Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, although I don't oppose the amendment, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I support the chairman and I will support the gentleman's request for a study by the GAO after 1 year to assess the impact to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the DOD of providing Federal pricing to DOD to purchase drugs in a retail pharmacy.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, after reading an opinion from the Department of the Interior Solicitor, I feel compelled to clarify the intent of Section 1077 (c) of P.L. 109-364. While others may misinterpret and even distort the actual impact of this language upon the healthy Kaibab Mule Deer and Roosevelt Elk herds that are currently living on Santa Rosa island, I want to make clear this section's intent is to protect both herds from extermination. It is just that simple and it does not do anything more narrow or broad. Nothing could emphasize this intent more clearly than Conference Report 109-702's explanation that Section 1077 was intended to ``prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from exterminating or nearly exterminating the deer and elk on the island.'' Clearly, when this provision became law, it directed the National Park Service (NPS) to allow the deer and elk that have thrived on Santa Rosa Island to remain on the Island beyond 2011--the last year of the term within the settlement agreement. The use of helicopters is included within the settlement agreement and referenced by Section 1077(c) as it is likely the most effective way to conduct an extermination program. Section 1077(c) was not intended to prohibit only that method of extermination. These beautiful and healthy animals should remain on the island for visitors to enjoy. They should not be ruthlessly and systematically destroyed for some ill-conceived notion of native versus non-native, as others advocate. The Solicitor has acted inappropriately by pulling a theory of congressional intent out of the air. Clearly, the intent of the language was not to ``preclude the Department of the Interior from participating in any plan approved in the settlement agreement.'' In fact, the language, which is now law, was intended to do what it clearly states: (1) vitiate the settlement agreement with respect to the deer and elk draw-down and eradication plan and (2) allow the elk and deer to remain on Santa Rosa Island indefinitely. I want to highlight the intent of allowing the deer to remain on the Island and make it clear that means these herds must be left to live on Santa Rosa Island. The congressional intent of this section was not to protect them only from slaughter, but also to protect them from relocation. I must add, I find it deeply troubling that the administration, when testifying against the same provision before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on May 16, 2006, testified that this provision would, ``. . . require the Secretary of the Interior to stop the plan to remove the deer and elk from the island as required by a court-ordered settlement agreement. This provision would effectively overturn the 1998 settlement agreement, that the NPS is legally bound to, that requires the phase-out of non-native deer and elk over several years and their complete removal from the Island by the end of 2011.'' I am bewildered why such an about-face has been made on a provision that is identical to the current law provision, having just passed the House of Representatives. In closing, I hope this statement clarifies the intent of both P.L. 109-364 and the accompanying Conference Report 109-702. Both are clear on their face, but as the lead House negotiator of the Conference Committee of H.R. 5122, I felt it important to clear up any uncertainty brought forward by interpretations following a short-sighted agenda. This important conservation provision must stand and be properly interpreted so that the elk and deer are not slaughtered. Simply restated, it would be a tragedy to have these healthy populations of elk and mule deer exterminated from public lands to forward a misguided agenda of what belongs on Santa Rosa Island. Section 1077(c) is intended to prevent such eradication carried out by NPS or other parties to the settlement agreement. My intent was clearly for the elk and deer herds to remain on Santa Rosa. This intent was clearly manifested in my numerous floor and committee statements in which I described my intent that wounded veterans are to be allowed to hunt these animals following the transfer of Santa Rosa from private ownership. My committee and floor statements regarding Santa Rosa Island, particularly floor statements made on December 16, 2005, and May 10, 2006, demonstrate this intent. I also discussed the Santa Rosa provision with CNN's Anderson Cooper on June 13, 2006. A transcript of the interview follows: Joe Johns, CNN Correspondent: 25 miles off the coast of Santa Barbara, more than triple the size of Manhattan, the crown jewel of the Channel Islands National Park. The remote and largely untouched Santa Rosa Island. Canyons, coastline, chaparral and pines and you own it. Taxpayers pay $30 million for Santa Rosa Island. A treasure trove of ancient artifacts. Torrey Rick, Archaeologist: It's incredible. I mean you don't get this kind of stuff anywhere else in the world, really. Johns: Human bones found here date back 13,000 years. It's also unique for its inhabitants. The little island fox, endangered but so far not extinct. With all this at stake and more, the question before Congress is whether this park should be protected and open to all Americans year-round. Or should it also be used as a place where disabled veterans can come to hunt deer and elk? Which means tourists have to be kept safely out of the crossfire. Congressman Duncan Hunter, the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has been pushing for months to give the vets special privileges on Santa Rosa. Rep. Duncan Hunter, (R) California: I was driving south with a bunch of marines, some guys fresh back from Iraq and one of them said, there's Santa Rosa Island and they're going to close it and they're going to wipe out the entire deer and elk herd. Johns: But the idea of handing over hunting rights on an island that's supposed to be for everybody has infuriated some Democrats from California, who say it's like telling the public you bought it, now keep out. Rep. Lois Capps, (D) California: It's outrageous and I told him so. This is a Republican leadership that wants to kick taxpayers off a national park that they paid $30 million for. Makes you wonder, first it's Channel Islands National Park, is it going to be Yellowstone, is it going to be the Shenandoah's? Johns: It's not that disabled veterans aren't important. It's just that there are plenty of good hunting spots that aren't in national parks. For instance, military bases in remote areas. It's a battle playing out allover America but especially in the west, over how best to use national parks. In this case whether to restore the park to its pristine condition or to allow other uses. Much of this is about the animals. The park service only wants animals here that are native to Santa Rosa. So the deer and elk shipped in nearly a century ago by the family that used to own the land must now go. So what about a compromise? Why not allow both hunting and tourists full-time? Well hikers and bullets are not a great trail mix. So long as there's hunting here, the park service has to keep the public out. The park service says the game needs to go. Russell Gallipeau, U.S. Park Service: I'm not against providing access to anybody. I just think that hunting and public use of this island are not compatible. And it's not a purpose for which this park was set aside. Johns: So as taxpayers you paid for a remote national park, but now a powerful congressman says it should be managed as a place for disabled war vets to hunt deer and elk. For $30 million, Santa Rosa may well be the biggest game trophy out there. Joe Johns, CNN, Santa Rosa Island, California. Cooper: Well as Joe just mentioned Congressman Duncan Hunter is the force behind the move to keep the elk and deer on the island for hunting. We spoke earlier. Cooper: So Congressman Hunter, you know your critics say look, taxpayers spent $30 million to buy Santa Rosa Island. But as long as there's hunting there, 90 percent of it's closed to non-hunters for about half of the year. They say that's unfair. Hunter: Well, let me--let's put this in context. My son, who's a marine, did a couple of tours in Iraq and when he came back, he and I started taking wounded marines and soldiers hunting. We went to Arizona, Colorado, lots of good places. We had one hunt we took a person with a spinal disability. That is, a paralyzed veteran into Colorado, into the big national forest. And it's very difficult for them to have a real quality experience. Now, this island, Santa Rosa Island, which is off the California coast, which is 52,000 acres, has a very small number of public visitors. About 15 a day from the statistics I've seen. Cooper: But the reason that there are only 15, the national park says about 5,000 people a year visit Santa Rosa Island. The reason more people aren't able to do it is because they can only visit about 10 percent of the island for half the year because of this hunting. If you close down the hunting, then the whole island basically would be open to visitors and to taxpayers who paid for it. Hunter: Listen, here's all we want. All we want is about two weeks a year for the paralyzed veterans to come over. I would be happy to stipulate that no congressman come over, no VIPs. Only people who are paralyzed veterans, who are very disabled veterans. And actually the reason most people don't go over to Santa Rosa Island is because it's a major boat trip or a plane trip. And tourists who are driving down the coast of California don't want to take a plane or a boat to simply get to another island. So we could easily accommodate the paralyzed veterans, they could have a great time. They could have the adventure of a lifetime. And you know something, they may be wheelchair-bound but their spirits are free, they like adventure. This is a great place to take your family. And this could be a special niche for those people. And you know something else, the people of the United States, if the taxpayers knew that this was going to be used by paralyzed veterans, they'd say fine. This is the park service that says, we want to wipe out this deer and elk herd because they're not native. They just want to do it because they've got the power to do it. They could easily accommodate our veterans. Cooper: Is this the role of a national park? The national park service which runs this, basically would be subsidizing a hunting program. They say and critics say, look, there are other places for people with disabilities to hunt. We talked to the Paralyzed Veterans Association they say you know some states even allow those with disabilities to hunt from their cars. Hunter: Listen, the reason the national park people have their nice jobs and the reasons we as members of the American public get to enjoy national parks is because of people who wear uniforms who go out in dangerous parts of the world and secure our freedom. So let in some paralyzed veterans, many of whom have been injured in combat, to come have a small piece of this island that almost nobody goes to anyway, is a small repayment for their service to our country. I think the taxpayers would appreciate that. Cooper: Congressman Hunter, appreciate you joining us, thanks. Lastly, a letter provided by the Wounded Warrior Project reaffirms discussions and the intent to allow wounded and disabled veterans to enjoy Santa Rosa Island. The letter follows: August 28, 2006. Hon. Duncan L. Hunter, Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Hunter: On behalf of the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP), I am responding to your legislation that will cease the elimination of all elk and deer on Santa Rosa Island in California and could provide unrivaled hunting opportunities for severely wounded veterans. The Wounded Warrior Project applauds any effort that supports our endeavors to assist severely injured military personnel. WWP has reached thousands of wounded service men and women, providing assistance in the transition from a hospital bed to an independent and productive life and we believe that Santa Rosa could offer the wounded another chance to participate in meaningful and enriching recreational activities such as fishing, hunting and camping. This legislation is consistent with Wounded Warrior Project's adaptive sports and outdoors programs like hunting and fishing, snow and water skiing, canoeing and diving. For that reason we encourage the House of Representatives to pass this provision to potentially allow the use of the island for disabled service members. We hope that together with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal organizations, a viable and sustainable daily operations system for the management of Santa Rosa Island can be developed and that our nation's wounded warriors will be able to enjoy the world class hunting that the island has to offer. Thank you. Sincerely, John Melia, Executive Director.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from California for giving me some time. You know, in Iraq it is tough, it is difficult, it is dusty and it is dangerous; but we are following the same pattern that we followed for the last 60 years in bringing freedom to other parts of the world. It is not a smooth road. First, you stand up a free government. We have done that. It is an inept government. It bumbles along, as most new governments do. But it is a free government, and it represents the people. The second thing that you do is stand up a military capable of protecting that free government. Thirdly, the Americans leave, because we don't covet anything that another country has. We are right now in the second phase of standing up a military capable of protecting this government. My good friend who just spoke talked about the difficulty of standing up the Iraqi military. I know a couple of years ago in the first battle of Fallujah when we rushed green Iraqi troops to that battle and we thought they were going to help the United States Marines, the next day they were gone. They didn't show up for roll call. But this time when you go out there and you are in Fallujah and Ramadi, the Iraqi military is standing and fighting. We sat there about a month ago with the Sunni leaders of the national police in Ramadi and Fallujah, and they sat there side-by-side with the Shiite leaders of the Iraqi Army and talked about how they are working together, this time to push back against al Qaeda, whose rough edge has made enemies in the Anbar province. Now, we got 129 battalions in the Iraqi Army, and, personally, I think that the standup of the Iraqi Army and the reliability of the Iraqi Army is the key to America's success in Iraq and our successful turnover of the security burden. We have got to make sure that every one of those 129 Iraqi battalions moves into an operation where they do two or three months in a military operation where they have to work out, exercise their logistic chain, their chain of command, the commander has got to coordinate with the guy on the right and the guy on the left. At that time they can rotate into the battlefield and displace American heavy combat forces. That is the right way to leave Iraq. Not this way.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I think it's important to interpret this debate. I have heard the Speaker talk about redeployment and say that there is a lot of discretion that is left to the administration. There is no discretion. The dates of so-called redeployment are defined. You either start going out July 1 or October 1. Redeployment means withdrawals. If generals do not start redeploying, do not start withdrawing from the battleground, you can bet Democratic leadership will be here pulling them into hearings, asking them why they didn't saddle up their brigades, their battalions and their divisions and start to move them off the battlefield. So let's get this straight. This is about withdrawing from the battlefield. Listening to this debate, and listening to the controversy and the statements by Democratic leadership that have preceded this vote today, there is a constant theme: Somehow American soldiers and marines are victims. They are victims of extended tours; they are victims, the last gentleman said, they claim, of not getting enough health care. They are people that have been victims in the war against terror. Let me tell you, I have seen the timelines that are given, the 270 days for Marines, the 365 days. A number of them have gone through one, two, three and sometimes four tours. Our Americans, and that includes my son, who is deploying now for the third time, will not fail, they will not crack, they will not stretch. They will hold, and they will carry out this mission against terrorists. We are right now in the second phase of a program we have used for 60 years to stand up free governments around the world. You stand up a free government. We have done that. Secondly, you stand up a military capable of protecting that free government. That is a second stage. That is a stage we are in right now. Thirdly, we leave, because America doesn't covet anything that another nation has. We are in the second stage right now. It's tough, and it's difficult. This is a tough, difficult mission, but it is a mission that we can accomplish. I am reminded, lastly, that the Speaker talked about stopping the war. That is how she described this bill. The Democratic leadership does not have the power to stop the war against terror. All they have the power to do is to leave the battlefield. That would be a disaster for the United States of America.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I want to thank my friend, Mr. Lewis, for giving me a chance to talk about this supplemental bill, this very bad bill, once again. Mr. Speaker, I have carefully reviewed the language on page 72 of this bill with our counsel as to the exact legal effect of this bill. This bill says that an American unit cannot be introduced into Iraq until a 15-day waiting period has expired. Now, what does that mean? That means if you have hostages being held in a place in Iraq and you want to move a Delta force team across the line, you can't do that for 15 days under the law, should this become law. It says if you have a fleeting target, like the Zarqawi strike that we made a couple of months ago, and time is of the essence and you want to take an F-16 out of Incirlik, Turkey and make a strike, you can't do it without waiting for 15 days after notifying the House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services Committee, and presumably the Appropriations Committee. Mr. Speaker, if we have an extreme situation in Iraq where Americans have to be rescued or reinforced, I don't want them to come back and notify me or notify the committee. I want them to do what they have to do and carry out their mission. This is a very defective bill, and this 15-day waiting requirement in this war against terror where time is of the essence, where American military teams move across country boundaries every day without certifying anything to anybody, this is a real disservice to the forces that work not only in Iraq, but should this be applied to other parts of the world in a future time would be a real disservice to everybody who fights in the war against terror. I strongly support the motion of the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if I have got a couple of minutes left, if any member of the Veterans' Affairs or the Armed Services Committee would like to use the rest of the time, I would be happy to yield to them. Appearing that there isn't anybody, I yield back at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to add my voice to the eloquent voice of the chairman, Mr. Skelton. I want to thank him, and thank also Dr. Snyder and John McHugh, the chairman and ranking member of Personnel, for their hard work on this bill. And for all the other Members who worked on this, I know Mr. Filner and Mr. Buyer were also architects of this bill. But especially our chairman, who has a heart for the military and perhaps is the most adept custodian of the history of military personnel matters in the Armed Services Committee; a guy with a great eye and ear for history and for the sense of tradition that kind of brings us together on the Armed Services Committee to find common ground on important issues to the folks that wear the uniform. This is one of those issues, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, young people right now are serving this country in far away places like Ramadi and Fallujah and Mosul and Kabul, and many other places around the world where the war against terror brings them face to face with danger every day. Some of those, the great members of the U.S. military, give their last full measure of devotion. Some of them are wounded and come back through Landstuhl and then to Bethesda and Walter Reed. And, Mr. Chairman, I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's speech in 1981, when he stood on the west steps of the Capitol and he gestured out to the west and he said, There's the Washington Monument, dedicated to the Father of our Country, and beyond that, the Lincoln Memorial, dedicated to the man who saved the Union. But beyond those monuments are thousands of monuments with crosses and Stars of David, dedicated to Americans who gave that full measure of devotion to the same degree that the Founding Fathers did, and that's Arlington Cemetery. And he mentioned that under one of those markers lies a man named Martin Trepto, who was killed in World War I. He had gone to fight with the Rainbow Division in France, and after a few months or a few weeks in country, he was killed. When his friends found his body, they found that he kept a diary, and he had written these words, and I am paraphrasing: I must fight this war as if the success or failure of America depends on me alone. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, in going out to the warfighting theaters, that standard is the same standard that is carried by the young men and women of America's Armed Forces. And because of that, it is all the more compelling that we do everything possible to make sure that they have good care when they come home, and when they are wounded and when their families similarly are wounded by their wounds; and to make sure that we have a government which is friendly to them. A lot of this problem at Walter Reed and Bethesda and the rest of our medical care apparatus is this; we need to have a system that is friendly, friendly to that 22-year-old marine wife who drives a couple hundred miles, maybe leaves the kids with the mother-in-law while she goes with her husband to undertake therapy at one of our hospitals. To be able to get in and get out without having to get bogged down in a mass of bureaucracy. It is toward those ends that we dedicated this bill. And again, I think the chairman has done a great job, as have Mr. McHugh and Mr. Snyder. And let me tell you a couple of the highlights here. I like the idea that you have got a limitation on 17 cases per case manager. That means that each case manager is going to have a lot of time to spend with each case, with each individual. And you also have the family advocate who will help with housing and transportation and all those things. That is almost as important as the case manager, because that helps a family to be with their loved one while they are undertaking their treatment. I also like this handoff between the VA and DoD. We now have a physical meeting where you don't have the bureaucracy finally telling us after 3, 4 or 5 months that the records have been lost, that they have been misplaced or that there are some missing. And lastly, when we do the evaluation, to have experts who will assist the servicemember in making sure that his or her file is complete when they go for disability. That means if you've got that frag wound in your left leg, you make sure that you've got a record of that in that disability packet when you go before the board. Now, there are lots of other good language in this bill and good provisions in this bill that will accrue to the benefit of the servicemember and their family, but I think those are especially important. Lastly, I think the hotline is important, Mr. Chairman, where people can call in and let the system know that it's messed up and that it's not serving them well. And I know that the wonderful men and women who serve our U.S. military will respond to that and will make things right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me speak for a couple of minutes about this bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to mention that in 2005, and working with Mr. Buyer and working with Mr. Skelton and other Members of the Armed Services Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee, we put together this Disability Claims Commission with an eye toward trying to make the evaluations that are arrived at in DOD and the VA system consistent. In this bill that we are passing today, we are directing DOD and VA to go back and, as this commission meets and continues to work, to focus on their work product and what they are doing; and, hopefully, we can have some value added as a result of their focusing on the commission that currently is in place.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if we could ask unanimous consent that on Armed Services we could reclaim our time that we yielded back, we would like to yield it to the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I think this is an excellent amendment from our side. I want to thank the gentleman for offering it, and we have absolutely no objections to this amendment. We support it very strongly. Good work.

Mr. HUNTER. I would like to yield 4 minutes to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia.

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

Mr. HUNTER. I would ask unanimous consent to reclaim my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I would yield the balance of my time to any other Members that would like to speak on the majority side, and if there are not, Mr. Chairman, give the chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee the option of us simply yielding back our time or if he would like to have some of our time, giving that to him.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady, and we support the amendment on this side. I thank her for her contribution.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my friend, a former member of the committee, for his work. We support this amendment strongly.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. I want to join in thanking the gentleman for an excellent amendment, and thank him for his very thoughtful addition to this important bill.