Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I understand that my partner on the Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), will have 15 minutes also. Mr. Chairman, we do have an opening statement, and we do have a number of Members who wish to speak on the bill. Mr. Chairman, this is a very important piece of legislation, and the Committee on Armed Services had a very important role here. I think we want to applaud all the other committees that participated in putting this bill together, but our role was to a large degree a protective role. It was a role of making sure that the men and women who are fighting right now in the war, fighting in theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan have that lifeline between themselves, whether it is a Special Forces team or a Marine platoon in Fallujah or an Army company in Tikrit, that they have that lifeline between the war fighters on the ground and our national platforms, including our aircrafts, our UAVs and our satellites; maintaining that lifeline of immediate information to the war fighters so they can prosecute this war against proper terror and protect their soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. So when we look at this creation of the National Intelligence Director, which I think is a needed thing and is an important step for our country, a director who can set rules for the dissemination of intelligence and information across the broad scope of American agencies so that an agency that can use a piece of information is able to get it without having to go to great length. And so that our classification system, when you decide who is going to be allowed to listen to certain things or hear certain things, it has a set of rules so that they can see what they need to carry out their job in protecting our country. The National Intelligence Director is going to do all of those things. He is also going to set this broad strategic plan and this blueprint for our intelligence apparatus, and he is going to develop the intelligence budget. And he is going to make sure that that budget is moved through the various wickets of the bureaucracy and ends up buying the right kind of things, developing the right kind of capabilities, and bringing to this important team the right kinds of people. Now, the Department of Defense, but more specifically people on the ground who wear the uniform of the United States, have an enormous stake here. They need to have that lifeline of intelligence available at all times; and it needs to come from all different sources. So they need to sit at the table in partnership with the National Intelligence Director when we are talking about information that is going to make a difference on the battlefields. And in this bill, different from any other bill, we do that. We maintain that partnership between people in uniform, and this direction comes from having lots of names, lots of discussions with people from war fighters in the field right up through the directors of our intelligence units. To do that, to make sure that that partnership is maintained, we have maintained the Department of Defense, not in developing the budget but in the execution chain of that budget so that you have informed buyers when you are buying things like satellites and other types of platforms, and also when you are choosing the head of these agencies like the NSA, the NRO, geospacial, so that while the Department of Defense could overrule the DCI in the old days, today it is going to be a true partnership. It is going to be true concurrence, where the National Intelligence Director and the Secretary of Defense need to concur on a decision or on a recommendation for the head of the NSA, very important intelligence apparatus. So we have true concurrence, and that is another way to maintain this important partnership. Right now, Mr. Chairman, we have people sitting in rooms deciding where our intelligence assets are going to look next, whether they are going to look at some place over in Africa that is an important area or maybe some place up in the hills of Pakistan and they are making decisions as to what we look at next. And this partnership, this collaboration, is working and this bill today, Mr. Chairman, that we are producing as written does maintain that partnership. I would urge that everybody support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, if people are looking at the Menendez substitute, which is going to come up here and is going to, in my estimation, tear apart that partnership that the military has with the intelligence agencies in maintaining the lifeline between our troops and their assets; if the American people are reading that, one thing that may strike them as just remarkable and somewhat illogical is the idea that we will reveal to the world, under the Menendez substitute, under, I guess, what is called a transparent government, our intelligence numbers, or how much we spend on intelligence. This is a figure we have been trying to keep out of the hands of the bad guys for a long time. Americans who are looking at this bill as a response to the attack on 9/11 on American soil are probably puzzled as they watch from around the Nation saying, let me see, how are we possibly going to prevent an attack on America by telling the bad guys what our intelligence number is and allowing them to peel that onion back and then discover what our priorities are, and what our strengths are, and, ultimately, what our weaknesses are? That makes no sense whatsoever. The provision we have carefully crafted here maintains that delicate balance for America's security. Support the base bill. Do it for our troops.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank the gentlewoman for voting for our bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for being one of the 59 members of the Committee on Armed Services who voted unanimously for the bill that is before us right now. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the vice chairman of the committee. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I will not take that much time, but just to say like the gentleman that offered this amendment, this amendment is practical, it is a smart thing to do, and we support it very strongly.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to go through a few more of the deadly mistakes that the Menendez substitute does in contravention of what the Commission said. They take away from the military, military communications. They take away intelligence information on an adversary's communication. They take away defense cryptology. They take away warnings of impending military action against U.S. interests. They take away joint operational planning and execution. All because they ignored those particular teams that are hosted by the National Signals Agency. That was crayon legislation.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if you have friends or relatives or just people you care about who wear the uniform of the United States who are in war fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are going out on a mission tonight or tomorrow and there are communications that affect that mission, directions from headquarters, plans, operations, those will probably go through your communications. Now, these assurances of those secure communications reside in a little shop that is in what is known as the National Signals Agency. That is one of the agencies that Mr. Menendez's amendment would pull away from the Department of Defense. Now, that agency right now is responsible to the Secretary of Defense, to the uniformed personnel who run those military operations, whose people have their lives on the line and depend on those communications. Can you imagine a military operation where the people that are running the operation, that is the U.S. military, do not have the resourcing and the control over their own communications line? I remember one of the arguments that is going on right now is who shot down Yamamoto, and we still have an argument over which American pilot shot him down after we had broken their code and sent out a squad of aircraft to shoot down the leader of the Japanese Navy. That is because we broke their communications. The security of communications is important as having a weapon that works. And inadvertently, Mr. Menendez's amendment pulls away and they probably do not even know this, so you cannot blame the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) because he copied probably what somebody else in the other body put down, and they did not realize what they were doing. They have pulled away by definition from the Department of Defense and the uniformed people who serve this country the control over their own communication and the resourcing of their own communications. They pull that away in their bill. Now, interestingly, the 9/11 reports says do not do that. It only has one small paragraph on that. I am turning to page 412. It says, ``The Department of Defense military intelligence programs, the joint military intelligence programs and the tactical intelligence programs will remain parts of the Department of Defense's responsibilities.'' That is one tiny paragraph, and yet because they missed that and they pulled this particular function away from the people that wear the uniform, they have committed a deadly mistake. This amendment is full of deadly mistakes, deadly mistakes that the author does not even know about because he simply copied what somebody else put down. Let me finally say, Mr. Chairman, that what we have serves this great partnership of the people that wear the uniform and the CIA. Let us maintain that partnership. Let us pass this bill without the amendment.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello) for managing this bill. I think they have described it very well, the problem that we have with pollution that sweeps north on to California beaches. Not only is it a public health hazard and one that accrues to the detriment of thousands and thousands of families in the San Diego region, but also has a major impact on our economy. This situation of polluted beaches from raw sewage costs us in excess of some $15 million a year. In an attempt to look for a better way to address this border sewage problem, the House and the Tijuana River Estuary and Beach Cleanup Act, P.L. 106-457, authorized what we thought was a cutting edge concept involving a public-private partnership approach that will save taxpayer money and ensure that a wastewater treatment facility is brought online as quickly as possible and in complete compliance with the U.S. Clean Water Act regulations. OMB has certified, incidentally, that the public-private partnership approach will save significant funds over a similar plant built and operated by the Federal Government. So this is a new approach, Mr. Speaker, but we think it is going to work and work very effectively. Since the passage of P.L. 106-457, the IBWC, the International Boundary and Water Commission, has completed treaty minute negotiations with Mexico and has begun the process of addressing this decades old problem. As a result, in order to ensure that the project continues to move forward expeditiously, all of us in the San Diego congressional delegation introduced H.R. 4794, which has been well described as the Tijuana River Estuary and Beach Cleanup Reauthorization Act. This legislation will make necessary technical corrections to the base law to address changing circumstances and bring the law into line with the binational treaty that was negotiated. So this is what we need to get this project moving. We want to thank all of our friends and good colleagues who have worked on this, including the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) and the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), as well as the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Costello), for their help and guidance with this very important bipartisan legislation. The bill represents a real victory for the citizens of San Diego and for the taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to strongly support its passage and, again, to the gentlemen managing the bill, I thank them very much for their support.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the question has been asked, why is this bill calling for a draft being offered on the floor when it is apparent that nobody on the Republican side wants it and the reason we are doing this is to expose the biggest hoax in show business. The hoax has been carried out through the Internet where millions of young people are being scared by some anonymous tipster who is claiming that somehow, there is a secret plan to reinstate the draft. So what are we going to do? We look over at the bill and the only bill that has been offered to reinstate the draft is offered by Democrats. It is offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), it is offered by the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), it is offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), it is offered by Democrats and not a single Republican has cosponsored it. The President of the United States says in this message from the White House, he will veto this Democrat bill to reinstitute the draft. Mr. Rumsfeld says he will oppose this bill. He says, we are meeting our recruitment goals with both the Army and the Marine Corps, we do not need a draft, and he will oppose it; every Republican will vote against it. The reason we are doing this is to expose this hoax of the year, which has been needlessly scaring millions of young people, driven by a bill that not a single Republican has signed onto. And let me tell my colleagues, not a single Republican in my estimation will sign onto it and the bill will not pass; and I invite the Democrats sponsoring this bill to carry out their position and vote for it tonight if they want to.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, when Fred Gruner returned from World War II he did what we encourage all of our young veterans to do, invested his money and planned for his family's future. Mr. Gruner chose to build equity by purchasing land in San Diego County. Unfortunately, due to an erroneous Federal Government survey that resulted in overlapping boundaries for certain lands, Mr. Gruner is now told that he does not, in fact, own the land that he paid for and on which he has been paying taxes for over 40 years. Although the Department of the Interior recognizes the mistake, they have communicated to me that they are not authorized to provide the necessary compensation for Mr. Gruner. H.R. 3954 simply allows the Secretary of the Interior to provide compensation through conveyance of lands or cash payment. The error dates back to an 1881 survey which failed to correctly locate the El Cajon northern boundary thereby creating a 1,100 foot overlap of land, essentially creating land on paper that did not exist. Nevertheless, titles were sold or passed on and taxes were assessed as if it did. Though he purchased his property in good faith in 1962, Mr. Gruner eventually learned of the overlap. When a recent survey was completed by the Department of the Interior in response to Mr. Gruner's concerns, the full scope of his problem was discovered. According to the survey, lots one and two of Section nine fell into the overlap and as a result, the 23 acres no longer belong to him. Part of the mission of the Federal Government agencies is to set standards and uphold them where the private sector is not able. This is one of those situations. The main mission of the General Land Office (the Interior agency that completed the 1881 survey) was the survey and sale of public lands. When a well-intentioned citizen that has served his country seeks to purchase a piece of land, he ought to be able to trust that the existing Federal Government survey of the land is reliable. Mr. Gruner worked his entire life to build this nest-egg. He has spent over 20 years fighting to protect it. This is his last recourse. Please join me in doing what is right. I urge my colleagues to join with me in supporting H.R. 3954. I would like to thank Chairman Pombo and Subcommittee Chairman Radanovich for their leadership on this issue and their dedication to righting this wrong.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that my name be removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 1501.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I am reminded, when the gentleman talks about the goodness of American GIs, that our country is good, and those GIs are good because they come from families where giving and helping other people is part of their character and part of their values. I myself have a chief of staff who, with another member of the staff, have formed a group called Rescue Task Force, and even shortly after we had taken Iraq, this chief of staff Wendall Cutting, who himself had cancer for a long period of time, moved into Iraq with the help of other international organizations and built medical facilities for the people of Iraq. And when we were operating in Kosovo, and Albania was an area in which we had many refugee camps, Mr. Cutting and another staff member, Gary Becks, were the first people into those refugee camps with 40,000 of what they call ``love boxes'' from the people of the United States. And those were little shoe boxes that would hold scissors, combs, some medical things. It would help people, maybe a pair of socks, things that people who had to leave their house immediately, as a lot of the people who were forced out of Kosovo had to do, would need. And along with those boxes containing immediate convenience items, they brought in ultimately millions of dollars worth of medical equipment and food to those refugee camps. And the first camp they went into, they mentioned that every child in the camp was ill because they did not have a good water supply. I am reminded that, when I talked about helping them to raise money for this organization, my chief of staff Wendall Cutting, who himself has cancer, said, that will be great, because we have about $1 million worth of supplies ready to go in to the people who suffered from the hurricanes in the southeast. And even as we talk, they are moving to take those supplies to those very needy people. So, Mr. Speaker, Americans are good, and the American people are good. And they have infused and embedded those values and that virtue in their sons and daughters who right now are serving in Iraq. And that is a message that I think is not lost on the world. Mr. Speaker, a lot of the noise that we hear in the world is something that is manufactured. It is not genuine. A lot of the criticism of the United States is not genuine. I am reminded of the time that my mother and father were in the Philippines, visiting the Philippines. And they were near the embassy in Manila, and there was a long line of people waiting to get visas at that embassy, as there are every day I might add. And they had at the same time an anti-American demonstration in the town square there next to the embassy in Manila. And the demonstrators had big, well-made signs that said: ``America out of the Philippines''; ``Uncle Sam, go home''; ``America, get lost.'' And interestingly, the organizers of the demonstration against America were going over to the visa line where Filipinos were waiting to get visas to come into the United States, and they were hiring people out of the visa line to come hold these demonstration placards that said, ``We hate America.'' So it is very clear that many of the anti-American demonstrations around the world are not genuine. The people in almost every country know the goodness of Americans. It is interesting, a friend of mine remarked today that with all of the talk about what we can do to make the Muslim world understand the goodness of America, I was reminded that the last several wars that we have fought have been on behalf of Muslim nations. That is, we freed Kuwait from the occupation of Saddam Hussein, and we saved Saudi Arabia, because Saddam Hussein's tanks were in third gear at the moment that we stopped his armored divisions dead still with the insertion of American combat troops. And we saved people in Bosnia who were being brutalized. And we have helped Muslim people around the world. The message of America is that goodness prevails, and our people are good. Our GIs are great ambassadors of that goodwill, and all of the projects that the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Utah talked about that are being undertaken in Iraq are real projects. They really help people. Those inoculations really do save babies, and it is something that we can be very proud of. I would like to yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. McCotter.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would just tell the gentleman that he is a very articulate member of the Committee on International Relations. We would not think of not recognizing him.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his very eloquent remarks. Mr. Speaker, before I wrap up here, I would like to go over the rotation of U.S. forces in Iraq because, once again, the presidential candidate Senator Kerry has alleged that there is some secret plan to bring up a lot more people after the November elections, and I have a letter from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers, that says that there is no secret plan. He states that there has been no deferences of any notices of the rotations in Iraq as a function of pressure from anybody. Once more, let me go over the units that have moved in on the last rotation and the units that will move in on the next rotation. We had the First Airborne Division or the 101st Airborne Division in Northern Iraq, that has been replaced now by the First Striker Brigade up in the Mosul area. We had the Fourth Infantry Division in eastern Iraq centered in the Tikrit area. And that Fourth Infantry Division has been replaced by the First Infantry Division. We had the 82nd Airborne in the western area of operations that goes all the way to the Syrian border. That has been replaced by the First Marine Expeditionary Force, made up primarily of the First Marine Division. We had the First Armored Division in Baghdad. Part of its elements have been replaced by the First Cavalry Division. And we are going to be going to a new rotation that was briefed to us in July with plenty of time, plenty of advance notice and plenty of publicity to the world. I do not know if Senator Kerry saw it, but it certainly was not secret. It was on national television, and that rotation is manifested in the second chart. That shows the Striker Brigade that is in northern Iraq presently being replaced by another Striker brigade. It shows the First Infantry Division in the eastern sector being replaced by the 42nd Infantry Division. It shows the First Cav and the First Armored Division being replaced by the Third Infantry Division, and the Tenth Mountain Brigade, and it shows the First Armored Division moving out and the First Cavalry Division moving out. So that is the rotation with respect to Reserves. The ratio of Reserves to active forces will remain in the 35 to 40 percent range, and there are 5,600 members of the individual ready reserve. That number has already been laid out by the Pentagon and those people are in particular specialties, 800 of them have been called up. More will be called up as time goes on. And in November or December there will be another blue print because there is a blueprint laid down every 180 days, and it will maintain approximately the same number of people, 135,000 to 140,000 personnel in Iraq. And it will maintain approximately the same Reserve to active duty proportion. So that is the game plan that has been laid out in front of the entire Nation by DOD. There has not been any attempt to hide it, to delay it, to wait for the election before they laid it out. And in another 4 or 5 months they will lay out the next 180-day plan, and 180 days from then they will lay out the next plan. That is the means of notifying the country so that units and individual families and personnel in the armed services can have plenty of notice.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman and I appreciate the fact that he represents that great home of the Infantry. I would like to yield at this time to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), also a very articulate member of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk about the rotation of troops in Iraq that has occurred over the last year or so and the rotation that is being scheduled for the next year. There has been a statement by the Kerry campaign, by Senator Kerry, to the effect that there is a secret plan to call up a lot more troops and to do some wild thing after the election. That is not the case, Mr. Speaker. And, in fact, we held a hearing in July in which the Department of Defense walked through their plan for the next phase or the next rotation of troops into Iraq. And let me for the record just go over what has taken place. The first half of this chart showing Iraq shows the present configuration of major ground forces in Iraq; and what we had before this, of course, was the 101st Airborne up north in the northern area. We had the 4th Infantry Division in the Tikrit area. That is over here. We had the 1st Armored Division in the heart of Baghdad, and we had out to the western area, all the way to the Syrian border, the 82nd Airborne Division. That rotation took place in which those forces were replaced by the forces that are there right now. And as a result of that, we have got a striker brigade up north that took the place of the 101st Airborne. We have got the 1st Marine Division, in fact, the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force consisting mainly of the 1st Marine Division and supporting elements in this western area of operation. That is this big AO that goes all the way to the Syrian border. Elements of the 1st Armored Division remain in Iraq, did not move out, while some of them did move back to Germany. And to supplement that force, the 1st Cavalry Division moved into the Baghdad area. And, of course, we have the 1st Infantry Division that took over for the 4th Infantry Division in the Tikrit area. That is the present state of forces. And the complement of Reserve forces that mainly supports these active major units is roughly 40 percent of the total force of the 138,000-or-so Americans who serve in Iraq right now. We will have what we call OIF-3. That is the next phase of deployments to Iraq, and that was briefed by the Department of Defense. It was not a secret, for Senator Kerry's edification. In fact, they came in and had a hearing with the Committee on Armed Services, with our committee, and laid out their blueprint; and we had nationally televised hearings on this rotation. And this rotation reflected this: that we will be going in the western area of operation, that is this area that goes west of Baghdad to the Syrian border. The 1st Marine Expeditionary Force will be replaced by another Marine Expeditionary Force. To the north we will have another striker brigade. That is the Mosul area. The 1st Infantry Division will be replaced in the Tikrit area up north of Baghdad by the 42nd Infantry Division. The 3rd Infantry Division will move into the Baghdad area, and portions of the 10th Mountain Division will move into the Baghdad area also, displacing the 1st Cav, which is presently in the Baghdad area, and the 1st Armored Division. After Senator Kerry made those remarks, I contacted the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Myers, and he sent a letter, which I am going to place in the Record, Mr. Speaker, saying this: ``With regard to the recent comments concerning our Reserve and National Guard alert notification process, I can assure you there has never been any guidance to defer notification until after the Presidential election.'' The clear message in Senator Kerry's remarks was that somehow there was a secret plan to have a big rotation of troops that would be announced shortly after the election. Well, every 180 days there is an announcement of the next rotation of troops, and the reason we do that is so that the troops will have notification and will be able to tell their loved ones and get their affairs in order so that they can, in fact, embark on that particular rotation. So in the spring, the Department of Defense came and told us about this next rotation that is called OIF-3 that will take place starting this fall and moving through the spring. Then in November or December, they will come in, and they will give notification just like they did in April and May about the next rotation of forces that will displace OIF-3 and rotate into Iraq on a regularly scheduled basis. The Reserve component of this 135,000 to 138,000 troops that is presently in Iraq will continue to be between 35 and 40 percent of the total force. So it will remain constant. There is not going to be any huge spike in the proportion or number of troops from the Reserves that make this particular force mix. Let me read the last statement by General Myers when he talked about this. This is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after having said ``I can assure you there has never been any guidance,'' never been any guidance, ``to defer notification until after the Presidential election''; so every 6 months they make an announcement, and they lay down a blueprint like the blueprint that is front of us here. He says, ``Alert notification is an established and consistent process based on meeting the needs of the combatant commander while ensuring, to the maximum extent possible, earliest notification of those units affected. As in the past, our goal is to alert as early as possible and mobilize in order to conduct necessary training before deployment. ``Our target for Reserve combat units is 6 months prior to their deployment given the time required to achieve proficiency at the company, battalion, and brigade levels of competence. Our target for our Reserve logistics units is less, currently at 4 months prior to deployment, since their tasks are typically smaller and less complex than their combat counterparts. ``The notification date is a balance between early notification and ensuring units are notified in as complete a package as possible and not so early that changes in the operational situation may alter the combatant commander's needs and ultimately the composition of the deploying force. In the case of the current rotation, we announced our plan in the spring of 2004, testified before your committee in July, 2004, and deployed the first unit in the fall of 2004. For the next rotation, we will announce our plan in November, 2004, with the first unit deploying in May, 2005.'' He goes on: ``As of September 15, 2004, 800 individual ready Reserve members have been activated. The intent is to fill 5,600 slots by December, 2004, with the potential to go higher if required. The skill sets that are in the highest demand are transportation, logisticians, mechanics, military police, and engineers.'' And that figure is consistent with what DOD told us several months ago, referring to the 5,600 people. So, Mr. Speaker, this is a blueprint of the deployment that has taken place and a blueprint of the deployment that is to come; and every 6 months, without regard to politics, without regard to elections, and simply with regard to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States and their families, the Department of Defense will continue to give advance notice on about a 180-day basis. So, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to lay that out. A letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff follows: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC, September 20, 2004. Hon. Duncan Hunter, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: With regard to the recent comments concerning our Reserve and National Guard alert notification process, I can assure you there has never been any guidance to defer notification until after the Presidential election. Alert notification is an established and consistent process based on meeting the needs of the Combatant Commander while ensuring, to the maximum extent possible, earliest notification of those units affected. As in the past, our goal is to alert as early as possible and mobilize in order to conduct necessary training before deployment. Our target for reserve combat units is six months prior to their deployment, given the time required to achieve proficiency at the company, battalion and brigade levels of competence. Our target for our reserve logistics units is less, currently at four months prior to deployment, since their tasks are typically smaller and less complex than their combat counterparts. The notification date is a balance between early notification and ensuring units are notified in as complete a package as possible, and not so early that changes in the operational situation may alter the Combatant Commander's needs and ultimately the composition of the deploying force. In the case of the current rotation, we announced our plan in the spring of 2004, testified before your committee in July 2004, and deployed the first unit in the fall of 2004. For the next rotation, we will announce our plan in November 2004, with the first unit deploying in May 2005. As of September 25, 2004, 800 Individual Ready Reserve members have been activated. The intent is to fill 5,600 slots by December 2004, with a potential to go higher, if required. The skill sets that are in the highest demand are transportation, logisticians, mechanics, military police and engineers. To reiterate, and consistent with our notification process, we will notify the next package of combat troops in support of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM and OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM in late November 2004 to meet a May 2005 deployment date or the lead unit of the rotation. Sincerely, Richard B. Myers, Chairman. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) and allow him to make a few remarks on the subject of Iraq.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would like to just follow my colleague's comments for a second and then yield to the fine gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), also a member of the committee. I am reminded that the gentleman has a military base in his area that is close to his hometown, Fort Benning, Georgia, the home of the United States Infantry. Just thinking about Fort Benning, I am reminded of the great troops who are produced by Fort Benning over the many, many years, of people who fought in very difficult wars and who acquitted themselves in such an admirable fashion. I am reminded of the attempts in recent years, especially in Vietnam, by members of the media and some Members of Congress, including Senator Kerry, to demean those people. I remember Senator Kerry's statements when he came back in April of 1971 and appeared before a Senate committee and stated that America ``had murdered 200,000 Vietnamese.'' He said at one point that 60 to 80 percent of our GI's were stoned 24 hours a day. He made outrageous statements. It was that type of stereotyping and characterization that led to a mindset among some in this country that Vietnam veterans, that the GIs, the great products of the Infantry School at Fort Benning and many other GIs, were somehow misfits. I can remember when we had a mass murder that happened at a McDonald's restaurant in San Diego during the '70's and one of the anchor persons asking, was it a Vietnam veteran that did it, as if ``Vietnam veteran'' and ``misfit'' went hand-in-hand. That image was, to some degree, perpetrated by Senator Kerry and those like him who came back telling these outrageous lies about the people who carried the flag for the United States. He did not just speak against the war, which was fine; he demeaned his fellow troops. I am reminded of another movie that was made about those great infantrymen who came from Fort Benning, and that is the movie that chronicled Hal Moore, who was a major who took on a huge number of North Vietnamese forces in the battle for LZ X-Ray early the war when he commanded the First Cavalry unit, the unit of the same First Cav in Iraq today. This movie for the first time, in which Mel Gibson starred and I think did a great job, characterized the true spirit of the American fighting man. It was the first movie that had been done for 20 years that was not shot through the eyes of a drug-crazed hippie in Hollywood, but was in fact directed and produced through the eyes of an infantryman, in this case Hal Moore. I thought one of the most moving parts of that movie was not only the fact that here was an Infantry leader that prayed with his troops, which Hal Moore did, but it also reflected the greatness of these military wives who were waiting back at Fort Benning as the battle for LZ X-Ray took place and casualty counts were coming in. They dreaded that knock on the door by a Western Union telegram man saying that your husband was KIA in this battle for LZ X-Ray, which was an intense battle with a lot of casualties on the U.S. side and enormous casualties on the side of the North Vietnamese. The wife of Hal Moore, having the telegram man come to her door and she thought this is it, Hal has been shot, he came in and said he was actually looking for another address up the street and she realized her good friend was going to get the bad news in a few minutes. She said, ``Wait a minute, I will deliver that telegram,'' and Hal Moore's wife then went door-to-door delivering these telegrams and consoling the women whose husbands had been lost. That movie, for the first time in 20 years, overcame the image, the wrongful image, that people like Senator Kerry had produced, that was largely consumed by the American public. When he appeared before that Senate committee and said that American GIs were cutting off limbs and raping and robbing, I think he used the term in a manner like Genghis Khan, he said Genghis Kahn instead of Genghis Khan, that put together an image, a false image, that was not shaken for almost 20 years in this country. So I just want to thank the gentleman for representing that great piece of America that is truly the home of the Infantry.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to recognize and honor the service and career of Captain Dale A. Lumme as he retires after 24 years of distinguished service in support of our Nation. Throughout his career, Captain Lumme has epitomized the Navy's core values of honor, courage and commitment, and has displayed exceptional leadership, providing a lasting contribution to the future capability and readiness of the U.S. Navy. A 1980 graduate of the United States Naval Academy, Captain Lumme first served as an intern in the office of the Chief of Naval Operations. Following this internship, he departed for Pensacola, Florida, where he was selected for flight training. In less than 2 years he pinned on the coveted Navy Wings of Gold and embarked on a career as a Navy Helicopter Pilot. In the following 4 years, Captain Lumme was stationed in San Diego, California with the Sea Snakes of Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron Light 33, where he made deployments on the USS Leftwich, the USS Robert E. Peary and the USS David R. Ray. Following these deployments, in 1986, Captain Lumme was chosen as the Flag Lieutenant to Admiral Paul Miller, the Commander of U.S. Seventh Fleet, Yokosuka, Japan. An internship with the Joint Chiefs of Staff followed, and he completed his shore duty with a position in the Office of Legislative Affairs. By December of 1989, the aviator was ready to get back to sea, and this time with far greater responsibility. Capt. Lumme spent 3 years in San Diego, California, followed by 2 subsequent years in Atsugi, Japan deploying on a variety of Naval Ships as the helicopter detachment Officer in Charge. He divided his time between the USS Chosin, the USS O'Brien, the USS Elliot, the USS Curts, the USS Bunker Hill, the USS Mobile Bay and the USS Carl Vinson. Capt. Lumme then went back to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in June of 1994 for 3 years with the National Military Command Center. In 1997, he was chosen for squadron command, and he returned to Pensacola for a tour as Executive Officer and then Commanding Officer of Training Squadron SIX. After 3 years, he joined CINCLANTFLEET as Admiral Clark's Executive Assistant and Flag Secretary, followed by the role of Commanding Officer for CLF Shore Activities Staff. In July of 2000, he became Deputy EA for the Chief of Naval Operations. Capt. Lumme's career culminated with his assignment to the prestigious and rewarding role of the Director of the Navy Liaison Office to the House of Representatives, where his exceptional leadership and skills were invaluable to the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations and the Chief of Legislative Affairs. His steadfast leadership and superb performance have won him numerous awards, including the Legion of Merit, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, three Meritorious Service Medals, three Joint Service Commendation Medals, the Joint Service Achievement Medal, three Navy Commendation Medals and the Navy Achievement Medal. Capt. Lumme completes his distinguished and honorable career leaving an impression of his inspiring leadership, a mastery of national defense issues and all-encompassing support for the Navy's combat readiness, programs, and quality of life. I am pleased to recognize and thank Dale Lumme for his long and dedicated service to this country and join with his friends and colleagues in wishing him ``Fair Winds and Following Seas'' as he, his wife Roxanne and their two daughters, Reagan and Lauren leave the Navy after 24 years of remarkable contribution and service.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the service of Veronica Zasadni (Ronne) Froman, Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy Retired. Ronne Froman serves as Chief Executive Officer of the American Red Cross of San Diego and Imperial Counties. Froman joined the American Red Cross in 2003 and through her leadership quickly and decisively developed ``The New American Red Cross'' in San Diego by refocusing the organization on its core mission of disaster relief and emergency preparedness. Admiral Froman comes to the American Red Cross from the San Diego Unified School District, where she served as Chief of Business Operations for one-and-a-half years. As the Chief Business Officer, she was responsible for the modernization and automation of the district's finance, technology and logistics support operations and infrastructure. She is a retired Rear Admiral from the United States Navy and the former ``Navy Mayor of San Diego.'' Admiral Froman brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to the American Red Cross of San Diego and Imperial Counties, with over 31 years of service as a Naval Officer leading similar reform efforts. Her expertise is reorganizing, saving money and improving services. Froman is a no-nonsense ``efficiency expert'' and whether she's helping the military, education or human service organizations, Froman is always ready to meet any challenge head-on. Admiral Froman has received the Department of Defense Distinguished Service Medal, and the United States Navy Distinguished Service Medal, as well as various service and unit awards. In the civilian community she currently sits on the Board of Directors of 1st Pacific Bank of California, the Monarch School, and the San Diego Aircraft Carrier Museum. She was recognized by the San Diego Mediation Center with the Peacemaker of the Year Award (2004), and by San Diego Magazine as one of the ``50 People to Watch in 2004.'' In 2003, she was honored to serve as the Chair of Fleet Week and received the Girl Scouts' Cool Woman Award. Other awards include: the ``YMCA TWIN'' Award, (2002), the San Diego Soroplimists'' Woman of Accomplishment (1998), the National Association of Women Business Owners' Advocate of the Year (1998), the San Diego Press Club's Headliner Award (1998), and a San Diego Women Who Mean Business Award (1997). With 20-years senior executive experience in complex, multi- functional, multimillion dollar organizations; with extensive experience in operations, facility management, marketing and human resources; being skilled in building teams through collaborative management; being a strategic planner and proven executor of the plans; being a designer and implementor of major organizational change; always being people and customer focused; and extremely comfortable handling community relations, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Veronica Zasadni (Ronne) Froman and commend her accomplishments to my colleagues.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Bill Garrett of El Cajon, CA and his commitment and accomplishments for his community, his family and his country. He began by preparing himself with the finest education by earning a Masters Degree in Public Administration with specialty in personnel and labor relations from California State University, Fullerton. He also earned a Masters in Science in Urban Planning from the University of Arizona and a Bachelors Degree in Political Science from the University of Washington. Bill has a history of public service that began with his commitment to his country when he joined the United States Army. After his military commitment, Bill worked as an urban planning consultant in Arizona and California before becoming City Manager of the City of Corona. In 1996, Bill became the City Manager of El Cajon and brought a ``can do'' attitude to every department. For the past eight years, Bill Garrett has played an integral role in the shaping of El Cajon and the surrounding communities. His efforts with the downtown corridor, the expansion of housing rehabilitation and his role in assisting first time home buyers are well-known. His strong belief that the employees of El Cajon are its greatest resource has caused the city to excel far beyond expectations. His obedience to the dictates of his council and the elected mayor has created a team effort second to none. Bill Garrett is highly respected by his peers from around the nation but his greatest satisfaction comes from the accolade and respect from his fellow employees for the City of El Cajon. He has nurtured, trained, educated, and assisted his fellow employees through the good and tough times. He has also shared his insight and knowledge with the California City Management Foundation, the International City Management Association, the San Diego City-County Managers Association and the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials. In addition, Bill is a vital player as President of the Cuyamaca College Foundation Board, a member and past President of the El Cajon Rotary Club, Secretary of the Grossmont-Cuyamaca College District Auxiliary, founding member of El Cajon Sister Cities Committee and President of the El Cajon Historical Society. Bill Garrett has allowed his experience to lead him into great service for his community, his country and his family. His great partner in life, Judy Garrett, is a great public servant in her own right and has many accomplishments to her credit. The couple live in Fletcher Hills in El Cajon. Bill has decided to retire and to spend his time with family traveling and doing those things retired people do. He has received great praise from every sector of the community for his unselfish commitment to his profession and the people he represents. Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues join me in thanking Bill for his public service and wishing him the very best future possible.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to remind my friend that the same Republican leadership that he has criticized so heavily is the Republican leadership that passed concurrent receipt, where retirees can receive their checks and disability checks; has urged and has passed the survivor benefit program, which laid in state for years; has increased the equipment supply from an average of about $45 billion a year under the Clinton administration to an average of about $70 billion a year for new equipment for our troops in the field; and supplied the ammunition, force protection and, surveillance they have been so sorely lacking the last 15 years. I would remind my friend, this should not be a blame day; this should be a day in which we all work and move forward. I think that every vote that one takes on an issue, one can call this a fig leaf vote if one wants, but I would remind my friend that every vote that we take on an issue is an important vote. I would just tell my friend from Texas, at the end of this year when the dust clears on this process, which is obviously affected by the political season, we are going to have legislative vehicles come down the track and get across the finish line. This problem is going to be fixed. If my friend wants to ask me to take the floor with him at the end of this session and we will prove up, I will be happy to tell him now, I will give him my word, this problem is going to be fixed. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).

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

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me respond to the gentleman because I think all of us were disappointed when we saw what I think is a very unusual ruling, that this is all to be costed up front, and that was a highly unusual ruling which I think is erroneous. On the other hand, it has put us where we are. And what we have got to do is work through it, and I think we are going to work through it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.