Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for his time.

Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution. Let me just speak to the point that is made by the resolution that talks about the need to disclose in open session facts which would deal with corruption, and I am quoting, ``including allegations that investigations were thwarted, stifled for political reasons, and that that classification should be rescinded.'' I have looked at Mr. Butler's testimony to the committee. I have read it. I have got it in front of me. He talks a great deal, acknowledging that there is corruption in the Iraqi Government, as there is in practically every government in the Middle East, to some degree. He talks about that. Mr. Speaker, he also said that he would be happy to talk about details concerning any political moves to avert investigations into corruption. He would be happy to talk about those details in a classified session. So he gave that opportunity, as I understand it, to the committee, and the committee didn't take him up on it. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, that sources and methods are important. If there was a secret conversation that went on in the Iraqi Government and that secret conversation was listened to by somebody who then relayed that to the U.S. Government, or U.S. officials, laying that out for the public without going into classified session would not be good for American intelligence operations. This committee could have gone into classified session and had all the details that they needed. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this particular resolution.

Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, what I have in front of me is the actual testimony of Mr. Butler, who says this: ``The Department of State has devoted considerable effort and resources helping courageous Iraqis establish mechanisms and procedures to investigate and prosecute corruption.'' He says, ``It's fair to say we probably do not have a program in the ministerial capacity development area that does not seek to build an environment in which corruption is less prevalent.'' He goes on to talk about what has been done. So he does engage you on this issue of corruption. I think you could have gone to a classified session, as was invited by Mr. Butler, you could have gone to a classified session, he invited you to do that, and he would give you the details on that particular conversation. Incidentally, the particular conversation that you're talking about is the one that is manifested in your resolution. It's not this statement that you have just given me. It's the one that is in your resolution. You could have had him do that in private.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Let me just say that I have examined and analyzed a number of battlefield situations and that this bill does not take care of a problem that we have with respect to accessing communications in time to take action in a meaningful way. Whether the insurgents are making a strike, moving people, moving equipment, moving hostages, those first few hours are what you might analogize as the golden hours, the time when you can make a difference. And right now we have a substantial delay on the battlefield that could have been fixed with this bill. It is not fixed with this bill, and I am deeply disappointed because of that. And I hope, my colleagues, that we can fix this in the near future.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to address my remarks to the gentleman, for a second, to the gentleman who just spoke. My son is a marine who is doing his third tour. He is calm. He is determined. He loves his country, just like all of his fellow marines. The constant illustrating or projecting of our Armed Forces as somehow victims is something that finds absolutely no truth when you go out among our uniformed personnel. The Marine Corps has never been more effective. They have never had higher morale. They have excellent reenlistment rates. Interestingly, there are high reenlistment rates among the people that are in combat. They are not deployed to the point where they are depleted, and they are not desperate and their families are not desperate. With those happy words, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), a member of the committee.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, this is a well-motivated bill. I want to commend my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee for all the great work that they do, Democrat and Republican. Most of the time we're on common ground. In this case, I think that this bill does not accrue to the benefit of the troops. I think it hurts the troops. I think that is a question every Member of the House has to ask themselves: Is this going to be good for the troops, or is it going to be bad for the troops? I think it will be bad for the troops, for this reason: We are fighting a war in Iraq which requires innovation, flexibility and experience. This bill, which will put a straitjacket on our ability to deploy troops on the basis that their clock has not yet expired back in the United States before they go over, is going to have an incredibly detrimental affect on our ability to project a well-rounded, effective fighting team in the warfighting theater in Iraq. Let me talk about that a little bit, Mr. Speaker. You are going to have units which desperately require specialties. Some of the specialties, I would remind my friend, are IEDs, the ability to operate jammers, the ability perhaps to decontaminate if you come into contact with some of the chemical weapons stockpiles that were left by the old regime. Military effectiveness is built on dozens and dozens of specialities, all of which support the other. The idea that you can't put this team together, that the Marines or the Army can't put their warfighting team together because they looked at the list of people who are most able to fill those roles, most able to move in and stand next to their fellow Marine, their fellow soldier, their fellow airman, the guy that is doing the mechanic work on that important helicopter that is going to be the transportation vehicle, the guy that is doing the repair work on that particular weapons system, those people are not going to be able to flow over into the theater because their clock hasn't moved appropriately on the one-to- one ratio. Now, we consulted the U.S. Marines on this provision. We didn't consult political people in the White House. We didn't consult people who had an opinion on whether or not we should be in Iraq. We consulted the people who have the job of putting together these packages of personnel which are required in the warfighting theater and transporting them to the theater. Of course, the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps for Plans and Operations is Lieutenant General Richard Natonski. Here is his statement he gave to the committee. He said, ``In order to support OIF requirements during Fiscal Year 2008 and comply with the minimum period between deployments proposed by provisions like H.R. 3159, a one-to-one ratio, the Marine Corps would have to adjust force generation plans. These plan adjustments would include extending unit deployments.'' Somebody has to stay on the battlefield. The battlefield is not going to be empty. So if you are not going to allow new Marines to come in, the Marines that are there right now are going to have to stay there. It is the same with the Army. These plan adjustments could include extending unit deployments, creating provisional units. That means you are going to have to put new units together because the old unit hasn't had its meter expire yet. And forcing units to execute missions as in- lieu-of forces, meaning that units that don't have that specialty are going to have to become units that have that specialty. That means ``quickie'' training and moving people immediately into the battlefield to fill a role that otherwise could be filled by people who have a deep specialty in that capability. Mr. Speaker, he finishes with this statement that every Member of Congress should listen to very carefully. He said, each of these adjustments that will be required by Mrs. Tauscher's bill, among others, incurs higher risk than that associated with deploying the unit at a deployment-to-dwell time of seven to six. I want to remind my colleagues, higher risk means higher risk of casualties. That is what happens when the guy that is supporting you on the battlefield doesn't have as much experience as you would like him to have, doesn't have that specialty, hasn't been there before, doesn't have that insight that is going to keep you alive. Mr. Speaker, this is a well-meaning bill. But if you ask this question, does it help the troops or hurt the troops, this bill hurts the troops. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin) whose son has served as a marine in Iraq.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who is a former chairman of the Terrorism Subcommittee and the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I am just constrained again, and I yield myself 30 seconds. The military is not broken. The Army is not broken. The Marine Corps is not broken. This continued depiction of our military people as victims who are totally desperate, as the last Member of Congress who spoke on the other side depicted them, that they are somehow desperate, their families are desperate, they are ineffective, they are broken, is totally in error. We have never had better morale. We have never been more effective. The interesting thing is the people who are reenlisting are reenlisting from the combat units. That means that they think that their mission has value, and that means that they have high morale. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, thank you. I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their decorum during this debate and for their true interest and their motivation in support of our troops. We all want to conclude this war. We all want to do everything that we can for military families. We simply have a difference of opinion as to whether or not mandating certain rest periods before a soldier or a marine can go back to battle is in the interest of the war fighting troops. My answer is, it's not in the interest. It will not raise their morale. What it will do is it will deprive our war fighting troops. It will deprive that corporal, it will deprive that squad in Fallujah or Baghdad or up in Mosul. That experienced old hand, that NCO, who is in the military for a career, and who knows that particular area, and he knows how to avoid roadside bombs, and he knows how to interrogate insurgents, and he knows how to approach a certain canyon so that you don't expose yourself to fire. He won't be there if the gentlelady's motion passes, because he will only have spent 6 months instead of 7 months back at Camp Pendleton, and he won't be available to move to the field of battle. Now, you know, this is a war of specialties, and I notice that one thing that the majority did, which I think was a good move, was that they excluded the special operations forces from this particular law. The reason they excluded them is because they are special operations forces who have to move back and forth in the theater and have to move out of the theater on a regular basis, sometimes going back and forth between Afghanistan and Iraq, because they have specialties which mean life or death to our war fighters in both of those theaters, and they can't be held back, chained back by this law. I have got news for my colleagues. There are a lot of people in the regular forces whose presence also means life or death to the combatants in those forces. You have to have experience. Even the line units are full of specialties. If you have a person who is an expert in roadside bombs, and he comes back after a 7-month tour, if he is a marine, or after a 1-year tour, if he is an Army soldier, he comes back and he gets the latest schooling on a jamming device that will keep that 152 round from blowing up, that roadside bomb, and destroying a Humvee and destroying American soldiers. He has that capability. But he now cannot go back into theater because the Tauscher amendment has passed, and he can't be deployed. So he stays here with that particular insight, that particular capability, and probably the Marines or the Army will rush a team in. They will try to give them a fast learning period and rush them in, to be a poor substitute for this guy who really has the expertise of telling our people how to jam those signals that detonate those deadly roadside bombs. Now, what if we need decontamination, we have got a decontamination team in the regular military. They can't go over unless they get a waiver from the President. Well, it was argued that these waivers will be easy to get. But you know the Marines have told us that they can't plan for a waiver, because they can only follow along. The law will say you can't go. I have got a picture that I have kept in the Armed Services Committee for a long time, as the former chairman of the committee, and now ranking member, serving alongside my great friend, Mr. Skelton. It is a picture of a 5-ton truck that was struck by a Humvee with a particular armor equipment and an armor package that this committee sent those soldiers. And there is a letter attached to it and it is a letter of thanks that says, ``Thanks to you on the Armed Services Committee for making sure that we got this armor.'' And this was after this 5-ton truck has been blown up. And it said, ``We owe our lives, the fact that all eight of us were able to escape, to you on the Armed Services Committee,'' but it also says, ``to our gunnery sergeant.'' That gunnery sergeant that had the capability, that had that certain expertise of being able to do what it took to make sure that all eight of his people survived. Mrs. Tauscher has said, who do you stand with, the big Pentagon planners or the troops? The worst thing you can do, Mrs. Tauscher, for my son who is on his third deployment, or anybody else's son, is to take away that gunnery sergeant or that senior NCO or that expert who can stand by their side and help them to survive in this very dangerous warfighting theater. Please vote for this motion to recommit. This motion to recommit says that you cannot make this law certain unless you----

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Shimkus, the gentleman from Illinois, 3 minutes. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. I would ask the gentlelady for 30 additional seconds.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia, 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us how much time we have left.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me make this point: we are in two warfighting theaters right now, Afghanistan and Iraq. We have troops deployed. We are, by all accounts at this point, doing well in those warfighting theaters. Somebody stays in battle space. For the gentlelady who asked me, who do you stand with, the planner in the Pentagon, or the troops in the field, I would answer very firmly, I stand for the troops in the field. I stand for that marine corporal who needs to have that gunnery sergeant, who's been there before, who understands how you avoid that roadside bomb, who understands how you approach that village, who understands how you work that cannon, who understands how you interrogate people without risking your own troops. That comes from experience, and the idea that we are going to deny these experienced, noncommissioned officers, these old hands whose experience can make the difference between life and death because their meter didn't expire when they were back home, and they only got 6 months' worth of dwell time in country, rather than 7, is the wrong reason to vote for this bill. Please oppose this bill, readiness mandates, with a ``no.''

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, in 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the last piece of legislation successfully creating over 42 million acres of national forest, the American outdoorsman came into his own. Our great ``outdoor President,'' with a stroke of his pen, dedicated more land to American citizens for hunting and fishing than all the royal estates of Europe combined. From the Adirondacks and the Blue Ridge of the East to the Sierra Nevada of California, every outdoorsman could now be the master of enormous sporting opportunities. The only price was a stretch of the legs and an investment of time and a modicum of woodsmanship. Because of Teddy Roosevelt's leadership and efforts, the public land of the Federal Government became truly the ``estate'' of the average American. A carpenter in Indiana or Iowa could saddle up the old Chevy pick-up and take his sons elk or deer hunting on a long weekend in Colorado. A steel worker in Pennsylvania could drive ``straight through'' with his pals to that certain Aspen grove in western Wyoming where big bucks always abounded on opening morning. Thus, until a few years ago, the outdoor legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and the birthright of outdoor Americans were secure. Not any more. Today, bureaucracies in State governments are closing down the outdoor opportunities for average Americans. They are slamming the door on outdoor families the old-fashioned way: with outrageous fees for non-resident hunters, even when the hunting is done exclusively on Federal land. For example, the out-of-State license fee in Wyoming is $281 for deer, $481 for elk; in Colorado it is $301 for deer, $501 for elk; in Montana, it is $643 for both. In New Mexico, if two sons decide to take their dad on a weekend getaway, they each face fees of $355 for deer and $ 766 for elk. What makes these high prices so unfair is that they are applied to out-of-State American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on Federal property. The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million acres of BLM are the birthright of all Americans. The notion that they are viewed as the domain of State legislatures runs against the principle of public usage of Federal property. Certainly, individual States have the right to regulate the private land and state-owned property within their boundaries. No one quarrels with that. But placing prohibitive fees on hunting that is conducted on Federal public lands quickly becomes a method of exclusion. What happens, for example, if New Mexico should raise its out-of- State fees to $2,000 for bull elk? This increase would have the same effect as a locked gate for thousands of average Americans who want to hunt elk on any of the six national forests in New Mexico, over 11 million acres of federally owned land. The bill I am introducing today will restore acres for all American hunters to Theodore Roosevelt's ``Great Estate'' of national forests and other public land. I acknowledge that some small amount of States' wildlife resources are expended on federally owned and managed lands. Therefore, it is only right that out-of-State hunters share in this minimal expense. My bill, therefore, says this: No State may charge more than $200 for a big game license, specifically, elk, deer, antelope or bear, for hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM Federal land. The $200 fee strikes a balance between two interests. The first interest is the State's legitimate need to recoup the few dollars that it expends in the management of Federal land. The second, and most important, is the interest of helping that father with two teenagers who does not have the $2,300 the State of New Mexico will charge this year for a family of three to hunt on national forest for bull elk. In most cases, even a $200 fee will be a windfall for States, far out-pacing any help they give the Federal Government for wildlife management in national forests. Any American, from any State, should be allowed to earn a fall morning hunting elk in the Rockies with a healthy hike and a good shooting eye, regardless if he has a large bank account. My bill restores that opportunity.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.