[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 152 (Tuesday, November 6, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H7846-H7850]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        TRIBUTE TO JERRY WILLIAMS AND REPRESENTATIVE BOB DORNAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shuster). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Colorado 
(Mr. Tancredo) for his very excellent statement about the state of the 
country with respect to control of our borders and the important need 
to hesitate at this point in our history and put together a strategy 
that allows us to control our borders and to get a handle on 
immigration, and on all of the people who have come into this country 
legally but stayed beyond their legal limit and apparently did not 
care. I would hope to work with the gentleman and lots of others in the 
House over the next several months and try to get our arms around this 
important issue. I thank my colleague for his statement.
  Mr. Speaker, on 9-14, just a couple of days after the tragic 
occurrence that we have been so focused on, a real American, a great 
Westerner, passed away. That gentleman was named Jerry Williams. I knew 
him as Mr. Williams because I had a lot of respect for him and for the 
legacy that he represented.
  If one drives north from my district in San Diego and you go past 
Camp Pendleton, it is the only open area between San Diego and the 
greater Los Angeles area, and you proceed north, you can drive for 
hours without leaving the site of lots of pavement, lots of 
construction, lots of traffic and lots of people. That is the southern 
California that most Americans know. They see it on television. They 
see it in person when they fly into LAX or San Diego or any other 
metropolitan area in southern California.
  But if one goes north and inland, one comes to a different 
California. It is a California of rolling foot hills, and I am speaking 
of the Santa Barbara area, big oak trees draped with Spanish moss, and 
a legacy and a tradition of the Old West, a tradition that was started 
with the founding of the missions along the California coastline.
  There are not a lot of great Western families left in southern 
California because we have urbanized enormously; but there are still a 
few, and Jerry Williams was one of those great Western ranchers. He 
represented a hospitality, a big heart, a sense of giving, a sense of 
community, that is now more rare in the West than it was 20 or 30 years 
ago.
  I got to know him by knowing his sons, Rodney and J.P. Williams, and 
their families, and their good neighbor, John Wiester and his wonderful 
wife. The Santa Ynez Valley has a spirit of hospitality, just inland 
from Santa Barbara 15 or 20 miles with one coastal range between the 
valley and the Pacific Ocean.
  President Ronald Reagan found that area to be the area that he wanted 
to locate in and he put his house on top of that mountain range about 
10 miles or so from the Pacific Ocean.
  But that was the world of Jerry Williams. He was a rancher. He was a 
farmer. He was a businessman extraordinare. Jerry gave of himself to 
his community during his entire life. He and his wife, Nancy, lived in 
the Santa Ynez Valley for 40 years. Wild Turkeys flew overhead, and 
they had a pet raccoon or two. They had a wonder world for their 
grandchildren, and I could see this was a Western family that really 
cared about family.
  Jerry Williams was a member of the Santa Barbara Cattlemen's 
Association; the Santa Barbara Fiesta Days is an event that we all 
remember. For 10 years he was a member of the board of that wonderful 
event until for the last 10 years he was the chairman of that 
particular board. This was a guy who represented a lot of California 
that many of us knew and loved and would like to see return. It is the 
California of graciousness and hospitality and goodness and people who 
make business deals by shaking your hand, not by bringing in a troop of 
lawyers. That was Jerry Williams.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to talk about Mr. Williams a little bit 
and to honor his legacy and the tradition that he has left in the 
California ranch country.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about another individual. This 
individual is very much alive. I thought about him today as I was going 
through the New York Times and read the story about the defeat of 
Daniel Ortega, who at one time was the leader of communist Sandinistas 
in Nicaragua, and ran for president, and for the third time was 
defeated, this time by Enrique Balanos who is a businessman who was 
arrested a number of times, who always spoke out against the 
Sandinistas and had much of his property confiscated during the Contra 
wars.
  This race was considered to be one that would go down to the wire. 
Mr.

[[Page H7847]]

Balanos won a fairly convincing victory, but it is not just the victory 
of Mr. Balanos over the former Sandinista leader that I think is 
impressive and reminds me of this other guy I am going to talk about; 
but it is the fact that there was an election, and it is the fact that 
there was a former communist leader running in that election, putting 
himself before the will of the people, before the electorate, to let 
them pass judgment of his fitness for judgment. That is the miracle of 
Central America and the miracle of the Reagan administration a lot of 
Members of what this House of Representatives and the other body did in 
the 1980s to bring about in a Central America that before was one in 
which military dictatorships were the order of the day, but to bring 
all of those military dictatorships, whether it was Nicaragua or 
Salvador or Guatemala, to bring those countries to become fragile 
democracies.

                              {time}  2230

  Obviously this democracy in Nicaragua has endured longer than many 
experts had predicted.
  One of the gentlemen who really worked in those days to help this 
country win that freedom for Central America was a guy named Bob 
Dornan. Bob Dornan is a great friend of mine and a friend of many 
members of the House here. I see my good friend the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) here, who stood side by side with Bob and 
myself and many others during the Contra wars.
  He was a great friend of ours. And because his election was so close 
and was contested for so long, we never had a chance to sit around or 
to gather on the House floor as we often do when a Member retires or 
leaves office pursuant to an election and talk about that Member. We 
have not had that opportunity. We never did that, because that election 
was contested for such a long time that we never went through that 
tradition.
  And so I just wanted to say a word or two today and invite my good 
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) to say a few 
words about this guy Bob Dornan.
  I am reminded when our troops were killed in Somalia, when the 
American Rangers were killed and we had that crisis, that Bob Dornan 
was the one member of the House Armed Services Committee who flew for a 
dozen hours by himself to go to that location, to meet with the 
survivors and then came back and personally talked with the families of 
every American who had given his life in that particular mission, that 
very dangerous mission. That was Bob Dornan.
  Bob Dornan knew every aircraft that was ever made in this country and 
a few that were made in other countries. He flew everything. He flew 
every jet aircraft and every bomber and every recon plane that we had. 
But it was really the people that he loved the most.
  He did a wonderful job as the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee 
on the House Armed Services Committee, and he loved people so much and 
loved people who wore the uniform so much that he was the one guy you 
could count on to meet with families when there had been a tragedy, 
when there had been a firefight, when there had been a death, and talk 
to them about the value of their loved one to the United States of 
America. I will always remember Bob for that and remember him for his 
great expertise as a fighter pilot who knew the equipment that we were 
voting on in the committee and on the House floor.
  Of course, everybody has their favorite Bob Dornan story, but I can 
tell you, he was one guy when I was a freshman as a candidate for the 
House Armed Services Committee back in 1980 and we had a lot of great 
Members like former colleague Dan Lungren and Pete McCloskey and Bill 
Lowery and lots of others who were well qualified, probably more 
qualified than me for that position, and Bob Dornan himself all running 
for that post.
  Bob got up when we were about ready to take the vote and said, you 
know, there is one guy there who is an Army veteran from Vietnam who 
has got a district that is a military district and probably deserves 
this seat or needs this seat more than anybody else, and that is Duncan 
Hunter. I was as much shocked by that as all my other colleagues, but 
Bob Dornan, instead of voting for himself, voted for me and let me as a 
freshman have that particular seat. What a wonderful display of 
generosity and selflessness that represented. That was the true Bob 
Dornan and is the true Bob Dornan.
  One great thing about him is Bob Dornan stays current with the 
affairs of the day. He is still in the media. He is doing lots of work 
now in radio. And so the people across the country still have the 
opportunity to listen to this guy and listen to that good conservative 
wisdom that he has displayed so often.

  I would be happy to yield to my good colleague, the gentleman from 
California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is right. This is 
a very good day for us to remember Bob Dornan, the day after Daniel 
Ortega has lost again in a free election in Nicaragua, because I have 
no doubt if it was not for Bob Dornan and a few stalwarts, and I was 
very proud to be at your side and at Bob's side during this time during 
the Cold War when very, very few people were up making the case for 
supporting the Nicaraguan resistance, Bob was there.
  And now we have free elections in Nicaragua, but not only just 
Nicaragua. Had we not had those freedom fighters that we were 
supporting to fight the Sandinistas, we would have lost all of Central 
America. There would not have been a disintegration of the will of the 
Soviet Union's leadership which happened during Afghanistan and 
Nicaragua. If they would have seen instead that the Communist forces 
were just making their way up Central America towards Mexico, you can 
bet they would have been emboldened rather than weakened as they were. 
That was an incredible fight.
  Bob Dornan, he does not get the credit for it; you are right. People 
look back right now, they are not going to give Bob Dornan credit for 
that, but I have no doubt that if it was not for the strength and the 
vigor and the energy and the excitement that he put into that, I do not 
think we would have won that. I can honestly look back and think that, 
because Bob was there 100 percent.
  When he was with you, he was with you 100 percent. The Afghans know 
that. The Vietnamese who were fighting the Communist dictatorship knew 
that. People all over the world who were struggling against Communist 
oppression, he would just pop in on them, he would pop right in and 
say, ``Hold firm, we're going to be with you. Don't worry about it. 
We're with you right now. What can we do?'' He would get right in the 
action.
  We have a cloakroom back here where the Republicans sit. Bob Dornan 
would sit there for hours telling us about these various personalities 
that he had worked with that love America, that need our help and were 
in a very precarious situation. Or he would be telling us about a new 
weapons system, because not only was he for strengthening those people 
who were struggling against the Soviet Union, he was for bolstering the 
strength of the ultimate freedom fighters, and those ultimate freedom 
fighters are the ones who wear the uniform of the United States of 
America, because he knew that our freedom fighters, the people in the 
United States military, had been done a great wrong, especially during 
the 1970s when we permitted their strength to be so drained that they 
were at risk. Their own lives were at risk, not only was our country at 
risk. Bob would talk about that.
  I remember him talking about the food stamps that these kids in our 
military had to be on at the time. Bob was there not only for the 
freedom fighters overseas but he was for our freedom fighters as well.
  When I was in the White House, and I was in the White House during 
most of the 1980s, Bob had had his ups and downs. I do not know if he 
remembers, but when he was on a down time one time in his career, I 
think he had given up his seat for somebody else, I think that is what 
it was, he ended up making my office sort of his command center. He 
took over my desk and, sure enough, he was right at home there.
  Mr. HUNTER. That is true. Bob Dornan never had an office. He always 
had a command center.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. He certainly did. I was looking back in my photos

[[Page H7848]]

the other day. Sure enough, there we were.
  Which leads me to another thing about Bob. Bob really worked his 
heart and soul out for Ronald Reagan, and he worked his heart and soul 
out for George Bush, Sr. Let us all admit, Bob made people mad, we all 
know that. He got people angry because he is an Irishman who has got a 
temper. We all know that. But Bob never got the appreciation that he 
deserved for the things that he did.
  I know George Bush, Sr., he worked a full year trying to make sure 
that man became President of the United States. Then when Bob was down 
and out, as I say, he was there during the Reagan years, and it was not 
President Reagan, it was his staff, they did not do right by Bob.
  Mr. HUNTER. That is true. Bob Dornan, I think, went to more States 
for George Bush than anybody else.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Than George Bush did, I am sure.
  Mr. HUNTER. Except George Bush.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I bet he went to more States than George Bush did.
  Mr. HUNTER. You are probably right; he probably did.
  We have all seen that the great thing about great Republican 
Presidents is you continue to love them even when their bureaucracy 
sometimes does not measure up to their measure of goodness. I think Bob 
understands that. I think we all have to deal with that on a day-to-day 
basis.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman will yield further, as I get older, 
I realize that all of us, every single one of us, has our good traits 
and our bad traits. We have things that are very admirable and other 
parts of us that perhaps are not as admirable. Sometimes, because Bob 
had such a temper, it blinded some people to the very good things that 
he was doing.
  I know many times in technology development issues, most people think 
of me now because I am so involved with this Afghan thing that they 
think of me as the Afghanistan guy or the international relations guy, 
but actually I have spent a lot of time on technology issues in the 
Science Committee. I am the chairman of Space and Aeronautics.
  Whenever we would be in a tight spot and we needed to make sure that 
a critical piece of technology for America's space program that perhaps 
had dual use for our military as well, we would go to Bob and Bob would 
make sure it got done. I can think of two or three times where it was 
so important and Bob made sure he did it. He took the time and energy 
to buttonhole the appropriator and make sure that he understood the 
magnitude of the decision of how much money was going to be spent 
developing a piece of technology.
  Mr. HUNTER. That is true. I think one reason Bob was so helpful on 
aerospace issues and on military issues and was so good to this House 
and such a leader in the House is that Bob Dornan loved and appreciated 
American air power.
  Somebody mentioned the other day that American troops had not been 
killed by foreign air power, that is, by an adversary's air power, for 
something like 40 years. That is the period of time during which we 
have held total mastery of the skies in all the engagements that we 
have been involved in.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That did not just happen.
  Mr. HUNTER. It did not just happen. It is a function of a lot of 
great expertise, leadership and technology, and guys in the House of 
Representatives like Bob Dornan. Bob was one of a kind in supporting 
that continued superiority of air power.
  You have got to have a good old Irish temper if you are an Irishman. 
I think that is one of the great things about Bob Dornan. When you were 
in a tight spot, you just wanted Bob to get angry at your adversary and 
you were taken care of.

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct. I should say, if you are not 
getting people mad at you, perhaps you are not doing your job if you 
are a Congressman.
  But sometimes, I have to admit, Bob lost his temper. But I will say 
this about Bob, and he does not like it when I say this, he has a 
temper; but you can see through the temper and you know that he has, he 
had and has, a wonderful heart. He has a heart of gold. He hates me to 
use that expression, for whatever reason, but I think he does have a 
heart of gold. He had a lot of passion in him. He cared a lot. That can 
get you in trouble sometimes.
  With his own constituents, I know sometimes the news media would just 
take a picture when he had lost his temper about something. I will just 
have to say that I think it is, again when you say when someone is not 
appreciated, I think it is wrong what happened to Bob in the end in 
this body, what happened in the end here, we permitted, and I know that 
you worked a lot on this and so did I, but the rest of our Members did 
not.
  Bob Dornan did not lose his election. That last election that he had 
was stolen with the use of illegal immigrant votes. Everybody here 
knows it and every now and then when you try to confront people with 
it, they will pull you aside and say something, oh, well, Bob Dornan, 
he flies off the handle and does this or that.
  No, Bob Dornan won his election and his opponent in that election, or 
maybe not his opponent, maybe it was just his opponent's campaign team, 
who knows whether his opponent knew about it personally or not, but I 
can just say that clearly it was illegal alien votes that made the 
margin of victory. We should never have let that stand. When we let 
that stand, we did ourselves a disservice and we did Bob Dornan a 
disservice.
  Mr. HUNTER. My colleague is absolutely right. Bob Dornan won the 
majority of the legal votes cast in that particular race. It is sad 
that so many officeholders who were in a position to do something about 
that, to pursue the investigation, became intimidated and allowed that 
thing to fall through. That happened throughout the State of 
California. Folks that were supposed to be subpoenaed left and went to 
other countries.
  In the end the race card was played by the opponents of Mr. Dornan's 
campaign. That is sad, because everybody, regardless of your ethnic 
background or your religious background, everybody has got a stake in 
free and fair and honest elections. Bob Dornan got the majority of the 
votes in that election.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. The gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) was here 
a few moments ago talking to us about how illegal immigration has 
gotten so totally out of control. There is no doubt about this. Again 
he mentioned the fellow who was just caught up at O'Hare in Chicago 
trying to smuggle the knives and the stun gun onto an airplane. That is 
a horrible thing no matter who was doing it, but that person was here 
illegally. He was an illegal immigrant into our country. Not only 
should he have been arrested, of course, for trying to smuggle these 
weapons onto the airplane, he should never have been here at all.

                              {time}  2245

  I think that it was during this time period when Bob's election was 
stolen from him and other people backed away that the message went out 
that government was not going to do anything about illegal immigration. 
We would even let one of our own Members have his House seat taken by a 
margin created by illegal alien votes. So I think that was a bad 
disservice for Bob, it sent a very bad message to the country, and we 
should regret it in many ways right now.
  Mr. HUNTER. There is one other area that Bob was very concerned 
about, and I think most Americans today, especially in the wake of the 
September 11 attacks are concerned, and that is the problem that we 
have, and the problem is that we have no defense against incoming 
ballistic missiles.
  The argument against having a defense against missiles has always 
been that somehow it is unthinkable, it is unimaginable, that cities in 
the United States could be attacked by incoming missiles. It is not 
that there are not dozens of countries around the world making these 
missiles, and I would just hold up this chart to show the dozens of 
countries. Each one of these lines and boxes represents ballistic 
missiles that are being developed by various individual countries 
around the world. It is not that dozens of countries are not making 
these missiles, which are becoming increasingly capable of covering 
large distances, meaning a number of them can now reach the United 
States from various locations around

[[Page H7849]]

 the world. But it was somehow that it was too Buck Rogerish to imagine 
a missile attack on the United States.
  Remember when we first started talking about missile defense, and 
Ronald Reagan started talking about it in 1980, the put-down, and in 
politics you always try to get, whether you are conservative or 
liberal, you use a put-down with a touch of humor, and the put-down was 
this was Star Wars; that this was somehow so unimaginable that we would 
have an incoming missile hit an American city, that it was something 
that was more appropriate for a movie screen, where people would go and 
leave the real world for a few hours and watch a movie, than in real 
life. So that was a derision that a lot of journalists accorded the 
idea you should defend yourself against incoming missiles.
  Of course, we defended ourselves against every other invention of 
warfare in this century. We defended ourselves against tanks; we came 
up with counter measures. We defended ourselves against machine guns. 
We defended ourselves against aircraft. We learned how to make radar to 
shoot down aircraft. When our own aircraft were shot down with radar, 
culminating in hundreds of planes being shot down in the Vietnam 
theater, we developed an airplane that could avoid radar, that at some 
places could not been seen by radar, the so-called stealth airplane. So 
every time there has been a technology that could defeat America's 
military developed by another country, we always built a 
countertechnology to defend ourselves.
  For the first time in this century, in fact, in our history, we had 
people saying we should not defend against incoming ballistic missiles. 
Of course, we made the treaty with the Soviet Union where we promised 
not to defend ourselves, they promised not to defend themselves, and 
the idea was no matter who threw the first rock or missile, there would 
be such a huge response from the other side that both sides could be 
assured of destruction. That was called the MAD doctrine, mutually 
assured destruction. To a large degree, we still operate under that 
with the Soviet Union. We still have no defense against incoming 
missiles.
  But today there are lots of countries, dozens of countries, who never 
signed that agreement not to defend themselves, or not to attack an 
America that did not defend itself, building ballistic missiles around 
the world. So right now President Bush is meeting with President Putin 
of Russia, and they are both acknowledging the reality that while we 
have made this agreement between our two countries for better or for 
worse, there are lots of countries that never signed the agreement who 
are building these systems with increasing capability to go further and 
further; and a number of these missiles can now reach the United States 
of America.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. If the gentleman would yield, I think it is 
sometimes mind-boggling to be here and to just understand that there 
are people who will permit something that is so horrendous a threat to 
the United States of America and just brush it off, just not even think 
about it, just sweep their hand as if it is not an issue because it is 
so stupid even to consider it.
  There is an arrogance, a personality of arrogance in some of these 
debates that are overwhelming. Whether it is illegal immigration, where 
clearly, I mean, millions of people coming in, are bound to have a 
terrible impact on us in some way; or, I might add, during the last 
8 years when I was up giving speeches trying to convince people we 
could not permit Afghanistan to go the way it was. Just the last 
administration, the Clinton administration, I might add, some of them, 
my fellow Members of my Committee on International Relations, just 
brushed it away as if I was being delusional or something, by 
suggesting that the last administration was actually having policies 
that helped the Taliban.

  Then missile defense, based, as Ronald Reagan said, on an immoral 
theory. The immoral theory is we should kill millions of innocent 
people because our innocent people have been killed. That is an immoral 
theory. We should have MAD, mutually assured destruction. We are not 
just destroying their military capabilities. It is based on the idea we 
are going to slaughter tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, 
of women and children.
  Now, that is an immoral premise. That is what MAD, that strategy 
leaves us with. Having a defense system, as Ronald Reagan said, is a 
moral decision, is a moral stance facing this type of challenge. 
Instead of saying we are going to kill all of your women and children, 
you are saying no, we are going to defend ourselves.
  Mr. HUNTER. Another thing has happened since September 11, and that 
is a lot of Americans realize there are people in the world who do not 
care about mutual assured destruction; and there are people who have 
technology, who understand how to leverage technology. Today the 
experts call it asymmetric warfare, that is, you do something that has 
a great deal of leverage and damage capability, far beyond the parity 
or the proportionality of your military to the other military. That is, 
you may have a very small military that could not in a conventional war 
take on the United States of America; but if you can use a 
technological weapon, and that includes today missiles, you can do a 
lot of damage, far beyond your size.
  So I think since September 11 it is no longer unimaginable that one 
of these thousands of missiles that are now being built by our 
adversaries may in fact be used by them at some point. In fact, with 
all the construction of ballistic missiles that is taking place right 
now, it would be the first time in our history that all this 
construction and development and technology dollars went into a program 
and it was never utilized.
  When we saw technology go into the building and development of tanks, 
they used tanks. When we saw building and technology development go 
into the development of machine guns, they used them. The same thing 
with aircraft and artillery. So the idea that the bad guys are building 
these missiles but they do not intend to ever use them is itself a 
myth. I think it is becoming harder and harder to explain why we are 
not building defenses against missiles.
  Finally, we now have a lot of Americans who were killed in that 
Desert Storm attack with Saddam Hussein's Scud missiles, that killed 
Americans; and we saw for the first time on the battlefield American 
casualties caused by ballistic missiles. We sent up our Patriot 
missiles to try to intercept them. The Army thinks they got about 80 
percent hits. We had some private experts from the outside that said 
they did not think we got any hits. Probably the truth is somewhere in 
between. But right now we have more capability to knock down those Scud 
missiles.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. The phoniest argument against missile defense that I 
know is that we should not build it because it will never work. Well, 
who would advocate building a system that does not work? If it does not 
work, it will not be built. The fact is that no one on this side of the 
aisle or either side of the aisle who believes in missile defense would 
ever consider building a system that did not work.
  But the major decision we have to make is if we can build a system 
that works, should we build it? And those people who are opposing the 
missile defense system, they do not want to face that argument. They 
just want to say it will not work, and, then, again, brush it away in 
an arrogant manner.
  Mr. HUNTER. That is the offering that George Bush, President Bush, is 
making to the American people with this defense budget. He is 
requesting the dollars to expand our missile testing range, which 
presently is in the Pacific. We fire our missiles now, our test 
missiles, out of Vandenberg. We fire them due west. They cross over 
Hawaii at about 148 miles above the Earth's surface. And we fire an 
intercepter missile from Kwajalein Island at that incoming target 
missile. When they hit, they are both going about three times the speed 
of a 30.06 bullet.
  The last test we did a couple of months ago it was a success, 
although it was an easier test. We had a transponder part-time in the 
missile going out. We shot that same shot a number of times, because we 
have a very limited test range.
  So what President Bush has offered to all Members, whether you are 
for missile defense or against missile defense, is to do some really 
tough testing. He has said, and General Kadish, who heads up the 
Ballistic Missile Defense Office, said was, okay, let us do

[[Page H7850]]

some tough testing. The critics want it; they say this is too easy. Let 
us have some tough angles. You shot that pheasant going straight away. 
Have angles where they cross. Let us have some higher speeds; let us 
have some difficult geometries. Let us have some more difficult radar 
acquisition.

  To do all of that, you have got to build a bigger test range. You 
cannot just have this narrow alley where you throw the same target up 
in the same position every time and you shoot it from the same 
position.
  So we are now expanding this test range in this defense bill to 
Alaska, to a location at Fort Greely and a location at Kodiak, Alaska. 
So we are now going to have some very difficult shots.
  It will also allow us to shoot-look-shoot. We will have multiple 
engagements. We throw up a missile, and if we miss it with first shot, 
we will try to get it with a second one. So we will have a chance to 
evaluate our success just seconds after we fired our first intercept; 
and, if we miss that intercept, we come back with a second intercept.
  So President Bush has taken the challenge from all the naysayers that 
you talked about that said it does not work. A lot of the naysayers say 
we do not even want to test it. It is so unthinkable, we do not want to 
test it. That is no longer a reasonable position. That is why we need 
every penny of funding that the President has requested in this defense 
bill for missile defense.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I think what we also to have understand, if the 
President is successful in his strategy, missile defense will actually 
in the end cost us less, much less, than what President Reagan 
envisioned missile defense costing, because if President George W. Bush 
is successful, we will be working with the Russians, as Ronald Reagan 
had suggested we might do in a more peaceful world; and we could 
actually work with the Russians to build this shield. It would help 
bring down the cost. This is something that would make the world a lot 
safer.
  But for us to just suggest that no country, that we could rely on 
this mutually assured destruction, which was a policy from the 1950s 
and 1960s, is so ridiculous. China or Korea, for example, you have 
regimes that murder their own people by the tens of thousands. Why do 
they care then if we would retaliate against them and kill 100,000 or 
200,000 of their people? They do not care. That does not deter them at 
all.
  Mr. HUNTER. We just had an attack by people who did not care about 
mutually assured destruction.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Absolutely. I would like to thank the gentleman for, 
number one, his leadership, and also for helping us recall that Bob 
Dornan played such an important role on issues like this and other 
defense issues that have made the country safer.
  I am pleased to be standing here at your side now, and wish Bob a lot 
of success in his radio program that he has on, I guess, on a daily 
basis.
  Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank my good friend for his contribution to 
this Special Order. I think it is appropriate that we started in 
southern California talking about Jerry Williams, who was a great 
cattleman and really carried forth a tradition and legacy of the West 
in his home and with his great family up in the Santa Ynez Valley where 
Ronald Reagan settled, and where you and I and Bob Dornan campaigned a 
number of times.
  That was really, to some degree, the heart of the political movement 
that supported then Governor Reagan through a couple of campaigns for 
the U.S. Presidency and ended up with leadership in the 1980s that 
proved the validity of peace through strength. That is the idea that we 
in the United States would become so strong that we would be able to 
deter aggression. That means we could not only protect ourselves, but 
we could protect lots of others.

                              {time}  2300

  We did a lot of great things for the world. We freed a lot of people. 
This little article from the New York Times about the President or the 
head of the Communist Sandinistas, former dictator of Nicaragua, being 
beaten in a free and fair election in Nicaragua is great evidence of 
the validity of the idea of peace through strength that we engendered 
in the 1980s.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, let us 
note that for the record, I noted about a week ago on the Los Angeles 
Times editorial page, they had some leftist, as they always do, 
lamenting about Latin America and how horrible it was, this war in 
Latin America in which we stopped the Communists from taking over Latin 
America, and yes, it was certainly an imperfect war, and there never 
was a perfect war; innocent people were hurt and there were some 
unsavory characters on our side at times. But I say to the gentleman, 
there would be no democracy there; all of these countries would be like 
North Korea.
  Mr. HUNTER. Or Cuba.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Or Cuba, if we would have lost then, but here we 
have in the L.A. Times, giving column inch after column inch to these 
old leftists who are proven wrong every time, and here again we have an 
election in Nicaragua where the people soundly reject everything this 
leftist was claiming about Latin America, everything he was claiming 
about Nicaragua, and the people down there do not believe a darned word 
of it.
  But guess what? Guess what? The L.A. Times gives people like that all 
of that coverage, and they would not say a good word about Bob Dornan 
in his entire career. The L.A. Times would not give him one column 
inch. Detractors, yes. People who were espousing the virtues of the 
Sandinistas and these people who would have enslaved the people of 
Latin America, the Communists, they get all of the space they need. Bob 
Dornan has never gotten a column inch.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is true. Daniel 
Ortega is probably sitting in an empty room right now in Nicaragua with 
an old copy of the Los Angeles Times predicting that he was going to 
win this election in one hand, and a ``Dear Commandante'' letter from 
the more liberal Members of this House of Representatives in the other 
hand, assuring him of his primacy. That is all he has left.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for participating. Mr. 
Speaker, God bless the family of Jerry Williams, God bless Bob Dornan 
and his family, and God bless Ronald Reagan and his family and the 
strength that he brought to our country.

                          ____________________