Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, to follow my friend, it is true that this is the first President who sent our jobs to Mexico, our troops to Bosnia, and our balanced budget to the White House trash can. He has done something else, Mr. Speaker, and that is to veto the defense authorization bill; and the reason the President vetoed the defense authorization bill is because we say in that bill, we shall defend America against ICBM's and have that system in place by the year 2003. The President refuses to defend this country while Iraq, Libya, China, and others hurry up and accelerate their programs on offensive missiles. Defend America. Vote to override the President's veto today.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to the missile defense portion of this thing a little bit. Let me make it clear that when the negotiations were held with the chairman, the ranking member, a number of leaders from the other body, and the President's representative, he gave us a long laundry list of things he thought were wrong with the bill. When I asked him directly what he had to have out, what had to be taken out for the President to sign the bill, the answer I would characterize as evasive. Now, we had a series of meetings with them. At least my feeling was, my impressive was, that if we took out one of the three basic elements of missile defense, that is, the multiple site designation, that the President would probably sign the bill. We took that out, and the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has risen up again and has given us a long litany of other things he thinks the President based his decision on. Let me just say this: I think he has defined the issue fairly well. The President does not think it is in the interests of the United States of America to defend against incoming ballistic missiles. He feels we should not do that, because if we do that at some point we either have to renegotiate the ABM Treaty or we have to break it. The problem is there are other countries besides the two countries that signed the ABM Treaty. We signed the ABM Treaty, the Russians signed it, and the North Koreans did not sign the ABM Treaty. They are building a missile which we project in a few years will have the ability of reaching some States in the United States of America. We have no defense against that missile. Now, the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] has given us a good reason to continue to delay the building of a defense against ballistic missiles. In 1991 we said we will have it by 1996. Today the majority, the Republicans, the American people said let us have it by at least 2003. No, that is not acceptable. Maybe at some point, maybe at some point we will agree to defend the country by the year 2020. But the President has made it clear he does not want to defend America.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman tell me when he is for completing this defense system?

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. If we did not compromise, why did we take out the multiple-site language to accommodate the President?

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

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in supporting the Solomon amendment and opposing the base bill, which, had it been adopted by the British Parliament, would have prohibited Winston Churchill from writing and selling 11 major works while he was in office, including his 1953 Nobel Prize-winning history of World War II.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes it is important to comment on books and movies because those books and movies reflect history, presume to reflect history, and that history is drawn upon by leaders in government when we make further decisions, and one movie that is currently playing in this country is called ``Nixon.'' It is a movie by Oliver Stone, and I think that commentary is always an important thing, and it is important to have a commentary that is delivered by an honest broker. There is no more honest broker in this area and no person more qualified to comment on the movie ``Nixon'' than Herbert Klein, who first met Nixon in 1946 when he was first running for Congress, and ultimately became the Communications Director of the White House in 1969, and was the director until 1973, and I would offer for the Record this article in the San Diego Union entitled ``Truth Subjected to Oliver's Twist'' in which Mr. Klein tries hard to find a grain in truth in the movie ``Nixon,'' but finds it very difficult to achieve. So I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that this article by Herbert Klein be put in the Record. The article referred to is as follows: [From the San Diego Union-Tribune, Dec. 19, 1995] Truth Subjected to Oliver's Twist (By Herbert G. Klein) The Richard Nixon portrayed by Oliver Stone in the new movie ``Nixon'' comes nowhere close to the realities in the complex life of the late former president. In its article on the highly publicized new film (which opens tomorrow), Newsweek saw Stone as having discovered ``complexity, ambiguity and even a measure of restraint.'' For those who knew Nixon well, that description of this picture is difficult to comprehend. Stone has created few movies that were not controversial, and ``Nixon''--like ``JFK''--is sure to create controversy. For ``Nixon,'' Stone recruited outstanding actors, including Sir Anthony Hopkins (who plays the president) and Joan Allen (the first lady). But given the script, which jumps without warning from fact to fiction, acting alone falls far short of reality. I watched the movie at a private screening last week at Mann's Hazard Center, where I was alone to analyze my feelings as I recalled the highs and lows, the wins and losses, that I had experienced with Richard Nixon. The film appropriately showed the warts of the president and then went beyond. The happier, high points were largely ignored. It gave me a bewildered feeling to watch actors who never have known the sill-living people nor the issues they portray, and who miss true characterization. This is a movie mainly tuned to Watergate and parts of Vietnam, but it is interspersed with scenes of Nixon's childhood and, finally, his disgraced departure from power. Even the early family moments are inaccurate, particularly when they portray Nixon's brother as a renegade who died after suffering from tuberculosis for 10 years. Scenes featuring Nixon's mother, Hannah (played by Mary Steenburgen), depict her as an ``angel'' who had tremendous impact on her son Richard. That was true. The scenes brought back memories to me of her Quaker funeral. Such memories included the Rev. Billy Graham, who later presided over the funerals of both Pat and Dick Nixon. The early family depictions surprised me. I didn't expect to see shots of the happy days with kings, presidents and prime ministers in the state dining room, or other shots of congressmen crowding around the president for pictures of bill signings on major issues, such as school desegregation. I did expect less Watergate and more of the international events that shaped Nixon's policies and that are a part of history. Fortunately, I never met the Watergate burglars or its masterminds, G. Gordon Liddy and E. Howard Hunt, but most of the reallife persons portrayed in the film were men and women with whom I worked closely sometime during the time I knew Dick and Pat Nixon, from 1946 until he died in April of 1994. Even with that background, I had difficulty determining which actor was which Nixon deputy or which parts of the movie were based on fact and which were part of a screenwriter's imagination. rubinek as klein The greatest surprise for me came when I discovered Saul Rubinek playing Herb Klein in scenes from the 1960 and 1962 elections. I didn't recognize myself or my role until someone on the screen called out, ``Herb.'' Among other things, Rubinek appears to be short, dumpy, wears suspenders, swears frequently and smokes cigarettes. I'm not Beau Brummel, but none of those things applies to me. In a more important way, the actor playing me on the screen was arguing a point that was directly opposite my point of view. The debate was over whether Nixon should take legal action to protest the results of the close 1960 election against John Kennedy. In the movie, I am arguing with Nixon's early campaign manager, Murray Chotiner, on the night of the election. In fact, the historic question was not seriously considered by Nixon until days after the election, when we were in Key Biscayne, Fla., and my position--along with that of Chotiner and (the late longtime Nixon confidant) of Bob Finch--was that Nixon should not contest the election because such action could endanger national stability. Nixon listened to both sides and decided not to challenge the results, and in a historic scene not portrayed in the movie, he and John Kennedy met in a Key Biscayne villa a week after the election. Nixon rejected an offer to serve in the Kennedy Cabinet, declaring himself to be the leader of the ``loyal opposition.'' The two men agreed to try to unite a divided country, while recognizing their differences. No one ever asked me or any other persons portrayed in the movie what the facts were. coffee his beverage The Nixon on Stone's screen drinks almost constantly and comes off as an evil, angry buffoon who believes that his problems center on not being understood by anyone including his wife. Nixon was not a teetotaler, but coffee was his beverage during the day, and I can recall only a half-dozen times in almost 50 years when I saw him bordering on too much to drink during the evening. Stone touches on Nixon's feelings toward the Kennedys, and at one point Nixon is seen staring at a picture of President Kennedy and asking: ``When they look at you they see what they want to be. When they look at me, they see what they are.'' That probably portrays Nixon's true feelings. He disparged ``Eastern intellectuals'' and yet he knew that, in truth, he was an ``intellectual'' who liked to feel he was outside the Eastern elite community. Some of those he admired most were eliteist. He resented the fact that the Kennedys ``got away with everything'' and that the news media and Congress looked for faults where he could be criticized. At one time, (chief domestic-policy adviser) John Ehrlichman Persuaded Nixon to set up a Camelot-like ``royal guard'' for the White House. That lasted only a few days. The most dramatic parts of the film come in conversations between Dick and Pat Nixon. Those obviously are fabrications since no one witnessed them. Allen plays Pat Nixon's role well and shows her to be family-oriented, warm and intelligent. The Pat Nixon I knew also was a strong and caring ``first lady.'' The film wrongly portrays her as a chain smoker. She smoked occasionally in private. Nixon used to say everyone loves Pat. He was right. During the scenes between the president and his wife, Nixon refers to her with the nickname ``Buddy.'' I had never heard that, Nixon's daughter, Tricia Cox, whose White House wedding is portrayed tastefully, told me she never heard her father use the name Buddy, but she does recall that Buddy was a childhood nickname for her mother. Julie Nixon Eisenhower also is shown pleading with her father not to quit. That was a plea Julie made, but the passion of the real Julie was far greater than that of the actress (Annabeth Gish) who portrays her. stone obsession As I watched the film unfold, the most surprising innuendoes concerned Castro, the Bay of Pigs and a mysterious attempt by Stone to insinuate that there was some type of plot involving Nixon, Howard Hunt, the CIA, J. Edgar Hoover, the Mafia and the Kennedy assassination. Over the years, I have heard discredited theories involving the CIA or the FBI, Kennedy and the Mafia and attempts to assassinate Castro. Stone seems to attach these long repudiated stories to Nixon as if the former president had some part in the death of John Kennedy. That, of course, is pure Stone obsession on Kennedy assassination plots. The vagaries of the Cuban-plot theories did stir within me memories of some of the most tense moments of the Nixon campaign against Kennedy in 1960. Just prior to the fourth and final debate between the two candidates, both men addressed an American Legion convention in Miami, Kennedy got major applause with comments about organizing a force to attack Castro. Nixon knew that such Cuban refugee troops were being trained secretly by the CIA under President Eisenhower's direction. Nixon felt that for him to take this hard line, as had Kennedy would break the code of secrecy he held as vice president. He, therefore, was made to look weak with a suggestion urging a blockade. The encounter made Nixon so angry that it was difficult to prepare him for the all-important final debate. He had me call CIA Director Allen Dulles to see if Dulles had told Kennedy about the secret training exercise. Dulles denied this, but Nixon did not believe him. This exercise later became the Bay of Pigs. In the final days of the 1960 campaign, Nixon was forced during the debate to take a weaker position than he believed in, and Kennedy scored points. None of this was in the movie, but I recall taking reporters to Club 21 for a drink, hoping that would distract them from what was going on. I became angry during the movie when Nixon was portrayed in sinister fashion as ready to bomb civilians in Hanoi, North Vietnam. Stone goes to the trouble of showing Nixon turning back a steak that was so raw that blood covered his plate. This bloody scene was supposed to be symbolic, but it almost made me sick. The fact is that Hanoi was bombed, and nearby Haiphong was mined, a bold move that forced the North Vietnamese to agree to a cease-fire. I recalled that Henery Kissinger and I were in Hanoi immediately afterward, and I saw with my own eyes that Hanoi civilians were spared, but military targets such as bridges and airfields were hit with precision. This was not in the movie. Among those who will resent this film most will be Henry Kissinger. Only recently, he was unfairly depicted as being evil in Turner Broadcasting's TV movie, ``Kissinger and Nixon.'' In the Stone movie, Kissinger appears to be a devious fat, sycophant who was almost ousted from the White House staff by (White House chief of staff) Bob Haldeman and aide Chuck Colson. One of Kissinger's happiest moments was when he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. The disparaging movies may provide Kissinger with some new low points in life. When, in ``Nixon,'' I saw the Kissinger character having lunch or dinner with reporters at Washington's Sans Souci restaurant, I recalled dining in the same cafe and often wondering what Kissinger was leaking. This did become a White House controversy, and he may have wondered the same thing about me. But the movie's implication that Kissinger was about to lose his job was the opposite of truth. The film reminded me of times when I was in Haldeman's office or on an airplane and heard Kissinger--then the frustrated national security adviser--seek to displace Secretary of State Bill Rogers. No one effectively threatened Kissinger. For me, the saddest moments of the movie came near the end, when Nixon finally begins to comprehend that he has lost the battle, that he is about to be forced from office. I had left the staff a year earlier. Stone is more sympathetic in these scenes and allows Nixon to ask why no one remembers what he did in ending the war, in opening relations with China and what he did in the SALT treaty agreements with the Soviet Union. I left the theater wondering why the movie was made and seeking quiet where I could again sort out fact and fiction. I also pondered the coincidence that within less than two years after Nixon's death, we suddenly see a flurry of shows reviving the Vietnam War and Watergate--TNT's ``Kissinger and Nixon,'' Stone's ``Nixon'' and a forthcoming History Channel program titled `` `The Real Richard Nixon' 3\1/2\ documentary hours of Tricky Dick.'' The A&E Channel also has scheduled a two-hour presentation of Nixon on ``Biography,'' to air in january. Its producers say it is a true documentary.

Mr. HUNTER. Child-based tax cut is by far the big----

Mr. HUNTER. Reclaiming my time, I just take my time back for a second. The difference that I have seen in the amount of money of income that is derived or the amount of money that is attributed to the child-based tax cut is roughly, if the last figures I looked at were correct, was about five times as much the amount of income that is considered to be given up, if you will, by the capital gains tax cut.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just answer my friend. That is a long--what the gentleman has just described is a far cry from saying this is a tax cut for the rich. I do not consider a person who makes, who has only a $1,500-per-year tax liability, as being a wealthy individual, and yet that person, if that person has three children, he get to multiply that by $500 per child, and that totally eliminates his tax liability. That takes it from $1,500 to zero. Now that is hardly a tax break for the Rockefellers. So the gentleman was arguing in favor of having a balanced discussion, using not pejorative terms in trying to find a middle ground somewhere, and I would suggest that there is a lot of merit to a child-based credit--you know the tax credit we started with that we had in 1948, if you adjust it for inflation, is much lower in real dollars than it was back in the 1940's. I think the gentleman----

Mr. HUNTER. I appreciate the gentleman's commentary. I would be happy to discuss this with him further but, Mr. Speaker, I would like----

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, before I get into my subject, let me just comment briefly on what my colleague just stated in respect to the balanced-budget negotiations. He mentioned, the last thing he mentioned, were the tax cuts, and you know I have looked at the tax cuts, the $500-per-child tax credits, and I do not think that is a strange tax cut, and that is, by far, the biggest amount of money that is manifest in the Republican package. That says that you get $500 credit per child. Now that means, if you are a person who is a working person who only pays today $1,500 in tax liability, you have three children, at $500 apiece your tax liability is erased. A person who has a $50,000 tax liability, an upper-income person, and you have three children, your children count just as much as anybody else's, and you get $1,500 off your $50,000 liability, and you still pay $48,500 in taxes, and I just do not understand why that--I would be happy to yield.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and let me just say that everybody holds Bob Walker in great esteem. I am reminded of a story by Jack Kemp when he was on a plane in the Caribbean, and somebody saw him and started to come toward him, saying, are you a Member of Congress. Jack figured here was another guy coming to recognize him, the potential Presidential candidate and a well-known sports star and Congressman; and when Jack Kemp said, I am, the guy said, well, then you must know Bob Walker. I have seen him on C-SPAN. All of us have seen Bob on C-SPAN, but what a lot of folks have not seen is that Bob Walker is a guy who was always here to help anybody who comes out on the House floor, who has a legislative initiative. Whether you are a freshman or a Member who has been here for 16 years, Bob is always gracious, always willing to help, and maybe most importantly, always ready to fight for you. I can remember when we did the all-night special orders, and Bob would always be the guy that volunteered for the slot from 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. in the morning. That takes a lot of guts. A great American, and it is a real tragedy that he is leaving this House, a wonderful friend of all of us.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, just to follow my colleague's remarks, 53 percent of our high-technology companies in Silicon Valley have been hit with the type of fraudulent lawsuits that this legislation would prohibit. If my colleagues want to bring back the California economy-- and it is still struggling--and if the President wants to bring back the California economy and get a little credit for it, let us get this legislation passed. Please support this override.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Kingston] for yielding and, let me just say that in listening to my friend from New Jersey I have learned I have got some new terms for what I call my liberalspeak dictionary. The first term is the rich. The rich, according to liberalspeak, is anybody who has children, because the tax cuts and credits that are given in the Republican budget are given to people who have children. That means if you get a $500 tax credit per child and you are a working guy who pays $1,500 a year in taxes, you have three children times $500, you take $1,500 off your taxes and you have reduced your taxes to zero. If you are a guy that pays $50,000 and you have three children at $500 apiece you take $500 off your $50,000 tax liability, and you still pay $48,500. The first liberal-speak term that they have been using extensively is ``the rich.'' ``The rich'' are any people that have children. That makes you rich in America. I guess in a way it does. The other liberal-speak term that we have all been learning is ``a cut.'' This is why we have a $5 trillion deficit today. For the liberals, any increase that is less than 40 percent is a cut, because Medicare payments per senior citizen are going under the Republican budget from $4,800 to in excess of $6,700 per senior.

Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman is absolutely right. But we have to accept this liberal dictionary because all of our Democrat friends are using it across the country. Any increase in a government program that is less than a 40 percent increase they will call a cut. Lastly, they have a new term. It is called ``radical.'' Anybody that believes that working men and women who earn money with their own sweat should be allowed to keep that money is a radical. The moderate view, the accepted view for the liberals, is that all the money belongs to the government, and only in times of extreme prosperity can the government afford to give back working men and women the money that they earned with their own sweat. Otherwise, you are a radical. So we have some new terms from the liberal dictionary, and I just heard the fine gentleman from New Jersey expound on those terms and once again define them for us.

Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield, one thing we have noticed with the liberals with their new dictionary that says that if you are rich, that means anybody who has children is rich. They have avoided in all of their descriptions of the budget, of the Republican budget, the term children, because they know that the American people have common sense, and if the American people know that the bulk of the tax cuts in the Republican plan are giving anybody who has children $500, count them, $500 per child tax credit, then everybody has enough common sense to realize that that is mostly going to be absorbed by working people. Rich people do not have 50, 100, 200 children. They do not have more children than people in middle income class or lower income class. They know that everybody has children. They also know that working people, the working guy who is paying $1,500 a year in tax liability who has three children at $500 apiece will see his tax liability totally erased, and the guy who has $50,000 a year in tax liability and has three children at $500 apiece will only have it reduced about 1 percent, down to $48,500. That is why the Democrats never use the word ``children.'' They think they want to let the American people rely on the notion that there is some obscure formula that we put together that says only the Forbes family gets this tax cut, and that is not true. Anybody with children.

Mr. HUNTER. Let us balance this budget. that is what we are here for. We are not going to leave this Hill until the budget is balanced, and I thank the gentleman for his great leadership in this area.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman just hit the nail on the head, because you mentioned the time. A number of our friends on the other side of the aisle call a balanced budget a noble goal, but it is never the right time to have it. It is always the right time to increase another program by 50 percent, because if you increase it by less than 40 percent, they will call it a cut, but it is never quite the right time to have a balanced budget. I think you are exactly right. The American people think that this is the right time. If we leave this Hill without having a balanced budget over this next 5, 10, 15 days, we will have failed the American people.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Chrysler] is especially valuable to us because he comes with a business background, and he understands acquisition in the real marketplace; that is, in the private marketplace, and we are going to save a lot of money because of what you did. We still have a long way to go. We still have those 300,000 Government shoppers in the Department of Defense which is roughly 2 United States Marine Corps. We call them fighting shoppers from the sky, and we are going to be trying to build a more efficient system in terms of personnel in the next couple of years, but your work has been extraordinary, and we are going to save the taxpayers some money because of it. I thank you.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. But he had that increase in front of him in the plan and obviously his analysts put it into executive summary for him: What it does in education, what it does in other areas; but he had that while he looked at the camera and said, this slashes education. He had those numbers in front of him, correct?

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just want to get something straight. The President was on television the other night saying that he rejected, quote, the Republican package because among other things, according to him, it slashed and cut education. Now, are these the same numbers, the increase, for example, in job training and student loan funding, the $340.8 billion that is projected under the Republican plan for the next 7 years, those numbers were in front of the President while he was standing there telling the American people that the plan cut education?

Mr. HUNTER. I would just say to my friend, first, thanks. We all owe you a real debt of gratitude for setting the record straight. But, second, this is kind of tragic, that the President of the United States, who has these numbers in front of him, has obviously scared a lot of people. If I had not seen the gentleman's numbers that he is presenting tonight and did not know anything about this plan and heard him describing the Republican education numbers, it would give me the impression that we were slashing that $315 billion that the Democrats spent over the last 7 years in half, or doing something like that. But there is no way that any reasonable individual could conclude from the President's remarks that we were actually increasing the amount of money to be spent on job training and student loan funding, which in fact we are under out program.