Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good colleague, Mr. King, for yielding. And I listened, as you probably did, to some of the Democrat Members who were decrying the state of the world and ``woe is me'' and things are going terribly, according to them. And as the gentleman took the floor, as I watched him take the floor, and started talking about the Republican legacy in national security that they were complaining about and the Republican legacy of peace through strength, I was reminded about coming here in 1980 when a guy named Ronald Reagan was running for President. And we just finished with a President who was very, very similar to Jimmy Carter, the gentleman who had his tenure in office somewhat truncated by Ronald Reagan, and that was Bill Clinton. And I thought of the fact that the Democrats entered the Clinton administration with 15 Army divisions, combat divisions, and when they walked out of the White House and that administration left, they had cut the United States Army by about 40 percent. They were down to 10 divisions, and many of those divisions were undermanned, and then I was reminded that they were the same people that complained that we didn't have enough people on the ground when we went into Iraq. And then I was reminded that, as we are talking about Iraq, and today there is a big hue and cry to get rid of Secretary Rumsfeld among the Democrats, in the Democrat cloakroom, thankfully, 6,000 miles away that sentiment is not shared by the Americans who are reenlisting in the combat zone, in places like the Sunni triangle, where the 101st is well over 100 percent of their expected reenlistment rate. The First Marine Division out in the very dangerous Anbar Province is up well over 100 percent of their expected reenlistment rate. So the people that serve in combat under Don Rumsfeld seem to like him. But I was reminded, as I listened to that ``woe is me'' discussion by the Democrats, that it is the Republican Party that is the party of peace through strength, and the American people rely on us to do that. And I think that is one reason they are trying to pull down Secretary Don Rumsfeld. And I thought it was interesting today, as the President announced that Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the mastermind of the attack that drove those planes into New York, into Washington, D.C., and into Pennsylvania, will soon be coming to a courtroom near us in the United States because he was captured and he was interrogated and others were interrogated in what the Democrats call inhumane methods, even though our lawyers and all of the people who scrutinized the methods of interrogation found that they were legal methods of interrogation, uncomfortable but legal and not torture, and that that person and others who joined him, his team of terrorists who joined him in masterminding the 9/11 attacks on America, will be coming to a courtroom near us, soon to be prosecuted, truly brought to justice because of the leadership of this administration and because of some of these methods of interrogation that have been associated with Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld. And the President laid out today how thousands of Americans had their lives spared, how we stopped attacks and we stopped plots to attack our country in mid course, including not only attacks that would include explosives but also attacks that would include things like anthrax, because we had a forward-leaning, tough, aggressive posture in this war against terror. So as the Democrats sip their lattes and find themselves very comfortable in what they describe as a very uncomfortable world, the reason they are able to be here having enjoyed almost 5 years after the 9/11 attack with no further attacks on the United States is partly because we had a President with an aggressive, forward-leaning policy against terrorism; that he went out and took them on; that he hunted them down in places where they didn't think they would ever be found, with the leadership of Don Rumsfeld, and we kept them off balance. And because of that, because they were kept off balance, because we penetrated them, because we were able to get into their cells and we were able to discover who was masterminding these plots against the United States, we were able to keep our people safe. And I am further reminded that when Don Rumsfeld's military, our military, led by General Tommy Franks, was driving that iron spearhead up toward Baghdad, you already had the Democrats complaining that there were not enough troops and that he would get bogged down. And as you saw them on talk shows, the talk shows in which Democrats were complaining that he would get bogged down were interrupted by news announcements that Tommy Franks had taken yet other stronghold of Saddam Hussein. And they would seem to be almost disappointed rather than joyous when they would hear that American troops had, in fact, mowed down another line of defense by Saddam Hussein; so they stopped criticizing for a while. Then after we took Baghdad, the criticism started again. And this time the criticism was what I called the ``both ways criticism.'' In the same discussion, a Democrat leader would say we need to have more troops on the ground and in the next sentence he would say we want to have an Iraqi face on the security apparatus. Well, how do you have an Iraqi face on a security apparatus if you stuff enough troops into that country to have a GI on every corner? The facts are you cannot have it both ways. And then the other criticism was, we should have kept the Iraqi military intact. The Iraqi military had over 10,000 Sunni generals. What do you do with 10,000 Sunni generals? You don't do anything. And that is what the army would have done to secure Iraq: nothing. The idea of having that army where corruption was the order of the day, where you had people who were simply following their own political agenda and making their own way and making their own profits and the idea that we would maintain that army as the new safeguard or security force in Iraq to protect this fledgling, newly elected, democratically elected government coming up makes no sense at all. The smartest thing we ever did was starting with scratch with that military and teaching the new army the chain of command; teaching them respect both up and down the chain of command; teaching them to take responsibility; teaching them to have a thing called NCOs, noncommissioned officers; teaching them to be decent to people; teaching them not to be corrupt. And that is why today the best force that we have in Iraq is not the police force, is not the security force. It is the military. And even people who have criticized this administration in the way they conducted the war concur that there is a strong core in this Iraqi army. That is because we built it from scratch, and we didn't start with 15,000 Sunni generals. Now, the last thing, and I have mentioned it, that the administration was condemned for and that Don Rumsfeld became a lightning rod for was uncomfortable interrogation methods. Well, you know, the world is a tough place, and the people that we are dealing with are not made out of cotton candy. And the fact that we were able to get information from terrorists because they are the ones that have the information, not Americans, but because the terrorists are the ones that have the information, the fact that we were able to get that information from them and use that to stop other actions against the United States before they could mature, before they could result in American casualties accrued to the benefit of America's security. So when I look at this ``woe is me'' and we have got the real security plan and if we had only taken the other road, you will notice that the road not taken is always the smoothest one, where we had all the Sunni generals, that we would have used those to somehow bring security to Iraq, or if we had stuffed enough GIs into Iraq that somehow there would not be any car bombings or would not be any violence, or if we would just ask people politely to give up the names of their co-terrorists, they would do that and we wouldn't have to be tough on them in interrogations. All those positions, I think, define why the American people, Democrats and Republicans, rely on Republicans for national security. And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely.

Mr. HUNTER. I think that comment that somehow this is a neat, tidy package and if we just confined ourselves to Afghanistan, somehow we would win the war against terror and we wouldn't have to worry about Iraq is a naive position. The facts are that we learned after 9/11 that if we didn't change the world, the world was going to change us. And having an Iraq that has a modicum of freedom, that is not an enemy of the United States and will not be a springboard to future terrorism accrues to the benefit of generations of Americans. It is not something you can put on a bumper sticker, but having some change in that part of the world. And one manifestation of that change that was little noticed was when, during the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Hezbollah sought rearmaments from Iran, and Iran, according to reports, sent off a plane full of new missiles to throw at the defenseless civilian populations in Israeli cities, and Iraq would not let them fly over. So they said, okay, we will try to fly over Turkey. And Turkey said, You can come into our aerospace but only if you land and we can search your plane. And Iran then turned the plane around and took it back home and did not deliver the missiles. Now, that is only a small thing. On the other hand, it could be a big thing for the people who might have felt the impact of those warheads in Israeli cities. But that was an Iraq whose government was not friendly to terrorists. That was an Iraq whose government was supportive of free people. And that was because of the American position in Iraq and the fact that we have changed the face of Iraq. Now, there is something I think all American troops should see because they are hearing this constant drumbeat now from the Democrats that the casualties have been in vain, that their efforts have been in vain, that this is all a terrible fiasco. I think that every American who serves should be shown the excavations that are taking place in Iraq right now, those mass graves wherein if you watch the History Channel, you might have seen some of this about a month ago where American anthropologists and scientists are excavating the mass graves, where Saddam Hussein's people would herd hundreds and thousands of people and in many cases would shoot the mother holding her baby in the back of the head. And then when the scientists would examine the skull of the little baby, they would notice it too would have a pistol bullet hole in the back of its head. Double execution, mother and baby. I think all Americans that serve over there should see the photos of those Kurdish mothers whose bodies are strewn out across the hillsides still holding their babies, killed in mid stride by Chemical Ali. And I am reminded of a Democrat President who stood on the west steps of this Capitol many years ago and said, Let the word go out, let friend and foe alike know that America will bear any burden to support the cause of freedom. And I am paraphrasing, of course, John Kennedy. What happened to those Democrats? What value do they place on those thousands of people who were pushed into mass graves? In fact, I think one farmer testified about Saddam Hussein's executioners that they had an execution squad that would show up at about 9 o'clock on his farm. They had an excavation squad or team that would show up with construction equipment, and they would dig these big trenches on his farm in the morning, and then the execution squad would arrive, and then they would truck in the unfortunate villagers who were going to be executed. They would line them up and shoot them in the back of the head, push them into this big cut that they had made in the Earth, and then they would cover them up with bulldozers. As I recall at one point, the farmer said that one day the execution squad, the logistics guy did not show up so they did not have any bullets. So he said, what the heck. They just pushed the people in alive and covered them up without shooting them. It did not make a lot of difference to them. Those historical excavations, and that record of human suffering and human tragedy that was visited on those people, that should be shown. Because that is the work of Saddam Hussein. That should be shown to every GI, every marine, every navy corpsman that serves out there in that tough Fallujah area, and al Ramadi with the marines, every airman who flies those long lifts, bringing and keeping that logistical train going between American bases and that area of operation. Every one of them ought to be shown the full story of what Saddam Hussein did and what he was. And the idea that we can turn that country where the ruler did that to those people, to a country who, when Iran says we want to fly these missiles over your air space so we can kill people in Israel says ``no, we are not going to let you do that. Go back''. To me that is a remarkable thing. Now, you know, the freedom of the Iraqi people is not guaranteed by this operation in perpetuity. Nobody's freedom is guaranteed in perpetuity including our own. We are developing them, a freedom for that country. We are giving them a running start at freedom. I think it was Ben Franklin one time who said, we have our freedom, now if we can keep it. It will be up to them to keep it. But we learned after 9/11 that if we did not change the world, the world was going to change us. This is far-reaching. This is visionary. This is going beyond Fortress America that somehow we must have said something wrong to these extremists to come after us and bomb us and do these things to us. And you know, I have thought about this idea that somehow what did we do wrong to invite this strike against America? I thought about that. I thought about the last couple of wars we fought. Two wars ago it was the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein. Kuwait is a Muslim country. We saved it. And then we went in and we saved hundreds of thousands of Muslims in the Balkans, in Bosnia. We had that record. And the reward that we got from the extremists was for them to attack the United States of America. So what more could we do? So this idea of this flagellation of America is something that is reviving in the Democratic party. I think you probably noticed that. It is coming to the fore. It is, we did something wrong. And it is not Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the real devils in this operation, according to the Democrats, are not these people that we are going after who have tried to kill thousands of Americans, it is really our leaders. Those are the people that they say are the bad people. And it is not the guys that our great intelligence agencies and military people manage to bring to justice that we will soon see in a court of justice being tried I believe for murder, among other things. But it is the methods of these uncomfortable methods that were used to get them to tell about people that were planning to kill Americans and fly planes into our country loaded with explosives and do the other things that the President talked about today. This blame America first thing is reviving on the Democrat side of the aisle. I do not think the American people are going to buy it.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just wanted to say that I am going to support this legislation. We have several important issues that we think were decided in the right way, particularly the one that gives the Secretary of Defense a veto of the process if he finds that national security interests are impaired or are affected. And that is very, very important to us. There are several issues that we think still need to be resolved that are important to the Armed Services Committee, but we support the bill in terms of moving it forward into the conference and getting this very important legislation, intended to tighten up the CFIUS process, in place so that we can apply it to pending transactions. So, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote ``yes'' on this, but to work very closely with the gentleman from Ohio, my good friend, and with all the other Members who have been putting this legislation together as we move through conference to try to firm up a few other important defense issues as we go through the conference.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Issa), who has been a real champion in this effort to preserve the memorial.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from San Diego, California (Mr. Bilbray), a gentleman who has worked tirelessly to preserve the memorial.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just to make one point, what we are doing with this legislation is taking ownership that we have already designated by law the memorial at Mt. Soledad, the Korean war memorial. We have already designated this memorial as a Federal memorial. What we are doing is taking ownership of the memorial. So for those who don't like it and who think that it is unconstitutional, that memorial will still be intact and will be subject to any attacks that they or others may want to make on the memorial. What it simply does is transfer title of the memorial, of the property, to the Federal Government. I think that is absolutely appropriate in light of the fact that these are veterans from all over America who are represented on those 1,700-plus little memorials that make up this big memorial. So it is absolutely reasonable and appropriate that the Federal Government, having designated this as a Federal memorial, takes ownership of the property as a Federal memorial.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to ask my colleagues' support for H.R. 5683, the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Protection Act. Since 1954, a 29-foot cross has stood atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego, California, memorializing the sacrifices of American soldiers during World War I, World War II, and the Korean conflict. This beautiful and historic memorial cross was erected and is maintained by a private organization, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, with the permission of the city of San Diego. Over the years, the memorial association has added many elements to this memorial, including over 1,700 granite plaques commemorating individual servicewomen and men on concentric walls, bollards, pavers, and a flag pole proudly flying the American flag. The memorial cross now is fully integrated as a centerpiece of the multifaceted Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial. It is without question a world-class war memorial, dedicated to all of those, regardless of race, religion or creed, who have served our armed services. In 1989, a single plaintiff brought suit against the city of San Diego because he stated he was offended by the sight of the cross. The district court found that presence of this memorial cross violated the California Constitution's guarantee of free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference and ordered the removal of the display. The city of San Diego, like other municipalities faced with similar court orders, endeavored in good faith to divest itself of the memorial property by selling it to a private party who could choose to display the memorial cross. In this case, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the method of sale violated the California Constitution's ban on aid to sectarian purposes. On May 3, 2006, the district court ordered the city of San Diego to comply with the original injunction. The city has appealed that order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has stayed enforcement of the order pending the outcome of that appeal. In 2004, the United States Congress designated the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial a National Veterans Memorial and authorized the Federal Government to accept the donation of the memorial from the city of San Diego. The voters of San Diego passed, by an overwhelming 76 percent, a ballot measure providing for the donation. But in response to a complaint by the same lone plaintiff, a San Diego County superior court judge invalidated the citywide referendum as violating the California Constitution. The vast majority of the citizens of the city of San Diego favor finding a way to keep the Mt. Soledad Memorial intact, even if that means giving up ownership of the parkland property on which it is located. A 1994 ballot measure authorizing the sale of the property also passed with 76 percent of the vote, as did a 2005 ballot measure directing the city to donate the memorial property to the Federal Government. The efforts of the city to vindicate the desires of the citizenry, however, have been stymied by one plaintiff and a few judges who find the city of San Diego's display of the decades-old memorial cross impermissible under the California Constitution. H.R. 5683 vests title and possession of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, a national memorial honoring the war dead and veterans of the United States Armed Forces, in the United States. Once the memorial property belongs to the United States, the constitutionality of the property transfer, as well as the display of the cross as an element of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, will be determined under the establishment clause of the United States Constitution. Applying the establishment clause to the government's display of religious symbols, the United States Supreme Court has determined that displays of religious symbols on government property are unconstitutional only if their purpose is entirely religious and they include no secular components. Most recently the Supreme Court has determined that the establishment clause analysis of passive monuments like this one is driven by the nature of the monument and by our Nation's history. In the case of the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial, it is surrounded by a plethora of secular symbols. In fact, Mr. Speaker, there are some 1,700 memorials that make up this overall veterans memorial. In accordance with the United States' long tradition of memorializing members of the Armed Forces who die in battle with religious symbols, the memorial cross serves a legitimate secular purpose of commemorating our Nation's war dead and veterans. Therefore, the display of the Mt. Soledad memorial cross on Federal property as part of a larger memorial is constitutional. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we have many pictures of large crosses in national cemeteries and other national property or Federal property across this Nation, and we will display those at the appropriate time. The memorial cross on Mt. Soledad is not only a religious symbol, it is a venerated landmark, beloved by the people of San Diego for over 50 years. It is a fitting memorial to all persons who have served and sacrificed for our Nation as members of the Armed Forces. Passage of H.R. 5683 will preserve the beautiful memorial for the families of those who have died in service, for all current military servicemembers, for veterans, for the citizens of San Diego and for the Nation. For the Record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit letters of support from Jerry Sanders, mayor of San Diego; San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial; the American Legion; AMVETS; Veterans for Foreign Wars of the United States; Disabled American Veterans; the American Center for Law and Justice; and Robert and Sybil Martino, the parents of a soldier who gave his life in the war on terror and was honored for his sacrifice at the Mt. Soledad Memorial Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC, July 19, 2006. Statement of Administration Policy--H.R. 5683--Acquisition of Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial (Rep. Hunter (R) CA and two cosponsors) The Administration strongly supports passage of H.R. 5683 to protect the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego. In the face of legal action threatening the continued existence of the current Memorial, the people of San Diego have clearly expressed their desire to keep the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in its present form. Judicial activism should not stand in the way of the people, and the Administration commends Rep. Hunter for his efforts in introducing this bill. The bill would preserve the Mount Soledad Memorial by vesting title to the Memorial in the Federal government and providing that it be administered by the Secretary of Defense. The Administration supports the important goal of preserving the integrity of war memorials.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement. How much time do both sides have left?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation under consideration.

Mr. HUNTER. Do we have the right to close?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5683) to preserve the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California, by providing for the immediate acquisition of the memorial by the United States, as amended.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all Members for engaging in this debate. I think it is a good one and a healthy one, and I would like to point out to all Members that preserving this memorial, that is, transferring it to the United States of America, is supported strongly by the American Legion, by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, by the Disabled American Veterans, and by AMVETS and by all of their national commanders. Mr. Speaker, let me point out that there are dozens and dozens not only of crosses but of Stars of David and other religious symbols on Federal property throughout this country. I noticed during the debate here that we are standing under a statement, ``In God we trust,'' that stands over the Speaker's chair, arguably a target for a constitutional argument that it violates separation of church and State. Now, in answer to my friend from New York and his statement that why did we have to go and put this cross on this memorial, this memorial is 52 years ago. It is a memorial that has evolved and grown since not only the Korean war but actually right after the turn of the century, like so many memorials that we have. Today, there is not really just one memorial. There are really 1,701 memorials in composite because there are 1,700 plaques to people that gave everything they had to the United States of America. This last letter that I received in support of this from the parents of Captain Martino, who fell in Iraq last year, saying please do not let them tear down the memorial, reminded me to look back and look at some of the other people that are on this memorial. There is a thread of patriotism between every American alive today and those who served our country and those who fell for our country, those 619,000 Americans who died in the last century, those 2,500-plus Americans who have given their lives in Iraq and the 300-plus Americans who have given their lives in Afghanistan. There is a thread of patriotism between those people. So for Captain Martino, who gave his life in Iraq just last year because of that, and for his family, somebody is able to teach at a synagogue or a church today or a college; because of a machine gunner in Belleau Wood early in this century, a businessman is able to operate freely in Cincinnati; and because of people who fell in the Korean war, a young couple is able to walk down the streets without being arrested in Washington, D.C. So the freedoms that we have are combined by a thread to every single person who gave that full measure of devotion to our country, and whether we like it or not and whether the courts like it or not, the people, the families, the service people, think that those threads come together in little monuments and memorials throughout this country, not the least of which is Arlington Cemetery, but also not the least of which is 3,000 miles away on Mt. Soledad overlooking the Pacific Ocean where the 1st Marine Division embarked for those incredible fights in the island chains, taking back Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima and other islands in the Axis Powers in World War II. That is a point of embarkation. It is a point where many families last saw their loved ones. This memorial has a thread of patriotism and a thread of meaning to the people of the United States, not just San Diego, and it is fully appropriate that the United States of America, having made this memorial a national memorial, now takes ownership of the memorial. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HUNTER. In that case, we would like to reserve our time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Almost, in fact a little bit more than 61 years ago, the 101st Airborne parachuted into Normandy. And a few miles away the Fourth Infantry Division was wading through bloody waters onto Utah Beach. And thousands of miles away, the First Marine Division was culminating a series of island operations, including Guadalcanal, Pelalieu and many others, very dangerous, very bloody. We call them the Greatest Generation. And you know, today, the 101st Airborne anchors the Sunni Triangle. The Fourth Infantry Division, including many of the grandchildren of those great members of the Greatest Generation, are in Baghdad. And the First Marine Division is out in that very dangerous al Anbar Province in towns called Ramadi and Fallujah. I call them the New Greatest Generation. But there is a difference between them and their forefathers of the 101st and the Fourth Infantry Division and the First Marine Division, and that is that the Greatest Generation of World War II had a Congress that was united behind their mission. I think we owe it to this New Greatest Generation to unite behind their mission, and not just because it is their mission and we are Congress and we oversee national security, but because we gave them the mission. We voted overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives to go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We, not somebody else, we gave them the mission. They have carried out that mission. They have carried it out in thousands of firefights at 10,000- foot elevations in Afghanistan, taking down safehouses in Mosul and Tikrit and Fallujah and many other areas in Iraq, winning 45,000 bronze stars for valor and meritorious service, among many other medals; and you know, all the while taking on the enemy, they inoculated over 5 million children against diseases, re-stood up over 3,000 schools, built hundreds of hospitals, and they carried the free elections of the Afghan and Iraqi people on their shoulders. That is why we had free elections in those two countries. Now, you know, when we started this thing, and if you look at the literature of al Qaeda and the terrorist organizations, they question the capability of the American troops. They no longer question that capability. Mr. Zarqawi does not question that capability. Saddam Hussein does not question that capability. They have been convinced of it in thousands of firefights. They don't question the troops' commitment to this mission. And the troops' commitment to this mission is manifested in reenlistments rates. For the Fourth ID, the Third ID, the 101st, the 10th Mountain Division, the First Marines, reenlistments, after multiple tours of more than 130 percent of the requirement. They don't question the continued commitment of the President. They have seen this President go through highs and lows in the polls and continue his commitment to the mission that we launched together. The only question they have now is us. They question our commitment to this mission. And this resolution, Mr. Speaker, is a chance to unite this House of Representatives by restating our commitment to this mission. Let's do it so that tonight, when those troops come home from their patrols and their recons and their convoys and they look at the news, they are going to say the United States House of Representatives, they stand with us.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Lungren control the remaining 30 seconds of our time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman who represents Dyess Air Force Base, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), a very distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. HUNTER. We have reserved the balance of our time. I think we have got a transition here, Mr. Speaker, with the next committee coming up.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), who has just welcomed home his old unit, the 116th Armored Cav.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) for 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a very fine member of the committee.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster), a very fine member of the Armed Services Committee.