Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say earlier the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) rose and talked about what he called a lack of oversight on the Armed Services Committee with respect to Iraq. I want to enter into the Record, if I might, the fact of 41 full committee hearings, 21 on the war on terror, two on reconstruction, two on troop rotation, three on the Iraqi forces, four on force protection, four on detainees and five markups on that issue. I would just point out that the most extensive investigation in the history of detainees was completed by General Taguba, who gave us a voluminous report with something like 116 annexes. I made that available to everybody, Democratic, Republican, on the Armed Services Committee, including Mr. Snyder, and a total of three members from the Democrat side of the aisle on our committee looked at that the report. It is still available for Mr. Snyder. When he gets finished reading it we will have more hearings for him. HASC Breakdown of Iraq/GWOT Activities Total Committee Events--93 Detainees--17 Force Protection--10

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the reenlistment rate for the soldiers of the 1st Infantry Division, the 4th Infantry Division, the 1st Marine Division, and the 10th Mountain Division exceeds 130 percent in this last quarter. And a lot of that is the result of the great work by the gentleman of New York (Mr. McHugh), who has been the chairman of the Total Force and the Personnel Subcommittee and has presided over a major part of the 41 percent pay increase that we have passed over the last several years. I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), a distinguished 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.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to clear up a point. There are 340,000 sets of advanced body armor produced and fielded. That is more than two sets for every single person serving in uniform in Iraq. I have made this statement for the last year, but if anybody has a relative who is serving in Iraq without body armor, please call me personally. I have not yet received a single phone call. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) who does so much for the troops.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley).

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a great member of the Armed Services Committee. (Mr. CONAWAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the Terrorism Subcommittee. (Mr. SAXTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 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 myself 2 minutes. I think it is important to remember the two major provisions in this resolution, one that there is not going to be an arbitrary cutoff, that that would disserve the security interests of the United States to have an arbitrary exit date from Iraq; and, secondly, that we are going to finish the mission, we are going to fulfill this mission, and that we support the mission that is being undertaken by those 130,000 plus troops who are in Iraq right now. Mr. Speaker, I was thinking about this question of who should determine when we leave Iraq. Over the last week, we have talked about the bringing to justice of Mr. Zarqawi, and everyone, Democrats and Republicans, have been talking about the extreme competence of the American military. We have talked about the fact that they are extremely effective, that they know what they are doing, that they may be the best military we have had in decades, that we have great leadership. That is why their judgment on the ground as they stand up and train this Iraqi military should be the determinant of when that Iraqi military is able to carry that load and take that handoff from the American military and handle those security duties themselves. It shouldn't be a Congressman from California, it shouldn't be a Senator from Minnesota, it shouldn't be subject to a committee vote by those of us in Washington, D.C. It should be a function of the collaboration and the discussion and the analysis of the combat commanders on the ground listening to their captains and their majors and their colonels who are training up this Iraqi force. When they say they are ready, that is when we make that handoff. Mr. Speaker, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a very distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Calvert.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. With great respect for Chairman Mica and Chairman Knollenberg, I support this amendment strongly. This is a matter of priorities, and it is a matter of American ownership in a system that supported and that transported 93 percent of our military personnel to the warfighting theaters. It is a matter of priorities. Dan McKinnon, Ronald Reagan's head of the Civil Aeronautics Board, who owned and sold North American Airlines and controlled it, said, ``As a rescue helicopter pilot with 61 saves, my number one priority would always be American security. If the country needed me, that's where I would send my planes.'' That is the kind of control, operational control, we need on American airlines. I strongly support this amendment.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise today to talk about an American hero, a hero from San Diego, California, Billy Casper, one of the great athletes to ever stride the greens and fairways of America's golf courses and compete in national and international tournaments with a great successful record, but also one of the greatest family men and greatest husbands, greatest father, greatest grandfathers who ever had a family in San Diego or helped a community or did all of the great things that Billy Casper has done. I have got my friend, Mr. Issa, to talk with me a little bit about Billy Casper. But Billy Casper was a great golfer. And he is celebrating, we are celebrating here, his first victory which was the LaBatt Open in Canada. I think he was 22 years old at the time. I think he had at that time had married Shirley, who was his high school sweetheart from Chula Vista, and he followed that victory, the LaBatt Open, with some 50 more PGA professional victories, including two U.S. Opens and a Masters. You know, people once said, Mr. Speaker, I know you coming from Long Beach, and then ultimately the entire State of California as our former Attorney General, you knew about Billy Casper, because he was a guy who was called by Johnny Miller, as the guy who had the greatest set of hands in golf, meaning one of the greatest touches. He had what I think is the most memorable come-from-behind victory in the history of major golf in 1966, when he demonstrated those great hands when he was 7 shots behind the great Arnold Palmer in the closing 9 holes of the U.S. Open, 1966, playing at Olympic Country Club in San Francisco, and Billy Casper closed out with a 32 on the back 9 at Olympic, which is nearly miraculous. He tied Arnold Palmer and he beat him the next day in a playoff with a 69. Now, they had The Big Three of Golf, Mr. Speaker. It was called Player, Palmer and Nicklaus. They needed the Big Three because between 1964 and 1970, they needed all three of their tournament victories added together to have more than Billy Casper because he had 4 more victories during that period than the great Jack Nicklaus, and he had more victories than Arnie and Gary Player together. It is neat to be here with Mr. Issa from San Diego and talk about this American hero, this San Diego sports hero, Billy Casper. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).

Mr. HUNTER. I thank Mr. Issa for his contribution here, because Billy Casper has not only touched the hearts or touch the minds and memories of lots of sports writers and people who read those sports pages when he was amassing those 51 professional victories, but he touched the hearts of so many young people. And he and Shirley, his wonderful wife, have hearts as big as the 18th green at San Diego Country Club, and they have touched the lives of literally thousands and thousands of young people through the scholarship funds that they put together, through all the help they put together through Billy's annual tournament. If you walk up to Billy Casper on the golf course, here is a guy who won a couple U.S. Opens and the Masters and a guy who lives in this era where sports idols charge money for their autographs. Billy Casper will stop what he is doing, he will look you in the eye, and if you are a young person he will really pay a lot of attention to you. He and Shirley are absolutely the greatest examples of what families should be like in this country. So it is neat to be here with my great colleague Darryl Issa and talk a little bit about this American hero, Billy Casper.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, and I think it is appropriate to recall the days of Normandy. The gentleman said those days when the world waited to find out whether or not that very difficult mission would be successful, and you know, the theme I think that we should take from Normandy or the message from Normandy was that our soldiers came not to conquer but to liberate. That is consistent with the American theme throughout the last century, and it is consistent with the theme that is being carried out by about 130,000 men and women in the sands of the Iraqi desert right now. And that is, that all the wars that we fought in the last century, wars in which we lost 619,000 Americans killed in action on the battlegrounds and the oceans and the airways of the various wars, we did not conquer, we did not covet land. When we won the Spanish American War, we gave back Cuba and the Philippines, gave them their freedom. When we went to save Europe the first time, we gave back all that ground that had been hard won by the Marines at Bellawood and by the U.S. Army and so many difficult battles. In World War II, having liberated Europe a second time in that century, we gave back all that land that had been so dearly won. And today, in Iraq, we are not engaged in military operations so that we can somehow derive material benefits from that country or somehow enslave the inhabitants of that country and turn them toward our political benefit and our economic benefit. We do it because we think that it is in the interests of the United States to spread freedom, to change the world, and I think lots of Americans understand that if we do not change the world, the world is going to change us. Those heroes who have won now some 45,000 Bronze Stars for meritorious service and for valor in the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan I think are every bit as courageous and, in many cases, are related to and the descendants of those incredible people who climbed the cliffs at Normandy and went up those beaches. Some of those landing craft opened up and the Americans were machine gunned before they could get out of the craft, and there were men bobbing in those waves, some of them dead before they hit the water. Others got to the beach and went down, and you can see the dramatic newsreels that show Americans falling as they are taking that beach, and then still others got to the base of the cliffs, and then some scaled those cliffs. Of course, we had others that came in, paratroopers, some of whom landed in dug-in positions that the enemy had established and were killed before their chutes could reach the ground. Others that went in in gliders, not an avocation that is conducive to longevity, and others simply went in the old-fashioned way, but they went in for freedom. They went in for America, and they liberated, and that is the theme of Normandy. I thank my colleague for yielding this time.

Mr. HUNTER

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to, once again, echo my great respect for my partner on this committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and just offer that one thing we have done in this package is to take down the cost of pharmaceutical drugs to zero for those enlisted families if they simply get them through the mail; and they can now get a 90-day supply rather than a 30-day supply, and that is what we are trying to incentivize them to do. It is better for them. They have got no cost of transportation to go pick up their medicine, and it is better for the taxpayers. And that is the direction that we are trying to take our military families.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I think that is a thoughtful statement. I think that what we have seen, regrettably, from the gentleman's party, from the Democrat side, has been a series of ``noes'' to initiatives that would have increased the supply of petroleum. The amount of increase in petroleum that we have undertaken in the last 4 or 5 years would have, by the projections I have seen, have been made up by oil which could have come from, for example, Alaska which is a third of the size of the United States. So when the gentleman's party effectively closed down Alaska for supplying petroleum, a large piece of Alaska for supplying petroleum from the northern sector, that deprived us of an enormous supply of petroleum which would have had a direct effect on the price at the pump. Further, the gentleman knows it takes about 10 years to permit a refinery. The gentleman is an expert in this. The gentleman knows the way we get low prices in this country for any commodity is competition. That means if you are baking bread on one side of the street for $2 a loaf, and I come across from the other side of the street and I can bake it for a buck a loaf, I win and the consumers win. If you takes you 10 years to get a permit for your bakery, you never get into the competition and the price of bread never comes down. And if it takes you 10 years to permit a refinery because of environmental restrictions that the Democratic Party will not let go of, you never see that oil coming on line and you never see that competition from another refinery. It is a debate. But on the point of funding, the idea that you can just harvest a third of a billion dollars out of missile defense and that is not going to have any effect on the program because you think that money is not needed right now, we will have other parts of the program, the missile defense program, that needs more money. As the gentleman knows, when you have hundreds of programs, some of them need money, some of them can give up money at any given time. The idea that this missile defense, which is necessary to protect both our troops in theater, who have been fired upon and killed in some cases by low-end ballistic missiles, like the Scuds that were used against us in the first Gulf War, and countries like Israel that need to have defense that see their neighbors right now developing ballistic missiles that will come in high and fast into those countries; the idea of forcing our Members to choose between defending their troops and having a new technological program on petroleum innovations, in my estimation, this is something that is a subject for judgment. We have exercised our judgment. I think we have done a good job in the committee. I think we have put together a good bill in the committee. It passed out 60-1. I think that is testament to the fact that we have a balanced package and we need to move forward.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my good friend who just spoke and talked about the need to shore up energy supplies for our country, I agree with him totally. And I agree with the idea that we should not have to rely on that lifeline of petroleum coming out of the Middle East, which has security ramifications. Let me say to my friend that opening up a piece of land that is as big as a third of the United States, that is, Alaska, a third of the size of the continental United States, would go a long way toward doing that. The amount of petroleum that we could be getting from one of our own States within our own boundaries without having to depend on that lifeline would accrue to the national security. I say to the gentleman, I think it is a sad thing that the majority of his party has not seen fit to do that. We are pursuing lots of alternative forms of energy, but one problem with this particular amendment is, it would take the money out of missile defense. I know the gentleman is worried about the prospect of ballistic missiles that are being tested by countries in the Middle East, that are being tested to ranges that will include Israel, for example, and at some point, certain locations in the United States. So there are two aspects to these amendments. One is what you do; and the other is where you pull the money from. The other part of that story is where you pull the money from.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for his great work on behalf of the men and women who wear the uniform and for his work on this bill, and all the members for the work on this bill. I just say to my great colleague from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), we did put this bill together in a bipartisan fashion, and we did entertain this amendment in the House Committee on the Armed Services. And the point is that we came out of the committee with a very carefully crafted bill in which we are trying to incentivize military families to use mail order; and so we took down the cost of mail order pharmaceuticals to guess what, zero; both generic and formulary drugs down to zero. They do not pay a dime. Now they win when they get these prescriptions through the mail, and the taxpayers win because the costs are much less. That means you do not even have the cost of transportation to go down to pick up that particular prescription. So we took those down to zero. The other thing we did that was a remarkable thing, that really completed this transition of recognizing the National Guard, is we moved the availability of TRICARE not just to National Guardsmen, who heretofore were given TRICARE for an extended period of time before they mobilized and for an extended period of time after they mobilized, but we then moved it to all National Guardsmen who are drilling reservists, all National Guardsmen, and with only a copayment of 28 percent of the costs. So this is a monumental bill that has moved billions of dollars of medical benefits to these great people who wear the uniform of the United States. Let me just say to my colleagues, this is a bipartisan bill. The gentleman from Oklahoma is absolutely right. We did all the right things, and that is why it passed by a vote of 60-1. No one has more respect for the gentleman from Missouri than myself. We did consider his amendment in the committee, and the provision that his amendment dealt with is a part of this balance of trying to move people to buy their pharmaceuticals through the mail, because if they buy them through the mail, it does not cost them a dime. For that reason, I think the committee bill is an excellent bill. It is tough to get to less than zero, and I would hope that everyone would simply support this bill, let us move ahead, let us get it to conference, and let us do the right thing for the men and women who wear the uniform. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.