Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself 4\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against this bill. I have great respect for my friend, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. We work on many bills together, many pieces of legislation, and 99 percent of the time we find common cause in supporting the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. This bill is not one of them. I think that this bill, Mr. Speaker, is a call to retreat by the Democratic leadership of the House, which can only hurt this country. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have been here before. I have listened to my colleagues on the Democrat side declare that the operation that we were undertaking in El Salvador to provide a little shield around that fragile government back in the 1980s was going to be ``America's next Vietnam.'' Yet we persevered. We kept that shield in place. We stood up a democratic government. Today, the free government of El Salvador supplies troops who stand side by side with Americans in Iraq. I was here when Ronald Reagan stood up against the Soviet Union when they were putting SS-20 missiles around our allies, Germany and France, in Europe. Many people on the other side of the aisle said he was going in the wrong direction. He was going to start World War III. We were going to have a nuclear war because of the fact that the President was standing up to the Soviet Union. Yes, he did that, moving Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles to offset the Soviet missiles. At one point, they picked up the telephone and said, Can we talk? Ultimately we brought down the Berlin Wall. We freed, with American perseverance, hundreds of millions of people. Now, we all agree that if Iraq works, it is to the benefit of the United States. When I say that ``if Iraq works,'' I mean if we have a nation which has a modicum of freedom for its people, a nation which will not be a state sponsor of terrorism, a nation which will be a friend to the United States, then we win. That is in our interest. That is what we are trying to build in Iraq. We all agree that it is rough and tough and difficult. Mr. Speaker, it is dangerous. We all know that. That is why I had the last three speakers being fathers of Americans who have served in Iraq in the Marine Corps and in the United States Army. So we know it is difficult. But, you know, every time I hear good news coming out, every time I hear that, I saw the message from one of our senior Marine commanders who said, We are crushing al Qaeda in Anbar province, then I pick up a statement by one of the Democrat leaders saying, We have lost. We have lost the war. I put this piece of legislation in that same category. Twenty-seven days, less than 4 weeks after we put the surge in full force, we are already being called to leave. Now, we were just criticized, the President was criticized, for saying, This is the starting line. Well, I think we should criticize the Democrats for saying, This is the finish line. I have heard so many Democrat leaders say, We are going to stop the war. That has been said over and over. Mr. Speaker, there is no Democrat leader here or anywhere who can stop the war. The only thing we can do is leave this battlefield. We can't stop this war any more than the people of Great Britain stopped the war when they just had this incident last week in Scotland. We can't stop this war any more than the victims in the Kobar Towers stopped the war. We can't stop this war any more than the marines in the Beirut barrack had the power to stop the war. We can't stop this war any more than the sailors of the USS Cole had any ability to stop the war. This war has been forced on us. The only way we should end it, the only way we can end it, is to win. Now we have the surge going on. It has been going on for 27 days. The leader in whom we all vest great confidence, General Petraeus, is to speak to us about the policies, about the tactics, about the strategies, and he will suggest adjustments on September 15. The idea that only 4 weeks after we have fully funded and we have fully deployed this surge we are somehow going to sound the retreat is a real disservice to this mission. Mr. Speaker, what I would ask of all of our Members, Democrat and Republican, is vote against this call to retreat. If we stop fighting the terrorists, we will start losing this war against the terrorists. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), whose son has served a tour of duty in Iraq.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, it's been asked that we consider this debate in such a way that our sons and daughters are involved, and that's why the gentleman who just spoke, Mr. Wilson's son has done a tour in Iraq. The gentleman I am going to announce now, Mr. Kline, has a son who has done a tour as a helicopter pilot in Iraq. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow our other two speakers who have sons who have served in Iraq with another gentleman, Mr. Akin, the gentleman from Missouri, whose son Perry has served a tour in Iraq in the United States Marine Corps. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank my colleague for yielding me some time and for the good work that she has done on this bill, as well as my good friend from New York. Unfortunately, I oppose this bill for this reason: We passed out what I think was a pretty good bill out of the House. That bill had in it several critical national security elements. One of those elements was that any member of this committee, of the CFIUS committee, including, for example, the Secretary of Defense, or a leader in another agency, could, by a single vote, trigger an investigation if they thought there was a national security problem. Remember, this bill grew out of the Dubai Ports problem. When we were faced with this takeover of our port operations in a number of key ports by a foreign-owned company, we realized that that company could access information about vulnerable aspects of those particular ports that could, at some point, be utilized in a terrorist activity. So we understood, and that was a good illustration of how critical this CFIUS process is, especially with this array of foreign investments taking place in this country. So we understood that we needed to reform CFIUS. In those days, during the Dubai Ports problem, before that, you had an arrangement that was largely put together by Presidential directive, and the President, by his directive, gave any member of the CFIUS committee, including SecDef, the ability to raise their hand and basically say, I want an investigation. Now, we ensured that, as we put this thing together in statute, that we maintained that right. I am turning to the House-passed provision that we passed, that I supported. It talked about an investigation being triggered by a roll call vote, and I am quoting, a roll call vote pursuant to paragraph 3(a) in connection with a review under paragraph 1 of any covered transaction results in at least one vote by a committee member against approving the transaction, meaning that the Secretary of Defense could get up and say, I think there is a problem here, and he could trigger that transaction. Unfortunately, the product that came back from the Senate didn't have that provision. It had this provision; it said that an investigation would be triggered if ``the lead agency recommends and the committee concurs that an investigation be undertaken.'' They have clearly watered down the ability of one person, for example, the Secretary of Defense, to say, to trigger an investigation upon his demand. I think that's a fatal flaw, because that takes us back to a weaker position than what we have had under the current practice, which involves an investigation being undertaken if a single member of the committee objects under the present Presidential directive. We are actually going back to a lower standard for triggering an investigation than we had before the Dubai ports problem. So I think, unfortunately, we have taken a product from the Senate which is fatally flawed in that respect. I would strongly support this provision coming back, this exact same law, coming back with that fix. But I don't know any way we can fix it, or even with a colloquy or in any other way, assign a new congressional intent that will clearly reflect that the words that have been changed aren't, in fact, controlling at this point, but that there is a congressional intent that controls. Unfortunately, I have to object to the passage of this bill, and I will not support the passage of this bill.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor and memory of Mr. Wayne Stevens, a proud member of the San Diego community and a fellow paratrooper who recently passed away at the age 64 from the effects of cancer. Wayne's distinguished record of military service to this Nation is one of the finest examples of selflessness and courage. He served in Vietnam with Charlie Company, 2nd Battalion of the 503rd Infantry, 173rd Airborne Brigade, and was among the first soldiers to arrive in country from Okinawa in 1964. For his heroism in Vietnam, Wayne was awarded two Bronze Stars, a Purple Heart and the Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry. Madam Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said, ``the willingness of our citizens to give freely and unselfishly of themselves, even their lives, in defense of our democratic principles, gives this great nation continued strength and vitality. From Valley Forge to Vietnam, through war and peace, valiant Americans have answered the call to duty with honor and dignity.'' In making these remarks, President Reagan was speaking directly to Americans like Wayne, who have so bravely and selflessly put their country before themselves and were always willing to make the ultimate sacrifice when they were needed most. My prayers are with Wayne's devoted wife of 42 years, Donna, his daughter Jessica and two grandchildren, Sophia and Adolph, and I ask that my colleagues join me today in paying tribute to the life and memory of this true American hero.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Boyd) removed as a cosponsor to H.R. 1756.

Mr. HUNTER

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

Mr. HUNTER. Yes.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, this is a good Defense bill, and I want to compliment my great friend the gentleman from Missouri for his leadership in helping to put together this bill that passed the committee unanimously, came to the floor, and we can expect a big vote, I think, of support from the Members of this body. We are about to make this bill better. In 1987 this committee, the Armed Services Committee, sent a letter to the leadership in Israel, and we told them that there were lots of things that they could defend against very effectively, that if tactical aircraft were sent into Israel in an attack they would shoot down all of them, and they have proven that, but that if ballistic missiles were launched for Tel Aviv, every single one of them would impact because they had no defenses. And we urged them to join with the United States in developing a system of missile defense. And upon our urging, they started what is known as the Arrow missile program. It has come a long way. It has been deployed. And that prophetic letter that we sent them in 1987, of course, was followed by real missile attacks on Israel. They didn't quite have that system up at that time. We rushed PATRIOTs over. They now have the Arrow missile defense system up. But in the most recent attacks we have seen short-range missiles that also impacted in Israel. This motion to recommit is $200 million that is dedicated to integrating our missile defense systems with those of Israel, using the great innovation of Americans along with their great innovative capabilities, to defend against this new era of terrorists with high technology. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), who has been a leader in putting this motion to recommit together.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. And let me just remind all my colleagues that the day will come when missiles from other countries, adversarial countries, will not fall harmlessly into the Sea of Japan. They will not fall harmlessly into desert sands. We will have a time when we have to defend against incoming ballistic missiles in this country and across the borders of our allies, including Israel. Do what is right for the United States, and what we do today in providing missile defense will protect the next generation of Americans. Vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit.

Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Will the gentleman yield for just 5 seconds?

Mr. HUNTER. I thank my friend for yielding. This amendment was offered by Mr. Cantor and was not ruled in order by the Rules Committee. So this was not without precedent.

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

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

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I think we only have about 2\1/2\ minutes left on this side. I would continue to reserve and ask my good friend from Missouri to recognize some more of his speakers.

Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank all Members who participated in the general debate, and all the great subcommittee chairmen and ranking members, and the chairman of the committee for putting together this great bill, and will now enter the amendment process. There is just one point that I wanted to make in listening to my colleague finish up in talking about the mental health of America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. One observation that I have made over the years in being around people that wear the uniform is that while a number of the stresses and the difficulties that have been spoken of are real, it is also real that the coolest, calmest, most balanced, most stable American citizens, I believe, are the folks that wear the uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while it is true that enemy fire can hurt you and damage you mentally as well as physically, it is also true that that fire can make you stronger. Having spent time with guys like Chuck Yeager, guys like the great Vic Taylor, many others who have been under fire and in various situations in real combat in the world's wars, it has always occurred to me that the people who have the greatest mental stability are people that come out of the combat zones. So I want to make sure that this debate doesn't send the message that somehow Americans who wear the uniform are victims, and that the inevitable result of their wearing the uniform and serving in combat is that they are going to somehow be damaged mentally, because that is not the case. And I would just conclude by reflecting on the fact that I take a number of folks who are wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan hunting, which the Hunter family likes to do, and I take them hunting with my grandchildren. And there are few people that I will trust my grandchildren with, but the people I will trust my grandchildren with out in the great outdoors, with loaded weapons, are members of the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps who have been to combat. Those people have the greatest sense of balance and sense of judgment. And, again, in my mind, America's citizens who are the coolest and the calmest under fire and have the greatest sense of balance and judgment are people that wear the uniform and have been in combat. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

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. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, as legislators, we meet once again to address the wide range of important national security activities undertaken by the Departments of Defense and Energy. We all take our legislative responsibilities very seriously, and this is especially true during a time of war. And it's always true of my good friend and colleague, Ike Skelton, the great gentleman from Missouri, our chairman. I want to thank Chairman Skelton for the excellent job that he's done in putting this bill together, and also thank all of our subcommittee chairmen and ranking members who have put together a composite that very strongly meets the needs of our men and women in uniform. As a result of Mr. Skelton's efforts to put forward this bill, our committee reported out the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 last Wednesday. The vote was unanimous, 58-0. I support this bill. It reflects our committee's continued strong support for the brave men and women of the United States Armed Forces, and in many ways this bill is a very good bill. It authorizes the President's request for $503.8 billion for the fiscal year 2008 base budget of the Department of Defense and national security programs of the Department of Energy. This amount provides for end-strength growth in both the Army and Marine Corps, continuing initiatives started several years ago by the Armed Services Committee. In fiscal year 2008, the Army would be authorized 525,400, which is 3,000 more than authorized last year, and the Marine Corps would be authorized 189,000, 9,000 more than last year. The bill also includes $142 billion to cover fiscal year 2008 war costs, as requested by the President. Some of the initiatives in this legislation continue or build upon successful programs or reinforce good legislation that the House has already passed. For example, this legislation has provisions that are essential to maintain a robust defense industrial base. Last year, the Defense authorization bill tried to strike a fair balance between requiring the use of domestic specialty metals for our weapons systems and offering a waiver process in case sufficient metals are not available. H.R. 1585 establishes a formal rulemaking process for waivers that apply to multiple contracts to facilitate transparency and the gathering of broad industry input. In this way, the market will be able to respond to supply shortages, fostering investment in domestic industries. Other initiatives in this bill modify existing authorities or establish promising new programs and policies, such as adding $4.1 billion for the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, so-called MRAPs. Separately, H.R. 1585 levels the playing field between U.S. companies and foreign countries with which we have free trade agreements. It rectifies a critical flaw in the U.S. Code that effectively penalizes U.S. companies for complying with U.S. law, while allowing foreign manufacturers to provide noncompliant components and systems. These and other sections go a considerable way in ensuring that our brave men and women in uniform have the best available tools to protect our national security interests, but this bill is not a perfect bill. We can and we should improve it. This legislation cuts missile defense programs by almost $800 million. In 2006, there were about 100 foreign ballistic missile launches around the world, including from North Korea with short-range missiles and a longer-range TD-2 missile; and from Iran with its development and testing of short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. I wonder whether in the face of this growing threat we should be slowing down the development and fielding of a robust, layered ballistic missile defense system that would prove critical to our Nation's defenses. This bill recommends a reduction of more than $860 million for the Army's Future Combat Systems program. In the past, our committee made smaller cuts to drive behaviors that would lead to a successful system. With the magnitude of this cut, I worry about the long-term impact on the capability of the U.S. Army and wonder whether we should not restore some of this funding to ensure that the Army is as prepared as possible to meet future challenges. And finally, this bill provides significant resources for shipbuilding. I am concerned, however, that we have not fully funded two of the three additional ships that the language purports to have added. The bill is approximately $145 million less than the amount the Navy needs to buy and take delivery of an additional dry cargo ship, which was number two on the Navy's unfunded priority list. Also, the bill provides $588 million for advanced procurement for an additional ship-set of reactive plant heavy components for a Virginia-class submarine in 2008, but it remains up to future Congresses to complete the funding and turn these components into an additional submarine before 2012. As in years past, I believe that this legislation reflects many of the Armed Services Committee's priorities in supporting our Nation's dedicated and courageous servicemembers. I want to thank again Chairman Skelton for putting together an excellent bill and helping us stay focused on delivering a bill that helps us protect, sustains and builds our forces. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve and pass H.R. 1585. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I would like to yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Mr. HUNTER. Yes, I yielded for purposes of the motion.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Everett), the ranking member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) for purposes of a motion. Motion to Rise Offered by Mr. Westmoreland