Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Idaho the gentleman from [Mr. Crapo]. (Mr. CRAPO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand we have the right to close the debate.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt] to whom we always give plenty of time. (Mr. TIAHRT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. General Atomics is excluded from being able to participate in this amendment. I would ask how much time we have remaining, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would remark, the gentleman mentioned that a number of authorities in the Clinton administration are against this approach. Let me just say that in my estimation, the guy who was the leading authority on the validity of reactors versus accelerators endorses this approach, and the last of his letter says ``With respect to an accelerator, it is too uncertain, and there is a better way for the requirement, while satisfying three needs for the price of one.'' That is, the leading authority, in my estimation, on this technology endorses the idea of a triple play. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes and 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham].

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair tell us how much time we have remaining?

Mr. HUNTER. My point is there is just as bad earmarking on the part of the administration, earmarking technology that flies in the face of what the scientists say is needed.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from California, for yielding to me. Mr. Chairman, let me mention what the gentleman mentioned first, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey] mentioned. That was technological earmarking. There is probably no bill that is a perfect bill, but my objection to the idea of having this record of decision come down on the technology is, to my colleague, and he is a realist and I am a realist, is it is politically impossible, in my estimation, for the Clinton administration to come down on behalf of anything except an accelerator. I think that is what they feel is politically doable, and even though everybody agrees we have to build tritium, they are non- nuclear enough to say that we do not want to be building it with a reactor. I think the gentleman would be just as insulted by a record of decision that comes down this fall that will supposedly be based on scientific merit, but in fact it will not be based on scientific merit. It will be based on the decision that at least is implied as having already been made by the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Smith, in his letter, where he says ``Our program is to go with what is,'' and I am paraphrasing, ``the lead technology,'' and then there is a backup technology, which is the reactor, implying obviously the lead technology is an accelerator. Of course I want to have my people participate and have a chance to participate in any work that is done, but I think there is an overriding goal here that in my estimation is very compelling. That is to continue to produce tritium, to do it in a reliable way, and I think everyone would agree that the only reliable way we have done it in large quantities is with a reactor. Last, all of these arguments have been made about how scientifically we can do this with an accelerator. The director of the laboratory that would benefit from the accelerator said these words: ``I cannot support the accelerator for the sole purposes of producing tritium because it is too expensive, too uncertain, and there is a better way to provide for the requirement while satisfying 3 needs,'' and that is electricity, tritium, plutonium.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Norwood]. (Mr. NORWOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think there is an important political principle here. When you know that an agency of the Government, of the executive branch, is going to come out with what is on the face of it a decision made on the merits, but you know and you have been told has already been made and is a political decision, I think it is wrong to wait and have them utilize this decision that they have already basically broadcast to us, they telegraphed to us, it is going to be an accelerator, not for science reasons but for political reasons, to wait for that to come out months from now where that will then be used as an argument to try to weight this very important decision, where I think the scientists like Harold Agnew have already made a very clear and convincing case. That is my point.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his contribution. Let me just respond in this way before I yield to other Members. The administration, in my estimation, has already done the earmarking. Members of the administration, folks who are inside the administration, I think have made it fairly clear that they have already decided, this record of decision is down the road. They have made the decision at this point to go with the accelerator. Let me cite to my friend the letter from the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Harold P. Smith, who basically sent us a letter that gave, in my estimation, the smoking gun. He says, ``The funding request made by the Department of Energy was formulated in support of their production strategy,'' that is, an existing production strategy, ``of primary and backup--light water reactor.'' Well, if the backup is a light water reactor, what is the existing primary production strategy? It is an accelerator. I would say to my friend, I have spent some time on this. I have had discussions with folks in the administration. The essence of it is, they do not think it is politically possible in this administration to come through with what Harold Agnew thinks is a scientifically meritorious decision, and that is a reactor. My feeling is, they have already done the earmarking. I think this letter shows that. There has already been an earmarking by the administration. And because of that, I think we are going to waste valuable time, if we wait for them to come down with a paper decision that merely records a decision they have already made at this time, when the people that I rely on, and I think the committee justifiably relies on, like Harold Agnew, who was the director of the facility that would benefit from an accelerator, I think to go with what we see on the merits from a scientific way and not wait for this paper decision to come down months from now that has already been made. That is the point I would make to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I am glad that the gentleman from Massachusetts has stated that there is no dispute as to the requirement for tritium. The ranking member of the full committee has mentioned during our debate on the ABM treaty that we still, at least with respect to the Soviet Union, rely on our deterrents, on our strategic arsenal, our nuclear arsenal, to deter nuclear conflict. Tritium is an important component of that arsenal, and it deteriorates. The half-life of tritium is 5\1/2\ years. That means you have to keep making it. So the Clinton administration agrees with the committee that you have to keep making tritium, and they themselves put some $50 million into this program. The difference is, and my colleague has said you should never have earmarking of technology, the difference is for political reasons in my estimation, and this comes from conversations with many people in the administration, people who are pro-strategic weapons. The administration has decided already not to build a reactor. Now, there are several ways to make tritium. The way that we have used in the past, the reliable, proven method, whereby we have made our tritium in the past for our strategic weapons, is a reactor, a nuclear reactor. there have been no invitations from Massachusetts. The gentleman has mentioned that South Carolina is the place where they make tritium, have made it, have had reactors, and presumably would invite reactors in the future. We have got so similar invitation from Massachusetts to build a nuclear reactor. But nuclear reactors are the way you make tritium in a reliable fashion. There is a chance that you can make tritium with an accelerator, but it is risky, and it is not proven. Let me tell you that I personally relied on the word and the testimony of arguably the best authority in this country on the validity or the viability of reactors versus accelerators, and that is the former head of the Los Alamos Lab, who was in charge of Los Alamos during a large part of the accelerator program, who is very, very understanding of the accelerator program, a person who is on the various commissions, who has been asked to evaluate this. And let me recite to you the words of Harold Agnew, a former director of the Los Alamos Laboratory, which would get the accelerator work or a large part of it, and he is writing to the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the other body, and he says this: Dear Pete: I have been serving as a member of the Joint Advisory Committee on Nuclear Weapons Surety. Recently we were asked to assess the feasibility of using an accelerator to produce the tritium required for our future nuclear weapons stockpile. Because the accelerator would presumably be designed at Los Alamos, I particularly wanted you to have my thoughts on the issue firsthand. My concern is that while it is technically feasible, it is not economically rational. I fear that Los Alamos may come to rely on a full blown accelerator program to produce tritium only to be disappointed when the economic realities are better understood. In these days of severe budgetary constraints, a program of this magnitude will certainly receive heavy scrutiny. Simplified, the reality is that an accelerator producing tritium would consume about $125 million per year in electricity . . . while a reactor producing tritium would produce for other purposes about $175 million per year. . . . In other words, a reactor makes electricity, an accelerator uses electricity, and the difference, according to Mr. Agnew, is a difference of $300 million per year. He continues: Over a lifetime of 40 years, that's a $12 billion consideration. It is simply counter intuitive to believe a difference in energy consumption of this magnitude will be sustainable. This is particularly true when the cost of facilities--accelerator or reactor--are roughly the same. Given a projected capital cost of $3.2 billion for the accelerator and a declining requirement for tritium, the tritium imperative is a thin reed upon which to lean. He concludes, and this is one of the paragraphs that I think is very critical for this House to consider. He talks about an accelerator having some value if you used it for other purposes. That is to consume plutonium when it is hooked up with a reactor. So an accelerator and a reactor hooked together could do the whole thing. He says: The accelerator is unique and can totally destroy virtually all weapons plutonium. It can do so extremely economically when combined in tandem with a deep burn reactor. The deep burn reactor using a surplus weapons plutonium as fuel could consume 90 percent of the plutonium 239 in a once through cycle. The depleted fuel element with the remaining plutonium would then be transferred to a subcritical assembly irradiated with an accelerator. The accelerator would destroy the remaining plutonium. Because there are large amounts of electricity produced when the plutonium is destroyed, there is no cost for the plutonium destruction. In fact, it makes money. The same assembly would also be able to produce tritium at the same time and at no additional cost if tritium is needed. The gentleman who cited the taxpayer groups, I wish they had had a chance to sit down with one of the leaders of the Manhattan Project, Harold Agnew, the director of the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory and a gentleman whose colleagues would benefit and profit from an accelerator, has looked at this thing and has said, listen, if you can build a triple play reactor, that is, you can build a system that not only makes tritium but consumes plutonium and makes electricity at the same time that you can sell, thereby mitigating your costs, why not do it? He concludes: ``I could and would get firmly behind a reactor program with this objective in mind.'' That is, this combination with the reactor and an accelerator. ``I cannot support the accelerator for the sole purpose of producing tritium because it is too expensive, its need too uncertain and there is a better way to provide the requirement while satisfying the three needs, electricity, plutonium, and tritium production for the price of one.''

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

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call the attention of the House to speeches written by some young students at Alpine Elementary School in my district. Jessica Herold, Kimberly Shoemaker, Tasha Voeltzel, and Travis McGrath have written what Memorial Day means to them and their words are something we can all be proud of. I ask that their speeches be submitted into the Record. (By Jessica Herold and Kimberly Shoemaker) Good morning Congressman Hunter, Mr. Miller, Teachers, Guests, and students. We were asked to write about our flag or Memorial Day. We found it difficult to separate the two because both of these represent our nation and its beliefs. We are a country because we wanted our rights and freedom. Many wars have been fought to keep us a free nation. Students in the past have said the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag, today we continue to say the pledge. When we make this pledge, we are saying we believe in our country. On Memorial Day, we salute the men and women who have fought for our freedom. It is our hope that each time you say the Pledge of Allegiance, you remember its meaning and that you take the time to think about the men and women that have fought to keep us one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Why Memorial Day is Important (By Tasha Voeltzel) Good morning Congressman Duncan Hunter, Mr. Miller, staff, and students. I think Memorial Day is important because it is a day that we need to salute to the people who have died, trying to save our country so we could be free. My dad fought in the Vietnam War while he was in a wheelchair, even though he didn't get hurt, I still salute him being that brave, and having the courage to fight for our country. I will always remember Memorial Day and look back to the wars and giving everyone who is dead or alive, the salute for freedom. Memorial Day; A Day To Remember Those Who Paid the Ultimate Price To Keep America Free (By Travis McGrath) To us kids, Memorial Day weekend has come to mean several things. Sure its a three day weekend. One more day added to the weekend that gives us the extra freedom to go on a picnic, to visit a special friend or relative, to go to the beach, the river, or the mountains. Freedom to relax, freedom to play. Many Americans take to the road on Memorial Day. They sometimes drive hundreds of miles to visit a theme park, a national monument, another country or special place. Memorial Day has also come to signify the time of a special once a year event, like the Indianapolis 500. For whatever reason Memorial Day may be significant to us all, let us not forget the real reason that this day is celebrated. Memorial Day is the day we honor and remember the men and women of the armed forces who have given their lives in the defense of liberty and freedom, home and abroad. From the battlefields of Bull Run to the sands of Iraq and Kuwait, brave Americans have fought for this Monday in May and all the days of the week to keep us safe and America free. So today, let us not forget that the freedoms we enjoy on this holiday and all year long have been paid for by Americans who have made the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes to enjoin my colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], on a point that he just made. Let me recast this debate and focus on the issue. The ABM treaty is an agreement by this country to hold our citizens defenseless to missile attack. My colleague says that that worked with the Soviet Union because both sides were afraid to cast the first stone. But we are not just dealing with the Soviet Union anymore. We have an agreement between two nations. One of those nations has now been split up into a number of nations. Yet there are literally dozens of other nonsignatories which are developing missile systems. And that is the reason that we think that this system needs to be modified. Lastly, I would say to my colleague, we are the arbiters, in a way, of what the ABM treaty means. There is not a world court that is going to judge what the ABM treaty means. We have put in language that gives what we think is a reasonable interpretation. We have interpreted the ABM treaty in a way that we think is reasonable, that is justified by the facts that surrounded the original writing of this treaty. We have resisted the constraints that would have been placed on our theater ballistic missile systems that protect our troops in theater because we do not think it is wise and we do not want the administration to do that. But I think the problem with the gentleman's argument is it is no longer just the United States and Russia. it is a number of nations, and none of them signed that treaty.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, to all of our colleagues in the Committee of the Whole, I just wanted to let folks know that if you look this bill over, you will see a lot of Republicans and Democrats working together on a number of issues. I have great respect for the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt], for the gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums], for all of our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle, and for all the Republicans who have worked hard to make this bill go, and the chairman, who I think has put together a very thoughtful package. Mr. Chairman, we did plus up all of the theater missile defense systems. We put in the amount of money that our experts told us we needed to put in to advance those systems as rapidly as possible. The sad thing is that when we asked General O'Neill, at the end of one of our hearings, the question as to whether or not these theater systems would stop any fast missiles, that is, stop, for example, the North Korean Taepo Dong-2 missile that is being developed now, his answer was no. They will stop basically the Model T's of ballistic missiles, the Scuds. But we have not been building missiles to stop high-performance ballistic missiles. The Spratt amendment goes to ABM. That is going to be a key amendment. The difference between what the committee did and what the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] wants to do this: The gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] elevates and, I think, liberalizes the ABM Treaty. For Members of the House, it is important that you understand the ABM treaty. The ABM treaty is extraordinary. It is unique. It is an agreement by the Government of the United States to hold its citizens defenseless against missile attack. If you read it, and you are an average citizens, you are shocked, because it says that you cannot have a defense against nuclear systems. The gentleman from California [Mr. Dellums] has explained how we incorporated that agreement, as extraordinary as it is, in this standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union, where we figured that because both sides had enormous arsenals and some degree of stability, neither side would want to throw the rock. Therefore, we held our own citizens defenseless. We held our own citizens up to nuclear attack without any defense being offered. I would say that is an extraordinary measure. It is a measure that should be exercised very conservatively because it is an enormous imposition on your citizens, on your constituents. When you vote on this thing as a Member of Congress, you are telling your own 575,000 constituents in your district that your are going along with an agreement that leaves them exposed deliberately to missile attack. I do not think we should interpret or enforce that type of an agreement in a liberal way. I do not think we should use our creative juices to try to figure out new ways to hold ourselves at risk. I think we should exercise and follow that treaty very conservatively. Lastly, the problem is, we made that treaty with one other nation in this world. Today there are dozens of nations who never signed it who are developing missiles. that is the difference between the committee bill and the amendments.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I understand I have 7 minutes left. I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas [Mr. Thornberry].

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Chambliss]. (Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Weldon] to set the record straight.