier to U.S. companies which pay U.S. taxes. Tax parity must be provided if U.S. companies are to have an opportunity to develop an American cruise industry. Your legislation will provide tax parity in a number of very critical ways including tax credits to U.S. builders of cruise ships over 20,000 tons, accelerated depreciation for ships build in U.S. shipyards, elimination of the current $2,500 limit for the cost of conventions on cruise ships, and exemption from U.S. corporate income tax for U.S. cruise operators. Changes such as these are critical if Americans are to enter a market now dominated by foreign companies that pay no taxes. Again we wish to commend you for your efforts and urge you to introduce the ``All-American Cruise Act of 1999'' at the earliest possible date. Please do not hesitate to call me if I can be of any assistance in gaining the support for your effort. Charles T. Crangle, Executive Director, Congressional and Legislative Affairs American Maritime Officers. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, November 8, 1999. Hon. Duncan Hunter, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Hunter: We understand that you are considering introducing legislation to address the inequities facing the creation of a domestic U.S. flag, U.S. built cruise industry. We have reviewed the draft bill and on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, we would like to express our strong support for your effort. As you know the United States is the largest cruise ship market in the world and represents one of the largest growth markets. Yet all of the large oceangoing cruise ships serving the American market are built and operated by foreign companies to avoid U.S. tax law. This is a huge market--120 foreign-built cruise ships serve the American market today. The number is expected to grow to 160 by 2003. Unless U.S. tax laws are amended to allow the entry of American companies into this market, these ships will continue to be built by European shipyards and be owned and operated by foreign companies. Your legislation will provide American companies the needed tax parity with their foreign competitors and create hundreds of thousands of highly skilled manufacturing jobs in the United States. It is a given that European builders of cruise ships receive numerous tax incentives and other assistance from their governments to reduce the price of their cruise ships. It is only fair that our shipyards and our skilled workers be given the same breaks as those provided to our competitors. Again we wish to commend you for your efforts and urge you to introduce the ``All-American Cruise Act of 1999'' at the earliest possible date. Please do not hesitate to call me if I can be of any assistance in gaining the support for your effort. Sincerely, Ande M. Abbott, Assistant to the International President.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to use 5 minutes, because my colleagues have spoken much more eloquently than I could, and I also want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) for delaying his long awaited special order to allow us to complete this California memory of George Brown. I think that the centerpiece and the trademark of our democracy in this House of Representatives is civility. The ability of the Members of the House to have close quarters combat on values and on philosophy and yet remain civil to each other. And I think if there was anything that George Brown taught not only the delegation but the rest of the House it was civility. He did all the things that my colleagues have mentioned. When we on the Republican side ran strong, tough races against him, the next time we saw him, he would be smiling, he would be beaming, he would be winning, and he would not hold it against you. It was an amazing lesson. I think it was a lesson that we all ourselves tried to emulate, and in that sense he threw a rock into the pond and caused a lot of ripples of civility. He helped us to be better to each other. He was a guy with a great good sense of humor. I recall when we were working the Salton Sea project, which he was a real champion of, and he worked with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bono), the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), and myself on that project, and one day, on an extremely windy day, we went to the Salton Sea, which is fed by the most polluted river in North America, the New River, when the waves were about two feet high and had whitecaps, and we were to go out with the Secretary of the Interior Mr. Babbitt on these air boats and tour the Salton Sea. As George and I walked down to our air boat, I noticed that our two seats were extremely low to the water. And I looked over at the Secretary of the Interior's air boat and he had a high seat that was about five feet off the water. And I asked a friend of mine, who was a native there in Imperial Valley, and George Brown was born in Imperial Valley, in Holtville, he was really a man of the desert, and I asked this friend of mine, do you want to go out? And he says, not on your life. He said, this is the most polluted stuff in North America. He said, you are going to be catching that stuff right in your teeth. So I suggested to the fish and wildlife people, who were conducting the tour, that maybe George and I might be allowed to ride in the air boat that had the high seats. And, of course, we were denied that privilege. That went to Mr. Babbitt. So George says, looks like they have a little something less for us. They provided us with a single sheet of plastic. I think we were to pull up like a makeshift windshield to keep ourselves from getting too much of this pollution in the teeth. We got lots of it that day. And here was George Brown, a guy who had immense prestige and political power, and could have been doing a lot more comfortable things than riding around in the Salton Sea with whitecaps coming over the stern of this little air boat, because he believed in this cause of cleaning up the Salton Sea. That was George Brown. A man of great civility, a man with great good humor. And I like to think of George as being a real product of this country that he came from, this Imperial County, Imperial Valley. He was born in Holtville, the carrot capital of the world, where they do a lot of farming, where people are hard working Americans, they are open and straightforward, and they all seem to have a sense of humor. And I think that George acceded to that desert sense of humor in the best way, brought it to this House and this chamber, and helped to make us all better people and better representatives because of it. So I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for putting on this very important service. George Brown is going to live for a long time in our hearts and I think in our actions, because I think we are all going to be a little better to each other. We are still going to have those tough differences, and I think that is good, but we have a democracy that is a model for the rest of the world because we are civil, and George Brown was a leader in civility.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who dedicated a significant part of his life to the service of our great nation. David Vincent Pitcairn, a devoted husband and father, distinguished himself as a man who repeatedly put the well being of his family and friends before that of his own. Sadly, Mr. Pitcairn passed away on October 19, 1999. Born in New Haven, Connecticut in 1947, Dave entered the United States Army at an early age and quickly established himself as an exemplary soldier. Sergeant David Pitcairn distinguished himself with the first platoon, B Company, 39th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division near Saigon, Vietnam. Serving as both platoon leader and machine gunner for his platoon, his leadership, extraordinary bravery and repeated exposure to enemy fire served as an inspiration to the entire company. It bears mentioning that while in Vietnam, Dave earned numerous medals and commendations which included: the Bronze Star, the Combat Infantry Badge, the National Defense Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal. More than three decades ago, while maneuvering in the rice paddies of South Vietnam, Dave inspired his fellow soldiers with his unique exuberance for life. To be around Dave was fun and challenging, often exciting, yet always comforting. He had the strength to carry those around him through the turmoil with his bright attitude. His valorous and intrepid conduct reflect the utmost credit on him and upholds the noble traditions of the United States Army. Mr. Speaker, Dave truly represented the best America has to offer. He will be sorely missed.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, to quote one of our Nation's greatest Presidents, Ronald Reagan: Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes just don't know where to look. You can see heroes every day going in and out of factory gates. Others, a handful in number, produce enough food to feed all of us and then the world beyond. You meet heroes across a counter--and they're on both sides of that counter. There are entrepreneurs--with faith in themselves and faith in an idea--who create new jobs, new wealth and opportunity. They're individuals and families whose taxes support the government and whose voluntary gifts support church, charity, culture, art and education. Their patriotism is quiet but deep. Their values sustain our national life. San Diego is fortunate to have many heroes in our community. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight one of our local heroes and honor his sacrifice and achievements. Many of you may already know the story of Brigadier General Robert Cardenas (USAF retired), one of the greatest test pilots of all time. While General Cardenas is well known for being the pilot of the aircraft that dropped the X-1 being flown by Chuck Yeager, he also was the test pilot for the ``Flying Wing'', the Northrop YB-49, in 1947 and 1948. The Flying Wing was a revolutionary aircraft at the time and to be chosen as a test pilot was a great honor. It was also a very dangerous assignment. General Cardenas, in an interview described one particular test flight where ``he found himself at the controls of an airplane that was pointing almost straight up; refusing to respond to the controls, it was falling tail-first at 5,000 feet per minute. The aircraft then tumbled over backwards.'' General Cardenas managed to land the aircraft safely. In January 1949, General Cardenas flew the YB-49 on a high- speed exhibition run to Washington, DC, and where a famous picture of the YB-49 flying over the U.S. Capitol was taken. The Flying Wing project was eventually canceled and the plane was not duplicated until the current B-2 aircraft. It is safe to say, however, that without test pilots like General Cardenas who were willing to risk their lives, we would not have the B-2 today. General Cardenas is a true American Hero and our country owes him a debt for his contributions to the development of our national security.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of our country's great veterans, Mr. Frank Dillman. Frank was a member of the old Fourth Marine Regiment which was stationed in China before being shipped out to the Philippines during the outbreak of World War II. This regiment arrived in the Philippines days before the Japanese arrived to continue the attack they had initiated at Pearl Harbor. With no hope for reinforcements because of the destruction of the American Naval fleet days before, the Philippines were forced to surrender shortly after the fighting began. Frank survived the Bataan Death March, was interned in a prisoner-of-war camp before being transported to Japan where he was forced to work slave labor in a Mitsubishi-owned copper mine until Japan surrendered in 1945. Following his release, Frank was asked by Marine Corps General Lem Shepherd to write a history of his ordeal. Frank agreed and, while working on his project, began collecting pictures, artifacts and stories that would eventually become an exhibit known as the Pacific Memorial Freedom Foundation. This exhibit includes the first American flag to be pulled down and desecrated by the Japanese at Baguio and an original copy of the Freedom Proclamation issued by General Douglas MacArthur. The exhibit has been displayed at a number of high school libraries in San Diego County and is currently located at the Veterans Memorial Center in Balboa Park in San Diego. As news of the exhibit spread, Frank still receives pictures and artifacts as he continue to write extensively on the collection and the American and Filipino soldiers involved with the conflict. As we all know, America allowed Filipinos to enlist in the U.S. Navy while in the Philippines where they would eventually visit and experience San Diego during their travels. Many decided to make San Diego their home and, as a result, San Diego County has the greatest concentration of Filipinos of any county in California. Mr. Speaker, Frank Dillman's vision has created an exhibit that reminds us all of our important history. His efforts honor our Nation's veterans and provide a unique service, not just to those in San Diego, but to our country as well.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the outstanding service and dedication of a hometown heroine from my district, Mrs. Muriel Watson. On November 4, 1989, Mrs. Watson assembled a group of people with 23 cars on Dairy Mart Road where they turned on their headlights and shined them into Mexico for a half-hour as a protest against illegal drugs and aliens coming into California from across the border. Mrs. Watson's late husband had been a Border Patrol agent for 30 years. The enthusiasm of the participants made this event such a success that Mrs. Watson began to distribute flyers to friends, and friends of friends. On December 10, 1989, Mrs. Watson held another ``Light Up the Border'' with 60 cars, and the following month over 100 cars participated. The event was featured on the Roger Hedgecock radio show and in February, over 200 cars took part and in March over 1,000 cars showed up. By this time, Mrs. Watson was providing participants with printed instructions, asking them to stay in their cars for 45 minutes, turn on their lights for 30 minutes and then turn them off. At about this same time, we were able to obtain an engineering unit from the California National Guard to work on border enforcement projects. This unit, under the direction of Captain Wade Rowley, began building several roads and a 10-foot high steel fence made of surplus steel landing mats. This fence was successful in stopping drive- throughs by drug smugglers and illegal aliens, but did not prevent several people from crawling under, or climbing over the barricade. It was then that Mrs. Watson's event was brought to my attention by my District Deputy Chief of Staff, Cato Cedillo, and I felt that her concept should be applied on the border on a more permanent basis. Consequently, we have added lights, sensors, and other detection devices to assist the Border Patrol agents with their responsibilities. Before her work with ``Light Up the Border'', Mrs. Watson started a scholarship fund in 1982 for children of Border Patrol agents, providing two $500 scholarships herself out of her own funds. Impressed with her commitment, I wanted to help this effort and in 1994 began to auction off signed lithographs of Olaf Weighost pictures with the proceeds going to the Watson Fund. Mr. Speaker, in a time where apathy is the common attitude towards most of our problems, Mrs. Watson is a shining example of how one person can make a difference. Mrs. Watson not only created ``Light Up the Border'', but she herself lights up any gathering she attends.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize one of our country's great veterans, Mr. Chris Fink. Chris received his commission as an Ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve on October 10, 1941. Shortly after World War II began, he was assigned to the Pacific as a dive- bomber with the U.S.S. Enterprise. Chris was one of eleven Navy pilots assigned to defend the recently captured island of Guadalcanal. On the day following his arrival, Chris' squadron attacked the Japanese transport Kinryu Maru, sinking the vessel and denying the Japanese the opportunity to land its 1,000- man force on the island. Three days later, Chris bombed the lead ship of Japanese destroyers, once again thwarting the enemy's attempt to take Guadalcanal and earning the nickname ``Never miss'em'' by his fellow airmen. Returning from Guadalcanal, Chris was awarded the Silver Star by Secretary of Navy Frank Knox for his bravery and actions. He soon rejoined his squadron and would later take part in numerous more naval missions, including campaigns over the Philippines, the China Sea, Japan, Formosa and Wake Island. Because of his success, Chris was called back to the U.S. to participate in the War Bond Tour, which would travel the country and rally people to purchase bonds to finance the war. Following World War II, Chris became the 23rd naval flier to receive a helicopter pilot's license, which was still considered an experimental aircraft, and traveled to several bases across the country demonstrating its potential. During the Korean War, Chris directed carrier- based air strikes against North Korean forces and took on several assignments, including Commander of Fighter Squadron 54, Executive Commander of the U.S.S. Wasp, Deputy Commander at Naval Air Station, Memphis, and Navy Liaison at Sikorski Aircraft Company. In 1966, after 25 years of faithful service, Chris retired from the Navy having earned numerous awards and medals, including the Silver Star, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Presidential Unit Citation, and the National Defense Medal. Mr. Speaker, in an era when our nation's veterans are often not given sufficient recognition, outstanding leaders, such as Chris Fink, exemplify the courage and dedication of our nation's military and remind us all what it means to be an American hero.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, today, the President signed the defense bill and he gave, in signing the defense bill, a speech in which I think he gave a dangerously false message to the American people. That message was that defense is in good shape. Defense is not in good shape. We are $3.5 billion short on ammunition for the Army. We are $193 million short on ammunition for the Marine Corps. We have 10,000 uniformed families on food stamps because they are about 13 percent under the wages of their counterparts in the civilian sector. Our aircraft are in such bad shape that only about 65 percent of them can get off the ground and go do their mission. Our Navy now is lacking 18,000 sailors because we cannot get sailors to join Mr. Clinton's Navy. We are about 800 pilots short in the Air Force, and it costs millions of dollars to train a pilot, and it takes a long time. If the balloon goes up and we have a war, we are not going to be ready. So the President has cut defense disastrously. His own Joint Chiefs, some of whom stood behind him in that press conference said that his budget was underfunded by about $20 billion. The Air Force said they need an extra $5 billion. The Navy said they need an extra $6 billion a year, the Army an extra $5 billion, and the Marine Corps an extra $1.75 billion. On top of that, they need an extra $2.5 billion a year to pay for the retirement and the wages that are necessary to keep good people in the service. So the Clinton administration has dragged down national defense. Now, Congress has added some money to the defense bill. We have added about $50 billion over the last 6 years, but that is not enough. We have added as much as we thought we could add without getting the bill vetoed by President Clinton. Even then, he has threatened vetoes on a number of occasions. But defense is in difficult condition. It is in bad shape. If we had to fight the two-war scenario, that is, if we had to fight on the Korean Peninsula and we had to fight in the Middle East today, we would have a lot of Americans coming home in body bags because we are short on ammo, short on spare parts, and short on technically knowledgeable people in extremely critical areas. We need more money. We need it desperately.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, S. 1059, which includes legislation to reform the Department of Energy (DOE) to ensure the security of our strategic nuclear defense. I rise today to address the concern that by creating the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) there may be a negative effect on Defense Facilities Closure Projects. In fact, the language establishing the NNSA is intended to complement the ongoing work at Closure Project sites rather than to hinder it. Specifically, the NNSA should have a positive effect at Closure sites because a greater priority will be placed on the consolidation of defense program and material disposition inventories from Closure sites to other DOE facilities with an ongoing national security mission. In addition, the creation of the NNSA does not impact the funding structure of the Environmental Remediation and Waste Management activities. Part of the reason we have seen progress at the Closure sites has been the use of integrated funding under a separate Closure Projects line item and the Department should continue this approach in order to ensure that Closure sites retain maximum funding flexibility and expedited nuclear materials movement.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the accomplishments of our men and women of the U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement division in the Cleveland National Forest in San Diego county's back country. During the year 1996, twenty-two illegal immigrants died from exposure in the Cleveland National Forest. In 1997 nineteen died. Since 1996, Mr. Tommy LaNier, the Special Agent-in-Charge, of law enforcement for the forest and his team of dedicated officers have apprehended over 20,000 illegal aliens in the Cleveland Forest, potentially saving many immigrant's lives who could well have perished in hostile conditions. The apprehension of illegals in the forest is also serving to pervent further ecological degradation to the forest. In addition, the strong law enforcement in the forest precludes portions of public lands from having to be closed to U.S. taxpaying families who want to visit our natural areas. Foot trails in once pristine natural habitat have now been pounded into the forest floor by as many as 300 illegal entrants in a given day passing through the Cleveland National Forest. These illegal trails grow deeper and deeper by the day causing erosion and irreparable damage to the forest. Contamination of streams is a major concern and in 1997 over eleven tons of trash left by illegal aliens passing through the forest had to be collected. It is interesting to note that the U.S. Forest Service, nationwide, has more acreage and more visitors per year than the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service combined. The U.S. Forest Service has twice the number of violations to respond to with less than than half the enforcement officers of the two previously mentioned agencies. The Cleveland National Forest is unique in its locality; it lays continguous to the Southwest U.S.A./Mexico border. The enhanced efforts of the U.S. Border Patrol in the San Diego area have pushed thousands of illegal aliens, heading North into the interior cities of the U.S., into this forest. Our defense against this invasion is a dedicated group of five U.S. Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers who are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The rate of incidence of illegal aliens campfires rose from 855 fires in 1996 to 1,044 in 1997. Law Enforcement officers have the dual burden of apprehending these illegal aliens so as to prevent their camp fires from breaking loose and endangering not only the forest, but also the illegals hiding in the forest. Fire damage is not the illegal's only threat to the forest. Degradation of the forest from the uncontrolled massive gathering of firewood for cooking and nighttime warming fires by thousands of trespassers in devastating and will take centuries to mend. Mr. Speaker, Tommy LaNier and the Law Enforcement officers of the U.S. Forest Service have set a standard to which all law enforcement specifically, and public servants in general, can aspire. The efforts of these dedicated officers make it possible for taxpaying American citizens, from all walks of life, to safely enjoy some of the most beautiful forest area in our great nation. I invite all Members to stand with me in saluting the law enforcement efforts in the Cleveland National Forest by Tommy LaNier and his team.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I think every Member should be proud to vote for this conference report. I think this report is a great manifestation of our ability to work in a bipartisan manner and do something that is important for the country, and I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky), my counterpart on the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, and all the Members, Democrat and Republican, who worked on this particular piece of legislation, because today we live in a very dangerous world. That is extremely clear now. China is trying to step into the superpower shoes that have been left by the Soviet Union. Terrorism is becoming more deadly, more technologically capable, and we are seeing new challenges around the world; and against that backdrop we have cut defense dramatically. The defense force structure that we have today is just about half of what it was in 1992. We have gone from 18 Army divisions to 10; 24 active fighter air wings to 13; and as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky) said, almost 600 ships down to 324 and dropping. Unfortunately, the half that we have left is not as ready as the full force that we had in 1992. We have a $193 million shortage in basic ammo for the Marines; a $3.5 billion shortage in ammo for the Army. Our mission-capable rates have gone down almost 10 percent across the board in the services; that is the ability of an aircraft to take off from a carrier or from a runway, run its mission and come back and land safely. That is now down to an average of about 70 percent. That means about 30 of every 100 planes in our services cannot take off a runway and do their mission because of a lack of spare parts, a lack of maintenance, or just having a real old aircraft that has not been replaced. In fact, we did have 55 crashes, peacetime crashes, last year with the military, resulting in over 50 deaths of our people in uniform. So we are flying old equipment, and we are having to take very valuable resources, these spare parts, the few spares and repair parts that we have, and our trained personnel who can still fix aircraft and other equipment and move them to the front lines when we run an operation like Kosovo. So against that backdrop, we have put an additional $2.7 billion into the modernization accounts, and we put extra money in the pay raise. We have a 4.8 percent pay raise. We put money in readiness. Across the board, we have spent what I consider to be the bare minimum; but in this case, Mr. Speaker, the bare minimum is absolutely necessary. It would be a tragedy to defeat this bill for some reason, for some turf fight or some other reason that has nothing to do with national security. Let me just say with respect to the DOE section of this bill and the reform that we did, let me just remind my colleagues about the tragedy that occurred a couple of years ago. After we had identified an individual who was identified as a spy in our nuclear weapons laboratory, and the head of the FBI, Mr. Freeh, had gone to the Assistant Secretary of Energy and a couple of weeks later to the Secretary of Energy and said, get this guy away from classified areas, take away his access to our nuclear secrets, 14 months later somebody turned around and said, is that spy still next to the nuclear weapons vault? And somebody went over and checked and, yes, he was. We tried to figure out why he hadn't been fired, and there was such a mess and such a confusion that nobody was sure. Everybody thought the other guy was going to get the spy away from our nuclear secrets. Presumably he was upgrading for 14 months, over a year, the nuclear secrets that he had moved out earlier and nobody was there to stop him. That was the confusion that we saw. That is the confusion that we fix. Let us pass this conference report.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to appeal to all of my colleagues to pay attention to what is at stake right now. We are going to be asked by the gentleman from Michigan and several other folks to go with a motion to recommit and basically open up this entire bill and put off this entire bill. That means that we have to tell those men and women in uniform, including the people that are still in the Navy which is 18,000 sailors short, that they have to wait on a 4.8 percent pay increase. We have to tell the people who are not able to fly their planes in the top gun school because they have a lack of engines that that may be put off for a while. We have to tell the people that are waiting for a full ammo supply in the Army where they are $3.5 billion short of basic ammo that they are going to have to wait. We are going to have to tell the Marines, the 911 force, they are going to have to wait and maybe we really do not want to pass this bill today. This bill is the bare minimum and it is a mandatory necessity in this dangerous world to start to rebuild national defense. Let me just say to my friends who have brought up the lawyer arguments that have been made by some attorneys general. I have read that language. It is very conditional. They say there may be problems with this bill. This thing passed 96-1 in the most environmentally conscious body we have got in this country, in the other body, the Senate. All of their lawyers scrubbed this thing. Nobody saw any intrusions in environmental law. I am looking at the sections right now that says that this new nuclear administration must comply with all applicable environmental, safety and health laws and substantive requirements, section 3261. It says that the Administrator must develop procedures to meet the requirements and the Secretary, that means Bill Richardson, Secretary of Energy, must assure that the requirements, the environmental requirements, are met. The Secretary has total control, direction and authority over this new Administrator. Let me just lastly say, we have lost a lot of nuclear secrets. This reform stems those losses and puts the nuclear complex back on safe footing. That is important. Pass this bill.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Let us kind of review the bidding here. China has stolen American nuclear secrets. China has used hard American dollars that we have sent them pursuant to this trade loss that we experience with them every year to buy missile cruisers from Russia which have one mission, and that mission is to kill American aircraft carriers. China has proliferated the components for weapons of mass destruction to terrorist nations which have a stated goal of using those weapons of mass destruction on America. A lot of my friends have talked about this policy of engagement. And yet what do we see in terms of China's real view of the United States? I think China's view of the United States is one that is seen through a very cynical lens. They view America's policy toward China as being one that is driven by corporate greed. And because of that, they see no reason to change their policy in any of the very important areas where we would like to see a change of policy because they feel that America's real goals, our goals of trying to secure the world, our goals of trying to help our friends and allies, some of whom are threatened by China, will always be superseded by what they view as corporate greed. Let us prove them wrong. Let us pass Rohrabacher.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane), my good friend, for yielding me this time. I think it might be appropriate at this time to remind the gentleman of his promises that he made during the NAFTA debate that NAFTA would take this $3 billion trade surplus that we then enjoyed over Mexico and expand it. It has been expanded, but the wrong way. It has now gone into a $10 billion annual trade loss with Mexico, and all of those workers who were going to make enough money to go above that $1,000 per capita annual income to the point where they could order up American Kenmore washing machines and American-made Cadillacs, well, that has not come to fruition. In fact, their wages have gone down. Mr. Chairman, that is the point here. These free trade deals manifest a situation clearly in which the best of intentions end up with very bad results. I am impressed with the candor of the Chinese. It has been said on the floor that there are not going to be transshipments. Everybody seems to agree with that except the Chinese. This is a press release out of the Chinese Trade Ministry. I quote: ``Setting up assembly plants in Africa with Chinese equipment, technology, and personnel could not only greatly increase sales in African countries but also circumvent'' and here is the Chinese Trade Ministry saying this, ``will allow us to circumvent the quotas imposed on commodities of Chinese origin by European and American companies.'' The Chinese are already laying out their blueprint for expanding their $40 billion trade surplus over the United States at the expense of American workers. Mr. Chairman, for those folks who think that African workers are going to partake in that, notice that they are not in this press release. They are not involved. This is going to be Chinese transshipment. It is going to accrue to the detriment of our trade balance.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I read the resolution. It starts out commending the troops, and of course that is the most important thing that we can do. I think we should all be involved in that. It then goes on to commend Secretary Albright and the President of the United States in this operation. Mr. Speaker, I voted for the air war. I voted to support the operation even though it was a retroactive vote that was placed before us. But I am not going to vote to support the President's leadership, and I am not going to vote, make that vote, for partisan reasons. I am going to vote because of the President's leadership and because of his treatment of the military. Now let us review the facts: Today we have shorted our military people $13 billion worth of ammunition. That is all the way from cruise missiles to M16 bullets. That means, if we have to go to war tomorrow because this administration has pulled money out of the cash register that was meant for bullets and used it for peacekeeping operations, we are going to have people die because they run out of bullets. Today we are 13\1/2\ percent below the civilian pay rate for our military. That means that we have 10,000 military families on food stamps. That is a direct result of the President's leadership or lack thereof. If my colleagues think the President has paid our men and women in the military adequately, then vote for this resolution. But I am not going to do that. Today our mission-capable rates have dropped like a rock for lack of spare parts, and that is because the President has not put enough money in the military budget for spares, for aircraft and the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps and the Air Force. I am not going to commend the President for that. So, Mr. Speaker, if the President wants to really do something that thanks our military families for their valiant effort in this war, I suggest that he pay them, increase their pay to the full 13 percent like President Reagan did when he came in and closed that 12.6 percent pay gap, and I recommend that he supply adequate ammunition so that they can fight wars without running out of ammunition, and I recommend that he comes forward with all the spares and the modernization that is required to keep 55 airplanes a year from falling out of the sky and crashing, resulting in 55 deaths in peacetime operations like we had last year. This President has hollowed out the military. If he was a Republican, I would say exactly the same thing. We have some fault, I think, Mr. Speaker, because we have allowed ourselves as a Congress to be finessed by this administration and not to come back with all the requirements our military really needs. I recommended a $28 billion emergency supplemental because that is what the services said they needed, and yet when we even tried to get above $6 billion and finally got to $12 billion, the President resisted that mightily.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for yielding the balance of his time. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleagues, if this President will close the $13 billion ammunition shortage and supply adequate ammunition to our troops, I will personally join with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in offering any type of a resolution to thank the President for doing that and say that he is doing a good job. If he will take the 10,000 service people off of food stamps and close that 13\1/2\ percent pay disparity between the civilian sector and the military sector, I will join with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in saying the President is doing a good job in leading the military. The President right now is not doing a good job in leading the military. He is willing to do anything to thank them except pay them and arm them, and I am going to vote no on this resolution.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in 1933, a young lady named Melba Loman was being robbed at gunpoint next to a high-rise building. During the robbery, a young man leaned out the window with a gun and shouted to the robber, drop that gun or I will shoot, at which point the robber ran off. The young man's name was Ronald Reagan, and he knew something then intuitively that we have learned now; and that is that law-abiding citizens who are allowed to defend themselves will deter crime. I want to talk in this amendment about something that we have not talked much about during this gun debate; and that is simply this, 2 million times each year, American citizens across this country successfully defend their lives and the lives of their family members and their property with guns. In most cases, this does not involve a shoot-out, because FBI studies now show that when law-abiding citizens simply have guns in these confrontations, in 98 percent of the cases that alone deters crime. So American citizens throughout this country in almost every place, 2 million times a year, protect their families, protect their children, protect their wives, and protect their property with guns. There is one place where that does not happen, and that is here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment because I was talked to by residents of Washington, D.C. I just want to quote a couple times. ``If someone is breaking into your home, and you are being put on hold by 911, what should you do to protect your wife and children? Or how does my wife protect herself if caught in the same situation when I am out of town?'' D.C. resident. ``As a District resident for 10 years, I have been a victim of violent crime. It is a tragedy that the reality in the Nation's Capital is not if you will be a victim of crime, but when you will be preyed upon by the vicious criminal element that roams our streets and neighborhoods.'' D.C. resident. ``The memory of holding a sobbing hysterical woman after she, by the grace of God, warded off a rapist who managed to rip steel bars off her window and break into her home still sends chills in my mind.'' D.C. resident. All these letters came in, Mr. Chairman, when it became known that I was going to offer this amendment. In my view, all law-abiding citizens should therefore have the option of being able to protect their homes with deadly force if they see fit. As it stands now, and we all know this, in D.C. only the crooks have guns. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is the case. The D.C. government has successfully disarmed every law-abiding citizen in Washington, D.C. I have never seen the case made that there are crooks who want guns in Washington, D.C. who cannot get them. So the only people that have guns in this community are the bad people, the people that want to rob, rape, and kill. The point was made in the FBI analysis that was done by the University of Chicago that guns in America are used five times as often to prevent crime, to keep somebody from robbing, raping, or killing than they are to commit crime. We want to give to D.C. residents, whom we do have a constitutional responsibility to have oversight over, we do want to give those people the same rights that millions of other Americans have. So this amendment simply offers the right of law-abiding D.C. residents to have a registered handgun in their home for home protection. I think it is a very modest amendment. I think it is very basic. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I regretfully am going to have to object, because I have been advised there are a lot of Members with planes going out. I have lots more materials and lots more speakers, but I am not going to ask for more time. So I regretfully am going to object not only on this amendment, but on others.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the answer to the gentleman's question is that this is an excellent vehicle to give law-abiding citizens the right to have a gun for home protection and to solve that problem.