Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield at this time to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Tauscher), the chairman of the Strategic Subcommittee, 3 minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to a gentleman who's leaving us this year, but the guy who has accomplished so much in confidential briefings and sessions in which you analyze our space systems and our missile systems, and a guy who hasn't been elbowing his way into press conferences, but who does enormous work for the people of this House and for the people of this Nation, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett). I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman. He's the ranking member on Strategic.

Mr. HUNTER. How much time do we have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I started off by talking about that letter that the Armed Services Committee, Democrats and Republicans, sent to Israel in 1987 telling them that at some point in the future they would be attacked by ballistic missiles coming from a neighboring nation, probably Russian-made missiles, and that was a prophetic letter because in the Gulf War they were attacked. And I described some of the effects. Even though there wasn't poison gas on those missiles, they had an incredible effect, a traumatic effect on the citizens of Israel. You know, we could have written a letter to ourselves and to our own leadership and the administration at that time and said, at some point ballistic missiles will be launched at the United States. I don't take much comfort from Mr. Tierney's statement that he only wants to stop the funding of long-range missile defense systems, not short-range missile defense systems. We've had a series of successes with our long-range missile defense systems. We've had these collisions 148 miles above the surface of the Earth, the interceptor and the target missile both going about three times the speed of a .30-06 bullet. And because of the incredible dedication of our scientists and our engineers, we've been able to achieve some successes with these long-range missile defense systems. The facts are, you have to defend against all types, against short- range, medium-range and long-range. And you have to try to get as many shots as you can at these missiles. If you can get them when they're taking off, if you can get them in the ascent phase, if you can get them in mid course, then you don't put as much pressure on that terminal missile defense system when they're coming in to American cities. We are in a race, Mr. Chairman. And I would just remind my colleagues that the TD-2 missile, which was tested by the North Koreans, has the ability, according to some of our scientists, to reach parts of the United States of America. And our intelligence people tell us that Iran, it is estimated, will have, by 2015, the capability with ICBMs to reach parts of the United States of America. Just in time is a concept for building products in our domestic economy. You get the steel just in time to build the car so that you don't have a big inventory of steel piling up. That saves you money. You're not paying interest on it. You get the tires just in time to put them on. Just in time missile defenses is not a very good idea. We, in my estimation, we are behind the clock. And Mr. Tierney's amendment is a gutting amendment. We should vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I think we've had a good discussion, and I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and his contribution to the committee, and we would yield back at this time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for bringing this amendment, and we lament the fact that our nuclear warheads are getting older, that we don't have a testing regime in place any longer and that that necessarily deteriorates the reliability factor. So the idea was let's build a reliable replacement warhead, and the fact that we haven't proceeded down that path is really a tragedy. Now, I know the gentleman has $10 million in this amendment for this Reliable Replacement Warhead. He takes some money from the energy conservation program, which has many, many good aspects. I know that some Members are torn between these two important goals, one of developing energy conservation on military bases, and the other developing this warhead. I come down, Mr. Chairman, on the side of ensuring that this critical asset, which is a very, very important part of America's security apparatus, that is, a reliable strategic deterrent, I come down on that side. As a result of that, I support Mr. Pearce's amendment very strongly.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate Mr. Boren who is a great member of the Armed Services Committee for bringing this amendment, and I think we recognize a real problem with section 526, which is really a section, and his amendment does take away some of the onus of section 526. Section 526 really weds us to high-grade Middle Eastern oil. It says that if you come up with other types of fuel that are alternatives, but that might have a greenhouse gas footprint higher than this high-end Middle Eastern oil, and there are very few types of petroleum-based fuels which do that, you can't use it. Mr. Boren has taken some of the onus off of that by saying that if it's not predominantly that type of oil, meaning you can use, for example, tar sands from Canada and other types, that section 526 does not apply. Now, the problem is, I'm reading the last of the amendment, and one of the conditions is that the contracts under which this petroleum product would flow says the contract--and I'm quoting from the last of the amendment--the contract does not provide incentives for a refinery upgrade or expansion to allow a refinery to use or increase its use of fuel from a nonconventional petroleum source. And I think we should be doing everything we can to expand refineries. I don't think we've built a refinery in decades, and we all sat in this Chamber and watched gas prices go through the roof here not too long ago when they had just a couple of refineries down for repair. So I know Mr. Boren's heart's in the right place, and he's brought us at least halfway across the river here. I guess what I'd like to see is the double Boren amendment that takes us all the way and eliminates section 526. I congratulate the gentleman. I know a lot of our Members are going to probably support this because it, in fact, does take us part way home. I wish we could go all the way, and I thank the gentleman for his amendment. I reluctantly oppose it because I would like to see the full loaf here. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield at this time 3 minutes to Mr. Upton, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose this amendment because of my great respect for the gentlewoman. But this Status of Forces Agreement is something that we've done now in over 80-some countries. And it's not a guarantee of security. It's not a guarantee of defense. It is not and should not be considered as a treaty. It is simply for the protection of American soldiers and American civilian personnel. It sets out, for example, if you are sued, if you're charged with a criminal action, there has to be an agreement between the countries as to how people are treated, that is, how American personnel are treated, and under the agreement that Iraq has made with the United States. Now, Secretary Gates has testified to us in the Armed Services Committee, and he has been asked about the SOFA, and he has said there are no security guarantees in this SOFA. We're going to have the same team that has done SOFAs, these Status of Forces Agreements, in many other countries, moving in to do the same Status of Forces Agreement that will go over the same types of things. And, again, this does not rise to the level of a treaty because this is not going to be an agreement with respect to security guarantees for Iraq. It will contain no security commitment, and it will not obligate force structure or troop strength or assure any other security guarantees. So, Mr. Chairman, this is not a treaty. And I appreciate the gentlewoman's statements and her intent, and there may be at some point an agreement between Iraq and the United States that will be a treaty with respect to security commitments. This doesn't do it. What this does is protect American personnel. We need it and we need to negotiate it. We need to get it done. It's not a treaty, and we should not make it subject to ratification by Congress. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, once again, these Status of Forces Agreements, which are pretty run of the mill, do not manifest security commitments by the United States to protect the countries that they are made with. They talk about the treatment and describe the treatment of Americans with respect to getting licenses, licensing their vehicles, how they're going to be treated in cases of civil or criminal actions. Basically how the American who is in that particular foreign country, and again we have got 80 of them that we have done, how they are going to be treated by that host country. Now, they are not security commitments, and if you have something that does, in fact, commit the United States to a security agreement with another country, and in this case Iraq, I have no dispute with my colleagues, that at that point you have a treaty, and a treaty, because it manifests commitments, has to be ratified. But I don't understand why we are saying that the Status of Forces Agreement, which is going to talk about how our troops are treated in the same way that we talk about how American military personnel who are in Germany or Japan or 80 other countries are treated, how that now becomes something special because it's Iraq and, in the case of Iraq alone, we have to have a ratification by Congress. I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Once again, the gentlelady talked about a strategic framework agreement. That does manifest security commitments, and that does have to be ratified. But that is not the Status of Forces Agreement. The Status of Forces Agreement is simply about the treatment of American military personnel in that particular place. We are talking about two different things; one that has to be ratified and the other that doesn't. And I have heard no good argument as to why, of the 80 Status of Forces Agreements that we have around the world, why this one has to be ratified by Congress and none of the others have to be. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. How much time do we have left, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would just say to my colleagues, including the gentleman from Washington who spoke I think somewhat disparagingly of the President, this is part of the duties of an administration anywhere where you have American troops. You lay down rules of how they are going to be treated with respect to civil actions, criminal actions, licensing of vehicles, payment of taxes, all the things that affect a person who is now physically residing in that foreign country, whether it's an American civilian or a military guy who's stationed there. It's a necessary thing. The idea that we are going to elevate this thing, which has been a fairly ministerial thing, to a treaty on the basis that the people who are speaking don't like the President doesn't make any sense. You know, when the Secretary of Defense comes in, testifies to our committee that there will be no commitments manifest in this particular SOFA with respect to security, he testifies to us to that effect, the idea that we say we are not going to believe him, and certain members of the other side don't like the President so they come down to say anything he does now has to be ratified by Congress, I think that disparages the process, Mr. Chairman. We have got a fairly run-of-the-mill ministerial thing that we need to do and, once again, I say to my colleagues, this protects American personnel. The same team that has negotiated this with presumably dozens of countries and gone over the same ministerial stuff with respect to how people are treated in that country, will be talking to the Iraqi leadership and making that same negotiation on those same points. So the idea that we now elevate this to a treaty; if a treaty is coming with this strategic framework, that does have to be ratified by Congress, and should be ratified by Congress. But let's not mix the two up. Let's protect our personnel and then let's move to this ratification or this decision of what any security commitments might be. I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Just one other point, and that is in the U.N. Security Council Resolution, under which our troops operate now, which provides for how they are treated in Iraq, expires in December. That is why we need to have a Status of Forces Agreement. If we don't have, and we now elevate this to a treaty, and Congress doesn't act on the treaty, they will lose their protection when the United Nations provision expires. It doesn't make sense to put this onus on them, that somehow we are going to raise this thing to a treaty level and Congress, by golly, is going to have to now ratify it before we can decide how an E-5, a sergeant with a couple of stripes, living in Baghdad, how he is going to be treated with respect to the laws of that country. It doesn't make a lot of sense. I think we ought to leave this thing alone. When we go to any treaties that actually manifest security commitments by the United States, certainly that has to be then ratified by Congress. This isn't one of them. It will be the 81st SOFA that we have had without requiring Congress to ratify it.

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

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, first let me express my great respect for the gentleman who is offering this amendment. He does wonderful work on the committee and truly has a heart for those who have been impacted by the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. On that point, I would say I remember the time we were in Fallujah and a young Marine captain came up to us with some language he had written. In fact, his name was Kevin Coughlin. He thinks he has traded up. He moved on to the FBI from the committee staff. But we were so impressed with the language he had written to protect translators that we brought him back with us and made him part of the HASC staff. He did leave us a ``Dear John'' note after he left to go to work for the FBI, but a great young Marine captain. And he felt the same way we had, which is that our translators needed to be protected. We have a program which protects them. Now, the question here is, are we going to mandate employment for them? That is the way I read this particular legislation. I don't think that is the right way to go. I think that, first, a lot of these folks have got great initiative. They are happy to be in a free country. If we have a program to help make sure they know of all the job opportunities that are available and perhaps help them with language, make sure that they are connected with folks that are recruiting our people who need those language talents, I think that is great. But I think the idea, at least the way I read this thing, that there is mandated employment, I think that is going a step far. I think it is something we haven't done for other folks. In this case we have taken people and their families who helped the United States and we have relocated them in the greatest country in the world with the freedom to travel all these new roads that they have never been able to travel before. But I think, for one thing, that the idea of guaranteed employment, if they have got a lot of spirit and a lot of initiative, that is the first way to kill spirit and initiative, is to give a guaranteed lifetime job to someone. I think we ought to take these folks who have this great energy, they have obviously displayed a loyalty to the United States, help them hook up with these thousands and tens of thousands of employers, including those in the government, but not have a program that guarantees employment. So I thank the gentleman for the spirit of his amendment. I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks of both Mr. Israel and the ranking member. I am just looking at the language, and it says ``shall offer employment.'' So it clearly says, if I was going to read that as an agency head, I would say that means I must hire these folks. Again, this committee worked to make sure that they got over here, that they were protected and that their families were protected, and I am glad we did that. I will offer my small offices. We have had jobs fairs at Bethesda and Walter Reed for our returning wounded warriors where we bring people from industry and we bring people from the agencies and we try to get them together with our wounded vets who are returning and help them to match up and get jobs. I would be happy to do the same thing with respect to these interpreters. And, indeed, interpreters have special skills. This should be something that can be done. The only thing I would object to is the mandated job. We don't offer that to our veterans. I just think that is a step a little bit too far. But I would be happy to work with the gentleman in terms of helping them to access jobs.

Mr. HUNTER

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we are in the middle of a war in which the battlefield situation changes on a daily basis. The idea that the gentleman has given us a requirement for the administration to project until 2068, for 50, 60 years as to what is going to happen on the battlefield and what the casualties are going to be; and I believe he has laid out 23 considerations. When you get out that far, Mr. Chairman, this becomes basically an editorial against the war, and I think there are other ways you can put that if you want to frame that particular position. But the idea that we are asking as we sit here and try to figure out what gas prices are going to be in 2 weeks, the idea that we are going to figure out how Iraq is going to be situated half a century from now, I think that is simply something that trivializes our debate on this very critical issue. And let me tell you, 23 factors if we actually put this thing in law, the idea that we are supposed to have our people in uniform devoted to figuring out how to succeed in their mission, how to take care of our people, to have them out there trying to be seers of the future for half a century with respect to a war that is changing on a weekly basis is an enormous burden on people who wear the uniform. So, Mr. Chairman, I think we should all vote a resounding ``no'' on this, and let's do analyses that are relevant, that can be utilized. But the idea of sending our people down the pike for a 50-year look at the future I think is not going to be good for this committee and I think it is not going to be productive for the security of the United States. I reserve the balance of my time