Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt].

Mr. HUNTER. Let me just answer my friend and tell him that when our troops were in Desert Storm, had incoming ballistic missiles, although those were not Russians, those were Russian-made missiles. And according to our best estimates of our intelligence officers, the weapon of choice of these Third World terrorist nations is missiles. And the Russians have let the technology out of the box. There are Middle Eastern nations shopping in the Soviet Union right now for scientists who will sell anything, including fissile materials for a few bucks. If you believe your own Director of the CIA, Mr. Woolsey, it is time for us to move forward. Mr. Woolsey, it is time for us to move forward. Mr. Woolsey said that a number of these terrorist nations will have some ICBM capability. That means the ability to reach American cities a little bit after the beginning of this next decade. That means within 6 or 7 years. As the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] just pointed out, it took us 20 years to develop the Patriot missile. So I think the message for us is, let us get started. That is what the Republican contract does. It says, ``shall deploy.'' And the fatal flaw of the amendment of the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Spratt] is it does not say shall deploy. It simply says ``develop.'' continue to yield, it appears to me that this whole agenda that I am seeing here and all these scare tactics and everything reminds me that perhaps I am right in the conclusion that the John Birch Society now controls the Republican agenda on the floor of the House.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Edwards].

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, let me tell my colleagues also that two representatives from two of our national nuclear laboratories were here last week stating that they can build a space system for about 50 percent more. That is about $7.5 billion. And that, once again, is roughly less than 1/100th of the defense budget on an annual basis and less than half of what we spend on environmental matters in the defense budget.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, like all members of our Committee on National Security, I have the greatest respect for my friend from South Carolina, and I want to thank him for all of his efforts and work with respect to missile defense. I want to also thank Members on the Republican side, and I know I am looking at Mr. Weldon, and I think of him and Mr. Hefley and Hal Rogers and others that signed a letter to Israel in 1987 saying that although you have great fighter aircraft and you have great armor and great ground troops, if a missile was launched, a Russian missile from a neighboring Arab country, you would have no defense against it, and we asked them to drop the LAVI fighter system and start developing a theater ballistic missile defense system. I want to thank them for that letter to our SDI leaders and to Israel, because it had an effect in turning Israel away from building fighter aircraft and doing what they knew they had to do for national survival, and that is defend against incoming missiles. And I might say to my colleagues that that projection turned out to be an accurate projection. While we projected Russian missiles might come from Syria, they came from another Arab country. The truth of the matter that we have to be able to stop incoming ballistic missiles was not lost on them. Let me go straight to what I think are the fatal defects in the Spratt defense, and readiness and missile defense should not be competed. I can tell the gentleman that under this Republican House, and I think with the gentleman's help, the readiness budget that the President submitted will be increased this year. I can say as the chairman of the procurement subcommittee that the procurement budget that Secretary Perry cut again, just 12 months ago, from $48 billion to $39 billion, will be increased this year. I think I can tell the gentleman that with some confidence. This is not an either/or situation. In competing these systems, it is like telling an infantry commander, you cannot have any defense against mortars until you can certify to me you have a total defense against machine guns. The point is that missile defense does contribute to readiness because your soldiers in the rear area, if it is theater defense, know they have some knowledge they are going to be defended against incoming missiles. I would submit there also is an increase in morale if they know their communities back home have some defense against a Libya or against an Iraq or against another adversarial country. So the point is we are not going to decrease readiness, we are not shopping readiness versus theater defense, we are not going to decrease procurement, shopping procurement against theater defense. And, lastly, the gentleman leaves out the word ``deploy.'' The Republican policy is to deploy a national missile defense. Mr. Chairman, we have heard a lot of talk about the cost. This is a statement that Secretary Perry made, and I have tried to give it a couple of times. But he said: We have a national missile defense program. That is the program the Secretary is funding, which will lead I think in a timely way to a deployed system. It will be at a relatively small cost, probably $5 billion in very round figures for the cost of the system. Mr. Chairman, we are spending 10 times that amount in environmental costs in the defense budget. So if the gentleman put up something that said maybe we should shop environmental costs off in favor of national missile defense, I might be inclined to accept the Spratt amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman would yield, I would ask my colleagues since we are going to call for a vote, I think a vote is important to send a message to the President. I would ask my colleagues to refrain from making more speeches so there is time left for the other side to offer the amendments that they have planned in the next several hours.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, this is an important policy decision that the administration is undertaking right now with respect to theater defense limitations. I think it is an extremely important issue. I would like to get a vote on it because I think it is important to have a sense of the House, regardless of the final outcome of the bill, on this issue. I think it is a very important arms control limitation amendment. And I would like to have a vote.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, the administration, by the President's own admission, because he has sent a letter back to the Republican leadership after they initiated a letter essentially asking the President, having heard reports from the Pentagon that senior arms negotiators were attempting to expand or were discussing with the Soviet Union, with their negotiation team, the expansion of the ABM Treaty to include limitations on theater defenses, and concerns with that negotiation position were expressed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Shalikashvili. They were expressed at the hearing in which the gentleman sat in with me when the Secretary of Defense appeared before us. My understanding of his words, the transcript speaks for itself, is that he, too, was concerned with negotiating limitations on theater defenses. The Republican leadership sent a letter to the President and asked him not to engage in negotiations that would limit theater defensive systems. Let me say that the President responded with a letter, and I can get the letter and we will have it before me, but as I recall, the letter did not say or did not alleviate the concerns of the Republican leadership.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my unanimous-consent request.

Mr. HUNTER. I will be happy to strike the requisite number of words on my own.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania be allowed to proceed for 5 additional minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his hard work and leadership on this issue. I think it is important for Members to realize what we are doing here. The administration, according to our own senior military officials, is trying to United States and the Soviet Union, some limitations on our ability to put out systems that will defend our troops, like those that were in Iran or in Iraq, against incoming theater ballistic missiles. There are two parties to the ABM Treaty, us and the Soviet Union, yet there are countries like Libya, North Korea, China, and others that are developing theater ballistic missiles that could be targeted on our troops. They are not signatories to the ABM agreement and they do not care what kind of restrictions we must put on. In fact, they would like us to put restrictions on our defensive systems. What the gentleman is talking about, Mr. Chairman, is a total curtailment of theater ballistic missile defense systems that Democrats and Republicans agree are very, very important to the survivability of our troops. That means that when we have a troop concentration, whether it is Marines or Army units in the Middle East, in Europe, in Southeast Asia, and we need to put a footprint, a defensive footprint around them, whether it is the THAAD system or a Patriot system, upgraded Patriot, or the Navy lower tier system, all those systems are little theater missile defense systems that can shoot down incoming missiles. When we try to put those up, we are now going to be facing limitations.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. Let me respond to my friend from New Jersey, who mentioned a number of great Americans and characterized the Republicans as isolationists in some way. Let me just respond that I can think of another great American, and I think that his opposition, those who opposed his idea, were in some way analogous to the Democrat Party today. That gentleman was Gen. Billy Mitchell. And Gen. Billy Mitchell dragged us kicking and screaming into the age of air power. And he did that by proving that aircraft could sink ships. And when he did that, it totally frustrated the thinking inside the Beltway, so-to-speak, in Washington, DC, in the power establishment, when he sunk 4 ships, including a major German battleship, with air power. It was greatly resisted by the politicians of his time. They did not want to hear that. They did not want to hear that we had entered the age of air power. Now, my friends, we have entered the age of missiles. And I understand that it was the political position of the other side of the aisle, of the Democrat Party, to refer to shooting down incoming ballistic missiles as star wars, as if it was some kind of a divorced contact and conflict that in no way defended people on this Earth. I can remember Walter Mondale standing in the San Francisco convention declaring he would have no part in what he called war in the heavens. But I think that Walter Mondale, great Democrat that he was, if he was watching CNN and watched those American Patriot missiles shooting down ballistic missiles, very slow, but ballistic nonetheless, Scud missiles, incoming to American troops, and he saw those destroyed in midair by our Patriot missiles, would have said instead of saying I will not participate in war in the heavens, he would have said thank heavens. H.R. 7 pulls the United States squarely into a reality that we live in an age of missiles. And it is just as much a matter of readiness, which a number of the Members on the other side have talked about, clothing for our troops, quality of life for our troops, pay for our troops, fuel and training exercises for our troops, I would offer to my friends that it is just as important to our troops to be defended against incoming ballistic missiles as it is to be families. Now, for those who said it would cost tens and tens of billions of dollars to defend against incoming ballistic missiles, let me just refer my friends to the statement made by the Secretary of Defense, William Perry, a few days ago. He said we can have a national missile defense for a relatively small cost, probably about $5 billion, in very round figures; by the end of the decade, he said a few sentences later. The fact is we are in the age of missiles, H.R. 7 recognizes that, and I would call on all of my friends to support this bill, Democrats and Republicans.

Mr. HUNTER. No. But Secretary Perry did not say a theater missile attack. He said a national missile attack.

Mr. HUNTER. Not theater. National missile attack.

Mr. HUNTER. I just say to my friend, Secretary Perry just appeared before us with the words I just showed him that said we can defend against an attack for $5 billion----

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. Hefley].

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer].

Mr. HUNTER. I would answer my friend that the Patriot system probably cost us a fortune. Almost everything that we did under our procurement regulations did.

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

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Let me just say to my friend from Colorado, yes, a number of former Presidents would be appalled at what has happened this year, because we have cut defense to the lowest level Pearl Harbor. That would have upset John Kennedy, that would have upset Harry Truman, and the fact that 17,000 young military families are on food stamps today would have certainly upset those gentlemen and Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan, and the fact that we have cut $127 billion below the budget that former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and former President Bush said was prudent is also a cause for concern. Let me just say this administration is in disarray in defense. Our own GAO says that the President has underfunded his own plan by $150 billion. There is a sense of urgency, and if we are going to respond to that sense of urgency, we need to put this bill up. We need to debate it. We need to pass it. We need to protect our troops.