Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for yielding. In a few minutes the President will address the Nation about his plans for Baghdad and the fact that he needs reinforcements, some of them to go to Anbar Province, some of them to work on a three-to-one basis with the Iraqi forces, three Iraqi battalions in each one of these sectors in Baghdad for each American battalion standing behind them. The President has asked for reinforcements, and it would be outrageous if the Democrat leadership in this House denied this country reinforcements for a military operation in a shooting war which continues to this minute.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor to talk a little bit about national security and where the Nation's defense apparatus stands as of now. But I thought I also might comment on the comments that were made by two of my wonderful colleagues, Ms. Woolsey of California and Mr. Paul of Texas, who preceded me and commented about their position to the effect that we should bring our troops home immediately from Iraq. And implicit in their comments was the message that somehow Saddam Hussein's continued rule of Iraq would have been preferable to the American intervention. I disagree with that theme, and let me tell you why. In listening to Ms. Woolsey talk about the wounded, the KIA, the suffering in that part of the world, and the burden that has been borne by American soldiers, I think it is also important to remember the Iraq that was represented by Saddam Hussein. And while she has, obviously, the images that have compelled her to take her philosophical position, the image that I have, and I keep in my desk drawer, is the photograph of the hundreds of mothers whose bodies are strewn across the hillside in northern Iraq, holding their children, some of them newborn babies, some of them four, five, 6 years old, dead in mid-stride where they were hit by poison chemical, poison chemical that was delivered into those villages at the order of Saddam Hussein. And I have taken, as a guy who sometimes watches the History Channel, to tuning in when I see the History Channel reviewing the exhuming of bodies in these mass graves and putting together this story, this mosaic of Iraq history under Saddam Hussein and the story of how hundreds of people, men, women and children, would be herded across fields and they would be executed and their bodies would be pushed into mass graves. And now we are uncovering those mass graves. And just like the mass graves that we found in Europe, especially those that were filled by bodies that had been people who had been executed by the Nazis, there are more people now in those mass graves, we find, than what we had projected. And as I watched the exhuming of some of those bodies on the History Channel, I noticed that the anthropologist who was doing the particular work noted that the mother, in some cases, who was executed would often have a .45 bullet hole in the back of her head, and her small baby that she was holding would also have a bullet hole in the back of his or her head. So the monstrosity that was Saddam Hussein, the mass execution, the killing of people with chemical weapons, is what the American troops displaced when we moved into Iraq. Now, it is tough to stand up a free nation and stand up a military that is able to protect it, but that is the challenge that we are meeting right now. And we are following the same basic pattern that we have followed for 60 years. Whether you are talking about Japan or the Philippines or El Salvador in our own hemisphere, first you stand up a free government. Secondly, you stand up a military that is capable of protecting that free government, and third, the Americans, not coveting anything that that country has, the Americans leave. Now, Mr. Speaker, I thought I also might speak just a little bit, as we turn over the control of Congress to the Democrat leadership, not only in the full House, but also the committee chairmanships, and my own committee chairmanship now has been relinquished to the gentleman from Missouri, Ike Skelton, my good friend and a wonderful person and a person with a real heart for the troops. I thought that I might just comment about where we stand right now. I think it is important for the American people to know where we stand and what this Congress that is going out has accomplished for national security. First, what have we done for the troops? Well, over the last 8 years we have increased the pay for the Army, the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, and the National Guard by right at 40 percent, a 40 percent pay increase. We have increased family separation pay, the amount of money that we deliver to our military families when they are separated when people are deployed overseas. We have increased that from $100 a month to about $250 a month. We have increased our combat pay. Mr. Speaker, I know I have only got 5 minutes, so I will elaborate on some of the accomplishments that occurred during this last Congress in the next hour.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank you. I also want to thank the gentleman for his great service on our committee. He did a wonderful job.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, Joe Schwarz did a wonderful job on our committee, bringing a great intelligence background to the committee. It was wonderful value added to the many hearings and conferences and debates and considerations. We appreciate him as well. I thank the gentleman for bringing his name up.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 4046) to extend oversight and accountability related to United States reconstruction funds and the efforts in Iraq by extending the termination date of the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank my great colleague from Missouri for his wonderful service to the Armed Services Committee and the people of this country. He will be ascending to the post of chairman in just a couple of weeks or so, and we look forward to working together with him. In fact, that may be a congratulatory phone call coming in right now, Ike. Let me just say, he has been a great colleague. Mr. Speaker, we have a number of other colleagues who are leaving, and I know we have a very limited time and Members have been coming down in the limited amount of time we have and talking about their departing colleagues. I just want to mention that Mr. Weldon is also leaving as serving this country well. Probably no one has been a greater champion of missile defense than Mr. Weldon. And Mr. Hefley, our great readiness chairman, is leaving also. As is Mr. Gibbons. Also Mr. Rob Simmons of Connecticut, who did such a marvelous job of working undersea warfare; and Mr. Ryun who represents that great Fort Riley, Kansas district and whose heart is with our military folks so strongly, is also leaving. Other members are leaving also from the committee. I want to thank them for the great work that they have done for our country and also for this committee. Also, I watched a Special Order being given the other night about a giant in this House of Representatives, Henry Hyde, the great Henry Hyde of Illinois who led this body in major debates in the Cold War, helping to bring down the Berlin Wall and win that war. In the struggle in Central America between the Soviet Empire and the United States which was resolved in favor of freedom, and in the arms control debates that erupted on a regular basis over the last 25 years or so, Henry Hyde has been a giant in this body. I heard several Democrat Members giving great statements about Henry Hyde. I just want to add my statements and appreciate for his wonderful leadership. I want to say to my good colleague from Missouri, we have a very bipartisan committee, the Armed Services Committee, and I look forward to working with him to continue to do the most important thing that we are charged to do under our Constitution, and that is to protect this country. In doing that, we raise and equip the Army and Navy and Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. It has been a wonderful job being chairman of the committee, and I look forward to working as a partner with the gentleman from Missouri in continuing this work for our Nation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting us get a little bit off subject. I am sure that the inspector general team will be relieved to know that they are not going to be terminated on October 31 of next year, but that they will have license to continue to work for an extended period of time beyond that. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is legislation a number of Members have asked to bring to the floor in both bodies to illuminate to the world what they call congressional initiatives. Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, let me give you my take as one Member of this very important body on congressional initiatives that are sometimes pejoratively called earmarks. The Constitution of the United States charges the United States Congress, not the President, not the Pentagon, not a general, not some under secretary, charges us with raising and equipping the forces of the United States of America, the Armed Forces, the armies and the navies that the Constitution refers to; and, of course, by implication the United States Marine Corps and the United States Air Force. It is our job to build this budget, not just to work around the fringes of the defense budget, it is our job to build this budget from the ground up. From my perspective the recommendation that comes over from the President is just that: It is a recommendation. It is not charged by the Constitution. It is not mandated by the Constitution. It is our job to build the defense budget of the United States. Let me just say, Mr. Speaker, we do that. I think we do that very effectively. I think this great bill, this $532 billion defense bill, is a reflection of that. It was put together by my committee, the Armed Services Committee, Democrats and Republicans, and by the gentleman from Florida's Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense who do such a good job. Let me give you one example of what we did, one thing that might pejoratively be called earmarks by people who think that somehow what the administration sends over is sacrosanct and what we add is somehow an illegitimate addition. We had the Army and United States Marine Corps come to us this past spring after we were putting our budget together after the President's recommendation had come over, and they said we are not going to have enough money to reset the United States Army and Marine Corps, largely because of that tough, harsh theater in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that means repairing the tanks, trucks, aircraft and all of the other equipment that you need for warfighting. We need wherewithal, the additional money to fix that fire engine so it can go back in the firehouse and be ready for the next emergency, whether it is the 9/11 force of this country, the Marine Corps, special operations, United States Army, United States Navy, United States Air Force. Mr. Young and I in our committees listened to the United States Army and to the Marine Corps. We said, come in and you lay out for us everything that you need to get our forces ready to fight again so they are reset. That ``reset'' is a term of art. They gave us a bill, $27.7 billion for the Army, $11.7 for the Marine Corps. We looked at the President's budget which only funded a part of that; we looked at the supplemental which only funded a part of that, and we looked at the balance. We took that balance and we added every single dime that was identified by our warfighting leaders as something that they needed in combat, and we added that to the President's budget. I guess you could call that a $20 billion earmark. That was a congressional initiative that exactly described the duty that is charged to us by the United States Constitution and how we discharge that duty. Let me give a few other congressional initiatives. One reason why I support this bill, incidentally, and it is fine with me is because I put my initiatives on the Internet and if people want to look at them and see what we add, that is great. Let me tell you some of the initiatives that I added and I asked Mr. Young to add in his bill: jammers, jammers that would protect our Armed Forces, when they are dismounted, against roadside bombs that are electronically triggered from remote areas that were not in the administration's budget, we added those. So jammers that protect the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, we added, congressional initiatives. Body armor, extra body armor, more Humvees that have the thick armor that can repel the fragments from these IEDs, these roadside bombs. We put in things that are important for the warfighters of this country. Mr. Speaker, I would say that I am here to reaffirm our constitutional right, not to do just bits and pieces of the defense budget, but to do the entire budget; and what the administration recommends is the edges. If they didn't come over with a recommended budget, we could build and we are totally equipped to build this budget from the ground up. We have the expertise to do it, Democrat and Republican, and we could do it from the ground up. Having said that, I support this bill which says that the Department of Defense is free to comment on their ratings on what congressional initiatives have requested and placed into the bill; and from my personal perspective, that is fine with me. I put mine on the Internet for the world to see. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would also ask that after I make my opening remarks, I be allowed to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the sponsor of this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time for purposes of debate.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6375) to amend title 10, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress an annual report and to provide notice to the public on congressional initiatives in funds authorized or made available to the Department of Defense.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 3759) to name the Armed Forces Readiness Center in Great Falls, Montana, in honor of Captain William Wylie Galt, a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor.

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. I would also at this time like to yield the balance of my time, after I finish my opening remarks, to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg), who was the sponsor of this bill, and I ask unanimous consent that he be allowed to control the time for purposes of debate.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this is one of these bills that it is good to go out on as we close down this session of Congress. This is an excellent initiative by my good friend from Montana to name the Armed Forces Readiness Center in Great Falls, Montana, in honor of Captain William Wylie Galt, who was a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Mr. Speaker, we just had a hearing under the leadership of John McHugh, who is the outgoing chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee in Armed Services on the Medal of Honor and on the criteria for the award. And we had some initiatives, some good discussions with our service representatives on ensuring that we have the appropriate guidelines for giving this great medal. And it was an uplifting hearing, because it is a hearing in which the acts of Americans who went far beyond the call of duty were reviewed and were discussed. Mr. Speaker, I think anytime somebody passes this, walks by the Armed Forces Readiness Center in Great Falls, Montana, and they see that it is named after Captain Galt, they are going to be reminded, perhaps inspired, of his heroism. The Congressional Medal of Honor is a symbol of adherence to duty, honor and country; and I think it is absolutely appropriate that we name, with this dwindling pool of Medal of Honor recipients, and the gentleman, as a veteran of the United States Army knows, we now have a very small pool of living Medal of Honor winners. So I think that wherever it is possible to name our buildings and our institutions and installations after Medal of Honor recipients, it is a point of inspiration for young people that will be enduring. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER

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

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 resolution under consideration.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is really a pleasure to be down in the Chamber working this issue with the gentlewoman from Guam, for whom I have the utmost esteem. This is a very good cause we are talking about this morning. Mr. Speaker, the Members of this House of Representatives spend a lot of time each year making recommendations and decisions that directly impact the lives of the men and women of the Armed Forces. With the global war on terrorism, House Members have taken numerous actions as part of the annual defense authorization and defense appropriations acts to ensure that these fine men and women have the full range of resources they need to be successful in combat. For those who are wounded and injured, and there have been more than 22,900 during this war, our colleagues have moved quickly and effectively to change laws and provide additional resources to improve the health care system. For as much as we in the House have done to support the men and women of the Armed Forces, I believe that more should be done and could be done, especially for those who have been wounded in defense of this Nation and who as a result of their wounds are leaving the service. That is the purpose of this resolution today, to explicitly state that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of the House should actively engage with employers and the American public at large to encourage the hiring of members and former members of the Armed Forces who were wounded in service and are facing a transition to civilian life. Beyond the fact that getting involved is the right thing for Members to do, Members need to get more directly involved in helping wounded servicemembers transition to civilian life because young veterans, those aged 20 through 24, are experiencing a jobless rate three times the national average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We have all seen too many Vietnam-era homeless veterans in our districts, a reflection that the Nation then did not fully step up to doing what was necessary for those who serve the Nation. We should not repeat that mistake. As I began 2 years ago to work this issue of finding ways to help soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines transition to civilian life, concerns were raised to me that such activity by a Member might conflict with the rules of conduct in this House, and I was surprised to hear that, Mr. Speaker, but that was the thrust of legal opinions. I have worked with both the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and House Administration, as well as my good colleague, Representative Ike Skelton, and other members of the committee to shape this resolution. Thus the resolution explicitly states that in encouraging potential employers and the American public to hire veterans, Members should act in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Committee on Standards and by House Administration, and, of course, we hope that after this resolution, which I hope will pass overwhelmingly, that we will see the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and House Administration accommodate this very important concern of ours. Mr. Speaker, there are any number of Federal, State and local organizations and many private entities working to employ wounded servicemembers and former servicemembers. I think it is time for House Members to get involved and engaged in this effort, and therefore I strongly urge all Members to vote ``yes'' on this resolution. Very simply, Mr. Speaker, this would allow a Member of Congress who goes down to Bethesda and Walter Reed and who meets maybe a young man or young woman getting out of the service, maybe as a diesel mechanic, to call up companies in their district and say, do you have any need for diesel mechanics? If they say yes, you marry up that member of the service and that particular business in your district, and they end up getting a job. We all know that a lot of jobs in this country are custom made, that is, they are the result of people getting together and having a cup of coffee or making a phone call, and that often starts a career which may continue for 5, 10, 15, 20 years. Members of Congress have great connections with the businesses in their district, and it is only appropriate that they be involved in this process of making sure that people that wear the uniform, when they get out, have a chance to get a piece of this great opportunity that we call America. Mr. Speaker, having said that, I reserve the balance of my time. It is great to be here with the gentlewoman from Guam working on this important resolution.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1070) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members of the House should actively engage with employers and the American public at large to encourage the hiring of members and former members of the Armed Forces who were wounded in service and are facing a transition to civilian life, as amended.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's very articulate remarks. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Sekula Gibbs).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ms. Sekula Gibbs and the gentlewoman from Guam, Ms. Bordallo, for assisting in this important resolution. This is something that I think that the membership of this House can enter into with lots of enthusiasm, with lots of energy. Mr. Speaker, no one knows the businesses better in our districts than Representatives. The ability to connect a wounded soldier, sailor, airman or marine with a business in their particular district is something that will have a far-reaching effect, a long-lasting effect. Because of some of the qualities of our service personnel, that is the discipline, the ability to be a self-starter, the knowledge that you have to get up early and show up on time, the discipline, the talent, all those things I think will create long-lasting employment if we do one thing, and that is help to marry up these great Americans with prospective employers. We are well situated to do that and hopefully will have a good vote in the full House to emphasize that point in the resolution. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and ask everyone to support this resolution.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I was just walking out when I heard the gentleman mention the great Henry Hyde of Illinois, and I just wanted to add my words as a guy who watched him in monumental debates that affected this Nation and the world over the last 26 years. Henry Hyde has been a giant in the House of Representatives and in America, and I want to thank the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just say to the gentlewoman who just spoke that it is appropriate when referring to the President of the United States be he Democrat or Republican to refer to him as the President. Thank you.