Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

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

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank my chairman, Mr. Skelton, the gentleman from Missouri, for such a wonderful job on this bill. We are totally in agreement with the manager's amendment and support it.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield as much time as he might like to Mr. McCotter.

Mr. HUNTER. So if I understand you correctly, it is not your intent to limit the Department's use of third-party financing while they work to achieve the 25 percent requirement that your amendment lays out.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding and I appreciate her courtesy. And let me just say why I think you may want to consider supporting this amendment. We had a discussion and we had some confusion a couple years ago with respect to missile defense, the systems that we were placing in Fort Greely, Alaska. The question was whether money that was R&D money could be used for construction, basically for pouring concrete, and we had a tremendous tug-of-war over that. So there is some ambiguity here. We have got 14 missiles that could be used to intercept a couple of rogue incoming missiles even out of the test bed. So we could use these test missiles to protect our country in extreme circumstances. I don't think it is a bad thing to clearly lay that out and clarify it in light of the fact that we did have confusion over the color of money in the missile defense programs between R&D and MILCON. So would the gentlelady consider that in supporting the gentleman's amendment?

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

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chair, very simply, testimony by General Bell, who is commander of U.S. Forces Korea, before the HASC on March 7 said: ``I've got 800 of these missiles pointed at U.S. troops right now in South Korea. So I would support vigorously a robust approach to theater ballistic missile defense, layered defense, intercontinental ballistic. It's a very important part of the total approach to this very serious problem.'' I would very strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Chairman, let me just make this clear. This is a net cut in missile defense. This is not a matter of taking money from something that we don't need and moving it to something we urgently need. This is a net cut of $764 million. Now, my great friend from North Carolina (Mr. Spratt) made the point we spent well over $100 billion on missile defense since Ronald Reagan reminded us that we live in the age of missiles. On the other hand, the strike on 9/11 probably cost us, in terms of economic destruction, $500 billion plus. We can't afford not to have robust missile defense. That means you take down incoming missiles at all phases, in boost phase, in midcourse, and, lastly, in terminal phase. We need robust missile defense. We need to defend this country. We need to restore this money, and the Franks amendment is right on target.

Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, we are in strong opposition to this amendment. In fact, the Armed Services Committee under the very able chairmanship of the gentleman from Missouri has finished a number of oversight hearings. The subcommittees that are involved in the Armed Services Committee and in Defense Appropriations Subcommittee have undertaken extensive hearings and analysis of every weapons system that we have. And, of course, you have many weapons systems that were built 20-30 years ago that were highly relevant, like the C-130s that Members fly on, that are the backbone of the transportation system, the intratheater transportation system in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bradley fighting vehicles, M-1 tanks. There is no weapon system that comes out of a production line with the word ``Cold War'' on it, so the relevance and the importance and the use of weapons has been carefully and closely analyzed by the important committees, the oversight committees, and we are aided in that by the Quadrennial Defense Review that is done by the administration where they make their case for what they think that we need, and the President makes that proposition which is manifested in his budget. And after hearings, the members of this committee and the full body, this House of Representatives, respond with our cut on what we think we should do with respect to arming and maintaining and equipping our military forces. So I would just strongly oppose the gentlelady's amendment, and say I have great respect for the gentlelady. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Israel and Ms. Lee for bringing this amendment. We all have our eyes focused on the warfighting theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan, and if we turn our focus to Darfur and look at the history and the number of deaths which number, and the estimates I have seen are between 250,000 and 400,000, many of them inflicted by this so-called janjaweed militia which comes into villages in Darfur and ravages the village, burns them, we have seen the pictures that have been circulated by our own Member, Mr. Wolf, and by Senator Brownback from their recent trips, which show burned-out villages with the women abused, with many of the villagers killed, some of them killed by strafings, by helicopter gunships which have been purchased from China and from Russia, with small arms sales taking place specifically from the Chinese and the Russians. And we see a situation in which the Free World and the civilized world has not been able to have much of an effect. I'd ask Mr. Israel, my colleague, of your take on this very difficult situation.

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

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. Would the gentleman yield?

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

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. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, will the gentlewoman 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. Madam Chair, I rise to speak about the amendment. I don't rise in opposition to the amendment, but I would like to take the time and address the issue.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to this, although I do not oppose the amendment.