Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, we've looked over the amendment. It's really an adjustment of a part of the base bill that we have that allows for this memorandum of understanding between these three primary entities, State, DOD and AID, to make sure that they have an understanding of authorization of the carrying of the weapons by contractors, the rules of engagement, coordinating movement of contractors, collecting information relating to offenses under UCMJ and also, additionally, what the gentlelady has offered in her amendment, the issuance of guidance on all equipment, including uniforms, body armor, weapons and the collection of information related to casualties suffered by contractors. And our only concern, of course, is that we have enough time for this memorandum of understanding to be put together after the bill becomes law, which in some cases is late December, hopefully long before then. And so what we do need is to have the ability of the administration, if they don't have that together. And one thing we all agree on is you've got to do this right when they do it, when they issue this memorandum of understanding. So they need to have time to do it; that we do have a waiver or an extension of time that would be allowed. And so I've talked this over with the gentlelady, who is the author of the amendment. She's amenable to extending the time period for this memorandum of understanding to be worked out, and the chairman has graciously agreed that he also supports that. And so just in a simple informal colloquy, I'd just ask the chairman if it's his agreement that, in conference, we would work to extend the time wherein the memorandum of understanding could be worked out if, in fact, it can't be done within 90 days of the first of January 2008. Would the gentleman agree to effect that in conference?

Mr. HUNTER. Absolutely.

Mr. HUNTER. I would further ask the gentlelady if that's fine with her, if she would be in accord with that.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you very much. In that case we support this amendment and would not object to its adoption. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HUNTER. I just wanted to thank the gentlelady for, respectfully, for her addition to this amendment and her concern about the contractors. And you know, just reflect for a second, that our contractors who go over to the warfighting theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan undertake enormous danger, and a large number of them have been killed and wounded. And many of them, the ones that I have met, are largely American veterans who have, they go for two reasons; one is they do make good money. It's a job, it's a worthwhile job. They feel like they're supporting our country. They also have a great, the ones I've talked to, have a great deal of concern for the troops. They have a feeling of partnership with the people that wear the uniform of the United States, and they are a great asset to this country. And I think it's appropriate that we follow, we carefully watch how they're treated and how they're protected. I think that's absolutely appropriate. I thank the chairman for embedding this base provision in the base bill, and members on the Republican and Democrat side who've worked to put this together, and I thank the gentlelady for her thoughtful addition.

Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and on our side we think this is an excellent amendment. And I want to thank the gentleman whom I've traveled with to the warfighting theaters, and thank him for his concern for our troops, and we support the amendment strongly.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I just want to say that we on this side are in total agreement with her amendment. We thank her for bringing it in such a thoughtful way and we support it. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, we appreciate the gentleman and his amendment on this side and thank him for bringing it to the floor. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Turner).

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank the gentleman. What an essential and important amendment this is. We recognized and have embedded in law the remedies for a service person who may be overseas and may lose his house or may have a judgment taken against him, a civil law liability judgment, and we have tried to protect him from that. And the idea of having a child taken from you while you are serving overseas can only have a demoralizing effect on members of the armed services. So this protection is very much needed, and I thank the gentleman from Ohio. We have total support on this side for his amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer) for the purposes of a colloquy with myself and Mr. Skelton.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I support the chairman and I will support the gentleman's request for a study by the GAO after 1 year to assess the impact to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the DOD of providing Federal pricing to DOD to purchase drugs in a retail pharmacy.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for my great friend from New Jersey, who has shared and fought on common ground with this Member for many years on items of interest and national defense that we shared support of. In this case, I must oppose this amendment strongly for this reason. The nation that he's talking about, Iran, borders obviously one of our important warfighting theaters, that is, Iraq. We have seen evidence, it has been reported by our warfighting commanders that Iran has participated in moving instruments of death; that is, extremely effective IEDs that have been used against American troops and will prospectively be used against American troops, into Iraq from Iran. The idea that we are saying that in this piece of the budget we cannot plan for interdiction of those items, of those weapons that are moving across the border, that we can't plan, for example, for Special Forces operations that we might need to implement or to move into action, to preempt this movement of deadly devices across the border, that we can't plan to extract hostages if they should be taken by Iranian militia or Iranian members of the armed forces is just not practical and it's not reasonable. You have an Iranian military and intelligence body which has decided to become involved in the war in Iraq. They have moved across the border, and they have moved effective weapons across the border that are being used against American troops. I think it is not wise for us to advertise to our adversaries and to the world that we are establishing a policy that we will not even use money to contemplate or to plan for a reaction against us. I think we have to let them know that we have license, as Americans, to take any actions that might be necessary to protect American troops. I would object very strongly to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield an additional 3 minutes?

Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I would just respond to my friend from New Jersey in this way: It says that you can't plan for a major contingency. I am looking at scenarios, and if you have a scenario where you have convoys of IED material being moved from Iran into Iraq and you want to send a team over and make a strike and close a canyon or close a mountain pass or hit that convoy with a major strike, I think many people would classify that as a major action, a major contingency. So I think that we blurred the line here in that we may have to take what I would consider and many Members here would consider to be major contingencies. The problem is, you have to take those things very quickly. This war against terror is an era when time is truly of the essence, when hours are important, when minutes are important, when days are important. The idea we have to come back, if you have got to close a pass to keep IEDs that are killing Americans in Iraq from going across that line, we have to come back and get permission from Congress to do that, I think that is not a good advertisement or a good statement of impunity to communicate to the other side, where they think they now have an insulation between an immediate reaction by American Armed Forces. That is the essence of our resistance to this amendment, and I think it is still very solid.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me just say to my friend, I just reviewed it the other day, and I don't need to look at any statements by George W. Bush about whether or not we should have gone into Iraq, because the most damning statements about Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction, the most conclusive statements that indeed he must have them and that he must be brought to justice quickly, were not made by George W. Bush. They were made by people with the last name of Clinton, of Gore, of Kerry. I reviewed all of the videotapes of their speeches in which they absolutely laid out a case against Saddam Hussein. So I hope we don't replow the ground of who shot John here in terms of statements with respect to the state of Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction. I think we need to get back to the substance of this debate, and that is, are we foreclosing an immediate response if it is necessary.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to explain again why I think it is impractical to put this dividing line between this funding. If there has to be a strike, if there has to be preemption because IED material is moving across the border that could injure our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines, probably the reactive force is going to be led by one of the combatant commanders who is in the Iraqi theater and who is being funded by money under OEF or OIF. It is probably not going to come. And the idea you can't have uniformed personnel expending his time and his staff's time planning what it is going to take to defend his soldiers, sailors, airmen or marines from interference from the Iranian side of the border, is, in my estimation, not practical. Those are the forces that are going to be responding, and I think we have to let them put together that contingency plan. Notice to Alter Order of Consideration of Amendments