Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. The gentleman has made a great point. Seven former Secretaries of Defense wrote this President in a very, very serious vein and [[Page H 7982]] said do not stop this program. The President has decided to ignore them. Recently, Dick Cheney sent out a second letter that was distributed to Members of the House, and I think all of us, you and I especially, who are good friends of Dick and remember being with him, and it was a joy to serve with him on the House floor, remember his wisdom in many, many areas of defense. He is strongly for this bomber. One reason he is for it is Dick Cheney was a realist. He was a man who did not say a lot. I can remember him making very few speeches on the House floor, but one thing he said stuck in my mind. He said, ``There will be another war, and we cannot control that. We can control whether we are prepared for it or not.'' When the gentleman said, How can we make such a dumb mistake as to cut down our bomber force down to such a low level? I will tell the gentleman how it came about that we came up with this dumb idea, and now that General Lowe is a civilian and not controlled by President Clinton, he says it every day, and he wrote a letter to us even while he was in the uniform saying you would take enormous risks. We had an administration looking at this little bitty bomber force, smaller than it has ever been in our modern history and saying, How can we stretch this thing between two wars? America has to be ready for two wars because if we get engaged in the Middle East, we cannot presume that our adversaries in North Korea, for example, are not going to jump in the fray knowing that we are occupied and tied up in one place. We have to be prepared to handle two wars at the same time, and the Clinton administration was faced with this. How do you stretch this small bomber force between two wars? I understand some staff guy came up and said, I tell you what we will do, and it was probably a guy with no military experience, and he said, we will just swing the bombers back and forth between the wars. Now, you ask General Lowe, what if you swing the bombers out of one war theater, let us say Korea to go to the Middle East, because you desperately need them in the Middle East, and your adversary, who sees them going and leaving decides to mount a heavy armor attack. I asked General Lowe what would happen. He said, ``You could take big casualties.'' Big casualties mean American men and women, soft bodies, coming home in body bags. There may be a time in our history when somebody looks back to say, who made this crazy idea that you could swing bomber forces back and forth between wars with no problems, and they will point to some staff guy who stood up at a meeting with the way to save money, and who probably had no military experience. I know no uniformed people who will say that that is a smart idea.

Mr. HUNTER. So you have 147 crewmen at risk to hit the same targets where, if you use one B-2, you have two crewmen at risk, and, if you use two B-2's, you have four crewmen at risk, and the second point the gentleman made is really, really important when you went back to World War II. You know we were developing a nuclear weapon. Well, Adolf Hitler was developing a nuclear weapon, and we beat him to the punch, and they were very close to having their heavy-water experiments successfully converted at the time when we really closed in on the Third Reich. Similarly, the Nazis were building jet engines, and they were developing jet aircraft. The last aircraft, I believe it was the last one, that Chuck Yeager shot down with a propeller-driven aircraft was a German Jet. But we had a President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and I say this as a Republican. He was a Democrat President who every time his inventors and his scientists came to him and said, ``Mr. President, we have something that will make this country stronger militarily,'' he would say, ``Do it, because the lives and safety of our people depend on it. Don't ever reject technology. You can't turn the clock back because the other guy is not turning the clock back.'' If we reject this stealth technology that would bring back our pilots alive, this will be the first time in this century where we as Congress have told our pilots and their families, ``You know we could have protected you. We could have kept you safe from that SAM missile, but we didn't do it because we thought it was too expensive.''

Mr. HUNTER. OK, the gentleman has hit a very important point to every American, and that is called bring the crews back, bring your aircrews back. If you take that group of 75 aircraft, conventional aircraft, that are required to do the same job at the same 16 named points as one B-2 can hit, can cover, and two B-2's if you want to do it redundantly, that flotilla of conventional aircraft carriers about 147 crewmen.

Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would continue to yield, the gentleman has really made the key point for those who appreciate stealth. We developed stealth because we lost 2,200 aircraft in Vietnam. We discovered that Russian-made SAM missiles were so effective that they could be taken to any Third World nation, at that point Vietnam, along with a short training course, and in a short period of time surface-to- air missiles could be effectively operating against the best conventional aircraft that we had. Now that lesson was driven home to us a few weeks ago in Bosnia when our F-16 pilot strayed over an area that had an old Russian SAM missile that we overlooked, and that SAM missile went up and got that F-16 at over 20,000 feet. We decided to develop stealth because we were losing pilots at an enormous rate, our pilots are important to us, our aircraft are important to us, and, you know, probably the development of radar is considered to be probably the most important military invention of this century. Will the ability to evade radar--to be invisible to radar is probably the second most important military invention of this century, and we are threatening to throw away that enormous discovery if we stop the B-2 line.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that tribute, and let me just say that he has been a real expert in the area of national security as one of the leaders in the Committee on Appropriations in the Defense Subcommittee, and he made a really important point, Mr. Dicks, and that is the point that you can deter wars by having lots of air power early in the war, and all of the studies, even the studies in which conclusions were drawn adverse to B-2's by the political elements in the administration, said that bombers can stop armor, and that means that when Saddam Hussein or others who have a desire to take territory that does not belong to them fire up their tanks and put them in third gear, the only way you can stop that armor quickly is with heavy bomber attacks. You cannot sail that carrier task force into that place where you can make those short, 200- or 150-mile sorties off the carrier deck. You cannot airlift and sealift all your troops over [[Page H 7981]] in a very short period of time. The one thing you know you can do without permission from anybody in the world is take your bombers off from the United States of America, maybe relay them at the Deigo Garcia, or maybe, if you have another friendly airstrip around the world, and we have fewer of them now than we had a few years ago, you could take those bombers, and you can stop that armor attack, and having the ability to do that is a very, very important thing.

Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely. We built up this massive force, but what you want to do to really save casualties and to deter that enemy from really crossing that international line is to get air power in and stop the armor, destroy the tanks. This munitions and submunitions that my friend Mr. Dicks has described is the way our technicians and our scientists have figured out to stop heavy armor advances without having to throw a lot of American boys, a lot of soft bodies and infantry divisions out there in harm's way. American air power is a way to save lives. This is a real breakthrough in American air power. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I think of one other example. When we hit Mr. Qadhafi in Libya after he had assassinated Americans, and we had proof of that, and we struck him in Tripoli, we decided we were going to do that partly with naval projection, and we moved a lot of naval ships into the Gulf of Sidra, right outside the Gulf of Sidra.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for making that point, because you have made the precise point about one of the biggest threats that we have, and that is in the post-cold-war world discovering one day that somebody like a Saddam Hussein has fired up his armor forces, his tanks, and is moving across an international line. It is very, very difficult to stop him quickly. Now, Saddam Hussein, as Colin Powell said, was a character right out of central casting. He let us build up other forces to the point where we overwhelmed him. But the thing that you want to do----

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. Congratulations on a long and successful day on this floor.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], chairman of the subcommittee. I want to first start by thanking the gentleman for his commitment to solving our international wastewater problems--the gentleman is familiar with those, with the district that I have just south of his district that borders Mexico--particularly the cleanup of the New River, which is the river that flows north in Mexico, through [[Page H 7891]] Mexicali and ultimately into the United States and travels about 50 miles north into the Salton Sea. As the gentleman knows, it is one of the most polluted waterways in North America and the New River carriers millions of gallons of water per day of municipal and industrial waste into my district. The gentleman has recognized that problem, and has been helping us a lot. We thank the gentleman for that. On page 54 of the subcommittee report, there is concern expressed over EPA's use of subpoenas to collect data from U.S. companies operating in Mexico. Those companies are companies that are in the Mexicali area. They operate and some of them discharge their waste into the New River which flows north into the United States and then into the Salton Sea. The report questions the authority of the EPA to serve these subpoenas and whether this action may be a violation of NAFTA. After following this issue closely, I just wanted to clarify that in this instance the EPA was in contact with both the International Boundary and Water Commission and the Mexican Environmental Agency throughout the operation. Understanding that any toxics dumped in the New River in Mexico ultimately ends up in the United States, I am supportive and have been supportive of EPA's attempt to solicit voluntary submissions by U.S. companies in Mexico. It was following an inadequate response to this request that the EPA issued the subpoenas in cooperation and consultation with Mexican authorities and the IBWC. I would also note at that time the new agencies established under NAFTA to assist with the cleanup of the border environment were not yet organized. As a result, the EPA worked with the existing international agencies to gather general information on chemical discharges as they are allowed to do under the Toxic Substances Control Act. I agreed with their position in terms of trying to identify who was putting this toxic discharge into the New River, but I want to let the chairman know that I am in full agreement with his overall conclusion that our agencies, especially the EPA, should not overstep their bounds in the enforcement of our laws. I want to thank him for this opportunity to comment.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], the chairman. Mr. Chairman, I understand that following the closure of the border patrol checkpoints at San Clemente and Temecula, CA, approximately $7.5 million will be available for INS border and infrastructure improvements, subject to approval by your committee. I would request that, in the course of evaluating proposals for this funding, that you would consider using the funding for construction of fencing along the border area in San Diego. The comprehensive immigration reform legislation that is now pending before the Committee on the Judiciary, that is, H.R. 1915, includes the authorization for an additional border fencing project and road improvements in the San Diego sector, and this would augment our program increases for border security and the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. We owe him a debt of gratitude for the increases he has made in border enhancement, and the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the chairman and to the ranking member that you two gentlemen are one reason why America is starting to get control of our borders, because a couple of years ago you started increasing the Border Patrol. And you did it in a difficult time. You did it at times over the objection of the administration. And because of that, you have started this trend of taking border patrol men, who are presently stationed in the interior, moving them to the border, forward deploying them, which is one thing the studies done by Los Alamos Laboratory said we should do, one thing the studies by GAO said we should do. Additionally, this year you are adding some 700 new border patrol agents, those are used in the smugglers corridor between San Diego and Tijuana, the most prolific smugglers corridor in America, who greatly appreciate your attention to the border. We have 12 smugglers corridors across the Southwest, from San Diego to Tijuana, all the way to Brownsville, Texas, to Matamoros, Mexico. I want to thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Rogers], for this attention to the border, and the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Mollohan]. Because of you we are finally starting to get control of the border, and those of us in California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona will work with you very closely to see to it that we finish this job.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, this is not special for San Diego. This is special for the taxpayers of the United States, because they are the people that are going to be paying this $2 billion for an unnecessary secondary treatment. This is exactly what Sam Donaldson was talking about the other day when he stood in the middle of the Arizona desert in his special on regulation and talked about the massive protection for, ``aquatic creatures, water creatures,'' that EPA was thrusting on Arizona. He went to EPA and said, ``Show me the aquatic creatures in the middle of the Arizona desert.'' They could not show it to him. They could not show him a reason for the regulation. Here we have in San Diego the best ocean scientists in the world at Scripps saying you do not have to have secondary regulation. I will say to my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Mineta], I have been to the meetings with EPA sitting there saying, ``We don't care what they say, it says right here in the law you're going to build a $2 billion plant. By golly, you're going to build it.'' This helps all the taxpayers. It has been said that this is going to prejudice in some way other communities. This is not going to prejudice other communities. This is going to pave the way for other communities to lift their unnecessary regulation. Believe me, all of us are going to be voting right with you. This is a great symbol of common sense and science meeting dumbbell regulation and overtaking it. Please vote ``yes.''

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California, and I also commend the chairman and ranking member for their excellent work. Please oppose this amendment. The committee put together a responsible mark here, and this is specifically included in the balanced-budget resolution. It is within that resolution.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. My colleagues, the distinguished gentleman who offered this amendment stated that there is no legitimate support for this reactor, but, in fact, there is, and I have a couple of letters, one here from Duke Power that says, ``GTMHR represents breakthrough potential for nuclear power.'' Maybe its opponents do not want a breakthrough, but if there is no breakthrough, it is hard to explain where the world's electricity is going to come from in the next century. The Nuclear Energy Institute similarly writes a letter of support, stating, ``The nuclear industry also supports Federal funding for other advanced reactor technologies, such as the GTMHR. These technologies will have an important role in America's electricity supply, and the industry has invested more than $10 million in R&D efforts to date on advanced nuclear energy technologies.'' Now, my colleagues, we have got a lot of conservatives and a number of Members who are more liberal, alike, but who are concerned about government expenditures, who say, ``Well, doggone it, why is private industry not paying for this R&D?'' And I think the American nuclear society states it best when they explain why private industry is not coming forth with that money. It is because there is presently a chilling effect throughout this country and throughout industry on any type of reactor. When did we build the last reactor? How many decades ago was it we built the last reactor? Let me just quote what is stated by the American Nuclear Society, a group which incidentally very strongly supports this reactor. They say, ``The United States no longer holds a position of competitive leadership within the international commercial nuclear industry, due, in large part, to a web of disincentives imposed upon nuclear energy technologies, including tax laws discouraging collaborative research and development among corporations.'' We cannot deny that. That exists today. That is why private industry is not coming forth. ``Nuclear plant liability coverage requirements far in excess of other industries, despite demonstrably lower risks to public safety.'' We cannot deny, in fact, that exists, that liability exists. That chills the industry and deters private industry from investing. ``Trade policies prohibiting sale of nuclear energy equipment,'' that does exist. ``Failure of governmental agencies to fulfill mandates for spent fuel storage and waste management, which creates overwhelming economic uncertainties for potential investors,'' my colleagues, all of those things exist in the private sector, and that is why, if we are going to meet this challenge for a reactor technology which does not melt down and which greatly reduces waste, we are going to have to spend some government dollars, and we, as conservatives and liberals and moderates in this body, have to accept and understand that. Let me just say, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], who just spoke, was very eloquent on that point. We have a common interest in this body in following this technology. So, if you just want to be anti-nuclear, vote for this amendment. But if you want to approach and continue development in a rational manner, to meet the two great challenges, that is, meltdown and, second, waste disposal problems, with respect to nuclear reactors, then please vote to reject this amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend to the House an article in today's Wall Street Journal. Written by the very thoughtful and articulate Bruce Herschensohn, it details, concisely, just what the President is giving away by recognizing the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Don't Reward Vietnam (By Bruce Herschensohn) This week, President Clinton plans to give full diplomatic recognition to the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Most of the controversy surrounding the move has focused on the POW/MIA issue. While this is important, it obscures the real significance of the administration's decision: By recognizing Vietnam now, Mr. Clinton would send a message to foreign governments that it's unnecessary to keep agreements with the

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a remarkable accomplishment by a constituent in my district, Mr. Glen Huber, of Brawley, CA. Mr. Huber recently accepted the Navy Superior Public Service Award from Hon. Richard Danzig, Undersecretary of the Navy, for his exceptional service and outstanding dedication to U.S. Navy and its personnel. Undersecretary Danzig presented the award on behalf of the Secretary of the Navy, Hon. John Dalton. Mr. Huber's many efforts to bring the Navy and civilian communities together were also honored earlier this month by the Navy League of the United States and their national convention held in St. Louis, MO. Mr. Huber's work on behalf of the annual Navy Desert Outing was particularly praised. Founded in 1902, the 68,000-member Navy League is a civilian organization dedicated to highlighting the need for seapower to ensure national security and economic well-being. During the League's national convention, Mr. Huber was elected national vice president for Legislative Education. His responsibilities will involve keeping Navy League members advised of congressional activity, specifically as it pertains to maritime issues. In addition, Mr. Huber will be charged with the task of informing Congress and their staffs about the significance of seapower and other related matters. Established in 1986, the Navy League Desert Outing provides Navy Leaguers the opportunity to observe the Navy's demonstration flight team, the Blue Angels, perform intricate and precisely-coordinated maneuvers during their practice sessions. Navy League participants also attend a formal dinner with the Blue Angels team. This dinner provides the Navy Leaguers the opportunity to meet the young pilots, while promoting constructive interaction between the military and the local community. The following morning, the participants attend a ranch-style breakfast in the desert which features the opportunity to view the Blue Angels during their practice session. For the last several years, Mr. Huber has served as the co-chairman for the El Centro Naval Air Facility's [NAF] annual air show. This event not only features the precision-flying Blue Angels, but also offers an inside look at NAF El Centro with its various aircraft, displays and exhibits. Mr. Speaker, in an age where the role and importance of our nation's armed forces is often shrouded by various trivial issues and concerns, it is heartening to see citizens, like Mr. Huber, exhibiting this type of patriotic behavior.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for leading this fight and for the great work he has done. I have to agree with him with respect to burning the flag. That is not a statement, that is not speech. That, as Judge Rehnquist said, is an inarticulate grunt. There are a lot of other ways to express yourself rather than lighting a fire, and this is not speech. I think the gentleman is right on that. I thank him for his leadership.

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

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will let me answer, Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely appropriate for the State legislators to participate in protecting the flag.