Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4323) to amend title 10, United States Code, to provide rapid acquisition authority to the Secretary of Defense to respond to combat emergencies.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Washington for his leadership on this bill, also, and all the Members, Republican and Democrat, who worked on this. This is truly a bipartisan product. Mr. Speaker, I include for printing in the Congressional Record two letters: One is a letter from the Committee on Government Reform waiving jurisdiction over H.R. 4323 and the second letter is my response dated today. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC, May 23, 2004. Hon. Duncan Hunter, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 2120 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman: On May 11, 2004, we introduced H.R. 4323, a bill to provide rapid acquisition authority to the Secretary of Defense to respond to combat emergencies. The Committee on Armed Services ordered this bill reported on May 12. As you know, H.R. 4323 contains provisions within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform under Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives--specifically, the subsection entitled ``Waiver of Certain Statutes.'' Because of our desire to move this legislation expeditiously, I will waive consideration of the bill by the Committee on Government Reform. By agreeing to waive this consideration of the bill, the Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 4323. In addition, the Committee reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any House- Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any request for conferees by the Committee on H.R. 4323 or similar legislation. I request that you include this letter in the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Tom Davis, Chairman.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on April 21, 2004, the Committee on Armed Services held an open hearing on the performance of the DOD acquisition process in support of force protection for combat forces, an area which is of extreme importance to all Americans, and especially to our 138,000-plus troops serving in Iraq and the troops who are serving in Afghanistan, and obviously other places around the world where our forces are exposed to terrorist operations and the dangers thereof. Mr. Speaker, as a result of the testimony that we received in this hearing, it became very clear that under the special circumstances, a change in the acquisition process is required. When a combat commander submits an urgent requirement for equipment that directly relates to preventing combat fatalities, it should not take 6 months to process the commander's request. Because of the oversight role that Congress plays and of course the interest that any administration, the executive branch, has in the acquisition process and the many billions of dollars which flow through the military acquisition process, it is understandable that our acquisition process is rather slow moving. There are combatant requirements that are set up by the field commanders. Those are scrubbed by a number of requirements, bodies, including the joint chiefs, and the service that attends that particular area. There is a competitive bidding process which carries with it its own appeals process. And as a result of that, when we have a requirement that emanates from field conditions, from a threat that is posed by the enemy on the battlefield, it can take months and months and months before America can respond to that particular challenge. Right now we are seeing some of that, and we are seeing rapid tactical changes by our adversaries in the field in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places. Very simply, Mr. Speaker, we have to be able to react quickly. We need to be able to come up with not necessarily the 100 percent solution, but maybe the 80 percent solution while we are researching and developing and putting out contracts in this very measured pace that the present acquisition system takes. So the trust that is given to the people of the United States Congress by the soldiers and families is that we provide them with the necessary systems and equipment to accomplish their mission at any time, anywhere in the world. In keeping this trust, we must be honest in our assessment of whether we are doing everything in our power to not only give them everything that they need to accomplish their mission but we give it to them when they need it, in other words, to be able to act quickly to tactical changes by our adversaries. H.R. 4323 does that. It says that a combatant commander makes a request from the field and that request emanates from combat fatalities, that the contract award should not take more than 15 days from the time that urgent request is made from the field. This is not intended to knock out the normal acquisition process. It is intended as a quick-start bridge to the normal acquisition process that gets something in the field quickly, whether it is armor for our troops, new types of munitions, new types of surveillance, but gets something in the field quickly that will have an immediate salutary effect on the casualty rate. As I said before, we do not need to have the 100 percent solution. In many cases, the 80 percent solution would draw down that casualty rate very substantially. This is a very narrow, but important, piece of legislation. It is the right thing to do for our troops. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this March the Department of Homeland Security celebrated its first anniversary in its short existence. DHS has been a leader in the effort to secure America, prevent and deter terrorist attacks, and protect against and respond to threats against the Nation. While DHS has successfully integrated 22 government agencies into the homeland security mission, it still does not have a centralized headquarters location. The longer that DHS operates without such a centralized location, the longer it will be handicapped by the challenges of running an organization whose parts are scattered throughout the region. H.R. 4322 addresses this shortcoming by authorizing the Department of the Navy to transfer jurisdiction, custody, and control over more than 30 acres in northwest Washington, known as the Nebraska Avenue Complex, to the General Services Administration. This property will be used as the Department of Homeland Security headquarters. This bill was crafted at the request of the administration and is cosponsored by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. The House Committee on Armed Services reported the base text of this bill without objection on a voice vote. The amended version before the House today contains a number of technical changes to the bill reported by the committee, most notably the addition of ``custody and control'' to the transfer language, but the substance of the bill remains the same. In sum, it provides a home for the headquarters of DHS for the foreseeable future. In just 1 year, DHS has proven its value to homeland security. I urge my colleagues to help make DHS an even more effective organization by supporting H.R. 4322 today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have anymore speakers. I would thank my colleague, an esteemed member of the committee, for his comments; and I believe he has one more speaker on his side. If he could go ahead and recognize that speaker, then we will close out very quickly.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and also the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) for their comments. I think we do have 22 agencies coming together in this Homeland Security Department. Obviously it is a major, major challenge to put this team together. We are taking the first step, and that is getting an appropriate area in Washington, D.C. to headquarter this team. I want to commend Mr. Ridge and Asa Hutchinson and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), who is helping us on this legislation, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for everything she has done.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4322) to provide for the establishment of the headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security in the District of Columbia, to require the transfer of administrative jurisdiction over the Nebraska Avenue Naval Complex in the District of Columbia to serve as the location for the headquarters, to facilitate the acquisition by the Department of the Navy of suitable replacement facilities, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 4322, the bill under consideration.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when called to prosecute a war, Americans have always brought a number of important qualities to the war fight. Leadership, courage, teamwork and commitment are but a few examples of the inherent characteristics of American warriors that make us a feared adversary. One only has to look at the record of our forces fighting in Iraq today to understand that our society is still producing men and women who have the ``right stuff.'' I would suggest that another vital warfighting skill that is a great American strength is the ability to organize. While the present day military can cite many examples of superb achievements in organization, House Concurrent Resolution 439 reminds us of one of the great examples of military organization from World War II, the Red Ball Express, and the great Americans who made it work to defeat Nazi tyranny. The Red Ball Express was the massive effort to resupply Allied armies as they advanced through Europe after D-Day. Following the breakout from Normandy and the French hedgerow country at the end of July 1944, the First Army under General Bradley and the Third Army under General Patton began to race north and east from St. Lo, France. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that Helen Tracy, who was General Patton's secretary in World War II and was with him when he died in Germany shortly after the war, is a member of my staff and we are very proud of Helen. I hope that she is watching this order with respect to the Red Ball Express. In this first 100 percent internal combustion engine war, gasoline was the key to continued success on the battlefield. As U.S. and French troops entered Paris at the end of August 1944, the two armies were consuming 800,000 gallons of gasoline each day and had exhausted their reserve supplies. On August 21, 1944, the Army Motor Transport Service responded to the challenge with a trucking operation called the Red Ball Express. Within days, over 900 trucks were trekking the 700 miles round trip from St. Lo to Paris and the front lines to the northeast carrying the gasoline, ammunition and other supplies needed to keep the armies on the move. At a speed of 25 miles per hour and distance of 60 yards apart, the trucks moved 24 hours a day along the dedicated route marked with red balls, an old railroad symbol for priority freight. By mid-November, when the operation ended, the Red Ball Express truckers had delivered over 410,000 tons of gas, oil, lubricants, ammunition, food and other essentials using nearly 6,000 vehicles at the peak of operations. This amazing example of organization only became a reality because those 6,000 trucks were driven by men who possessed all those other qualities I mentioned earlier, leadership, courage, teamwork and commitment. Fatigue, weather and enemy ground and air attacks all took their toll, but these men were determined not to let General Patton or General Bradley down. They knew what was at stake and they were in the fight as much as any combat soldier. Three-quarters of those soldiers driving that hazardous route were African Americans serving in segregated truck companies and quartermaster units. Most of these dedicated men would have preferred to be assigned combat duties, but they were denied that opportunity. Notwithstanding having been dealt a hand not of their own choosing, they accepted the role they had been given and did it with a warrior's spirit, a spirit that we would now recognize as authentically American. The men that refused to allow the Red Ball Express to fail, and particularly those who were African American, deserve more than a footnote in our military history. The outstanding performance of the African Americans who endured the dangers and hardships of the Red Ball Express was a source of great pride and reflected credit on their race during a time when few chose to acknowledge their immense contribution to the war effort. Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for introducing this resolution. The Red Ball Express was a great moment in our country's military history. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 439) honoring the members of the Army Motor Transport Service that served during World War II and participated in the trucking operation known as the Red Ball Express for their service and contribution to the Allied advance following the D-Day invasion, as amended.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for yielding me this time, and I want to thank my great friend also for not only helping to preside over this special tribute, but for everything that he did in helping to lead the California delegation to be a source of strength for President Reagan when he put forth those monumental changes in the direction of our government. I have listened to his statements and just now to the statement of the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), and many others, in talking about this wonderful American, Ronald Reagan; and I thought I might just touch on a couple of the things he did in the way of national security. We have short memories, Mr. Speaker; and President Reagan was not always popular, especially with the media and often with our European allies. I can remember in the 1980s, when he responded to the Soviet Union's ringing Western Europe with the SS-20 missiles and he started to move those Persian missiles and ground launch cruise missiles into Europe to offset the Soviet strength of their strategic programs and their intermediate range ballistic missiles that they were moving in. And there were massive demonstrations against Ronald Reagan and against those who supported him in Europe and lots of sniping by the press in this country. And yet because of that strength and because he rebuilt national security, the Russians at one point, especially after the Reykjavik summit when he refused to give up the Strategic Defense Initiative, that is missile defense, the right of Americans to defend themselves against incoming ballistic missiles, after he did that, there was lots of hand-wringing among the elite media and lots of our European allies who said, there it goes, the last chance for peace, and lo and behold, the Russians picked up the phone and said, can we talk? Ronald Reagan at that point started to negotiate with the Soviet Union, and not just to negotiate a peace, but to negotiate the disassembly of the Soviet empire, the tear-down of the Soviet empire, which is manifest today in numerous free states where once there was one state ruled by tyranny. Mr. Speaker, I remember the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) was present as one of our senior members, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger) had not been elected yet, along with the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and Bob Lagomarsino, and John Rousselot, and Chip Pashayan, and my colleague Bill Lowery, and Bobby Fever, new Republicans who had come in in the Reagan win of 1980, and the President invited us to Blair House. The President invited us to Blair House even while President Carter was still in the White House. We were standing in the foyer, celebrated this victory of our Commander-in-Chief-to-be because he had not been sworn in yet, and the President-elect came down the stairs, and he talked to us about being up on his ranch in Santa Barbara and killing an especially big rattlesnake the day before while he was cutting brush. We had a great time talking with the President-elect. After a while he said, I am tired, I am going to go upstairs and hit the hay. He said, you guys turn off the lights when you leave. He went right upstairs; we continued to have a good time. That represented that western hospitality, that great charm that Ronald Reagan had that brought so many people, attracted so many people, even people of very different political persuasion. My son Sam was not even born in those days when we first came in. I remember the picture of the cowboy that the President drew for my other son Duncan, who is now a United States marine and deployed overseas. I think the one thing that this President sold in boatloads was inspiration. He was great at inspiration. He realized a little secret, and that is this country runs on inspiration. Whether it is the markets or the economy or people deciding whether or not they are going to join the uniformed services, inspiration is the fuel that this country runs on, and that is something that Ronald Reagan had an endless supply of. He was tough during the tough times. You have to have good endurance to be a good President, and he had great endurance. He was able to handle the difficult times, the times when he was not real popular, and outlast his critics. It has been kind of fun in the last couple of days to watch people who criticized him very severely to seem now to remember that he was not such a bad guy after all. Not only was he not such a bad guy, but he brought this country together as a family. He was, of course, the head of the family. It is a time for us to mourn this President, but also to celebrate his great life and the big piece of this life that he gave to our Nation. I will never forget when I was first running for Congress, I was practicing law on behalf of a barbershop on the waterfront in San Diego. My dad came in and said, you can be a Member of Congress. He said, Ronald Reagan is running. He is going to run on a platform of national defense and jobs, and in San Diego that is the same thing. I said, what do I need to start running? He said, we need one thing; you need a picture with Ronald Reagan, and we are going to go up and get it, and we went up and got it in L.A. That launched my foray into politics. So many of us won that year who had no chance of winning because we were riding along with a guy named Ronald Reagan. Let us take a message and a lesson from this great American and proceed ahead with optimism and with dedication to the idea that you get peace through strength. That was a trademark of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy. I think we are following it with this President. I think we need to stay the course and stay steady. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) for letting me say a few things.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has analyzed it correctly. We call this ``Fresh Start.'' It is based on the premise that the tanker fleet is the keystone to the projection of American air power. Even our tactical air, coming off of carriers in Afghanistan, for example, had to drink four or five times from tankers going to target and coming back. Of course, the long-range stuff, all of our deep-strike capability hinges on tankers. So our idea was, we take the mess, that is, all the personalities, all of the charges and countercharges, and we move that all aside; and we say, we are going to address the one thing we should be addressing, which is the requirement for our country. We are going to take the requirement, and we are going to have a ``Fresh Start'' on tankers and use a blue ribbon panel of people with good judgment, and they are going to pass judgment on the business deal.

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

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a number of amendments, some of them technical in nature, others amendments cleared with both sides. They include amendments by myself, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Johnson), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Marshall), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and by the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take this time, because I always have to follow the leadership of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) in this area, to just thank all the staff that have been working this armed services bill. The committee staff has been tirelessly working this bill, putting it together in the subcommittees, full committee and now on the floor, and I want to thank everyone who has been part of this product. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, let me just say to the gentleman, I think it would be a massive mistake for the United States to buy foreign in this very important part of our national security.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, this is about the most basic part of our military strategy. The gentleman who just spoke said if we do not use these weapons, they are a total waste, and people used to say why do we have all these nuclear weapons that could kill the Russians 100 times over? The reason we had them was so we would never have to kill a single Russian because we would have a deterrent. Whom do we have to deter? Do we deter a private in a barrack? Do we deter a housewife in her home in the land of our adversary? Do we deter children in a school or people in a hospital? The answer is no. The very best deterrent target is the people who pull the trigger, and that is the leadership of the adversarial nation, that is, the people who make the decision to attack the United States. Those are the people who like to go deep. Hitler had a bunker. Saddam Hussein had a bunker. The people in North Korea have bunkers. We have to have this type of a program to hold the leadership at risk. This is deterrence. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendments en bloc.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I support that request.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It is an unfortunate error that the amendment was not printed in the report. The Ortiz amendment was adopted by the full committee.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.