Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment makes a number of technical corrections that were provided by the Office of Legislative Counsel. It also clarifies several technical points that were raised after the report was filed. For example, on page 290, I have added language to make it clear that the re-leasing of office space will continue to be handled by GSA. Beyond those corrections that I have described, the amendment also contains the walkback that the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) just described with respect to the Endangered Species Act on DOD bases, saying simply that the Endangered Species Act changes are limited to the Department of Defense and that, in fact, the definition of endangered species is walked back to the language that was described by DOD when it was sent to us. Mr. Chairman, I think it is eminently reasonable. I just pointed out a few minutes ago, with the four overlaps for the Pendleton Marine base, where American Marines practice dying for this country and they can only utilize at this time a very small portion of that 17-mile red beach because there are animals that need to be protected on that beach. Once you overlay the estuarine areas, the gnatcatcher areas and a number of other areas that have now been designated for lockout to the military or controlled use, you have an extremely diminished base in terms of training. So those very fine people that we have sent to the Middle East to carry out American foreign policy are seeing a diminished training area in the United States. And that is across the board, Mr. Chairman. You can go to Camp Lejeune, where they now have to employ 80 biologists just to try to move these areas around, or any of the other bases, Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and you will see that some of them are diminished up to 70, 80 percent, locked out, where the military is locked out of their own base and cannot use it for training. This is a balance, Mr. Chairman. It is a balance that passed on a bipartisan basis, in fact, in fuller measure than what we have here out of the Committee on Resources. So I think it is absolutely appropriate that this walkback, where now only the Department of Defense is going to be able to receive this treatment, is manifested. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just say this. With respect to Marine Mammal, I think the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) described it best. This is a commonsense amendment. I have not met a single environmentalist who does not agree with this. That says that if you have a seal sitting on a buoy and a Navy ship goes by, if the seal even looks up, he is, according to at least one biologist in the Department of Fish and Wildlife, potentially disturbed. If you potentially disturb a seal, you cannot undertake that particular military activity. What we are losing, Mr. Chairman, is our ability to practice our sonar capability and our new sonar equipment. That means life and death for the kids who are underneath the water in those submarines whose lives depend on being able to hear the enemy submarine before it hears them and destroys them. So I would just say to my colleague and to all my colleagues, most of this language is what we passed with a big vote last year on a bipartisan basis. It is absolutely reasonable. It has been walked back to DOD. I would just recommend, take ``yes'' for an answer. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Luna Odland, a volunteer who will be receiving the President's Award of the Alzheimer's Association for her work and tireless effort on behalf of those suffering from Alzheimer's disease. The non-profit Alzheimer's Association currently has 81 local chapters throughout the Nation. For the past 25 years as a volunteer of the San Diego Chapter of the Alzheimer's Association, Luna Odland has been leading a support group for caregivers and professionals dealing with the challenges of Alzheimer's disease. She has served as a volunteer for the Alzheimer's Association longer than anyone else in the Nation, and her group in Escondido, CA, is the Nation's longest running Alzheimer's support group. Luna began her group unofficially in August of 1978 from her home before the San Diego Chapter was incorporated. She went on to become one of the founding members of the Chapter, serving on its Board of Directors from 1980 until 1990, and chairing the Patient and Family Services Committee. Little was known about Alzheimer's disease back in the late 1970's, and Luna 's group quickly began drawing large numbers of people from as far away as Santa Barbara, CA. When her group moved to the Joslyn Senior Center in 1980, where it still meets today, the second meeting was so large it had to be relocated to the auditorium. Luna does not limit her involvement with caregivers to simply facilitating her group every month. She phones group members in between meetings to inquire how they are doing or remind them of the next meeting. She also assists them in locating resources and contacting the Association to help with whatever current issues that need attention. Luna was also instrumental in the development of the ``Morning Out Club'', which was the first early-stage daycare program in the country for Alzheimer's patients. The ``Morning Out Club'' model is still in operation today and has been replicated in many sites. Mr. Speaker, people who take the time to care for others in need are the best example of being an American. It is the dedication and selfless efforts of people like Luna Odland that make our country great and I ask that you join me in congratulating her for receiving this award, an honor which is well deserved.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. On that point, it is interesting that since the days of World War II people have asked in schools and colleges and in family settings, how could the world stand by while Adolf Hitler gassed people to death in these gas chambers in places like Dachau and Auschwitz, and literally killed millions of people in such a horrible way, gassed them to death? How could the world stand by? Well, the answer is, if you look at what happened to these Kurdish villages and you see the pictures, which we have all seen, of little Kurdish babies and their mothers lying on the ground after a heavy dose of poison gas by Chemical Ali, the gas-dispensing Minister of the Department of Defense of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, we see the answer. You know what is interesting, after those Kurdish villages were gassed and those people were killed in that despicable manner, there were no demonstrations in Berlin or London or in liberal places throughout the United States. In fact, nobody, nobody in the world did anything except one country, the United States of America. Now, we have missed some of these and one thing that I have regretted is seeing those bodies float down the Rwanda River after the massive massacres that took place in Africa where innocent people were killed in huge numbers and the United States, with all of our power, did nothing. And as a Member of Congress, I wish and I regret that I had done more, that I had taken an effort. There are massacres that take place around this world and there are evil deeds that are done to people by dictators. And sometimes those dictators are beyond the means and the reach of the United States of America. We saw that, I think by British estimate, some 20 million people were executed by the Communist Chinese and actions were not taken by this country. But in many cases we do act. This is one of those cases. So when those people asked the question about how you could stand by and watch Mr. Hitler commit the atrocities that he committed before and during World War II without taking action, the answer is that just recently thousands of people were gassed to death by an evil dictator, and no one in the world took action except the Americans and our allies. And I want to mention the British and those folks that sided with this coalition, and there were lots of them. But the real message for us is if the United States does not lead the free world, the free world will not have a leader. President Bush is manifesting that leadership right now in a very effective way. And right by his side is Donald Rumsfeld and, of course, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who has been mentioned, General Myers. And of course we have that great American, very sharp, very smart, very effective in strategy and tactics, General Tommy Franks, leading this operation in the theater. With that team and with the team of all of the folks that wear the uniform of the United States, we are going to win this contest. Once again, I want to thank this gentlewoman for bringing out not only the military operational effectiveness of this present campaign in Iraq, but also the campaign of goodwill that people in uniform are bringing to the people of that country, the good old GIs who by their values and by their demonstrations of kindness are winning a lot of folks over even as we speak.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I am looking at the picture behind the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) of the G.I. with the baby. Before this campaign is over, we will have passed out lots of vitamins; given lots of inoculations; lots of milk, probably in powdered form; and lots of food for the people of Iraq. They are going to know the friendship of the American people. That takes us back to our contribution as Members of Congress. What we can do now is get our folks in uniform the tools they need to get the job done. I looked at the supplemental appropriations bill coming up and the $62 billion for DOD, for the Armed Forces. We have to replenish that ammunition, those spare parts, all those things. I looked at that fairly carefully and looked at what the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), our chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations, has done; and what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the full committee, and all the members have done, Democrat and Republican. They have put in a good supply of what it is going to take to get the job done. Of course, along with that there is going to be lots of humanitarian aid. There is going to be, after this operation, water systems to maintain, transportation systems to maintain. We are going to have to be able to keep the wheels turning and get this country with a new birth of freedom rolling again. Of course, that will be the Americans. I am reminded, somebody said, war is terrible. I thought, yes, war is terrible. It is what gave us our independence, and it is what got rid of Nazism and fascism. War is terrible. But in the wake of war, only the Americans are generous and good and kind to the folks, even to the folks who ran the operations, the military operations against them. Once again, I am reminded of the country of Japan, which after it had engaged in a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor and killed 5,000 American service people in that surprise attack, mutilated people, executed people in World War II, killed 30 percent of our POWs while they were incarcerated, we took that country, and they expected us to be as brutal to them as they had been to us. America said, here is a Constitution. We have one requirement of you, you conquered people. They said, what is that? We said, be free, have access to our markets, sell anything you want in America. You do not have to buy anything from us; we will give you money. We will help you out when you need it, and we will provide for the next 50 years a defense umbrella to make sure that nobody engages in violence against this great nation of violence in World War II, the country of Japan. We did the same thing to Germany; and after the two Germanys came together, a united Germany. And that is the mission of this country, and people know that, too. And one of the great stories that represents, I think, is one that my mom and dad told me is when they had been ON a trip to the Philippines. They related being in Manila at the American Embassy when an anti- American demonstration was taking place and there were some organizers in this demonstration and they had some very carefully worded placards all with anti-American slogans on them. And they were paying people to march around with these slogans, ``Down with America.'' Well, my mom and dad looked at this long line of people at the embassy waiting to get their visas to come to the United States, and they noticed that the anti-American demonstration organizers would regularly go over to the line of visa seekers, pay them money. The visa seekers would ask the person in front of them in line to hold their place, and they would then go out and take their placard that said ``Down with America,'' and they would march around for half an hour or an hour or so, and they would go back, give the placard back to the organizer, receive their money in payment and go back and get in line to get a visa to go to the good old United States of America. Do people know what we are all about? Absolutely. And a little propaganda television from Saddam Hussein or any of the other people who want to paint us as evil folks cannot erase that and they cannot take that away. People are smart. And the people OF Iraq, when they do not have a gun to their head and when they know their families are safe, are going to turn in the right direction. That direction will be towards the United States of America.

Mr. HUNTER. I did not do anything special in the military, in the 173rd Airborne, but I served with some great guys; and Jimmy Yarrison was one of them. The day he came up, unbeknownst to him the 173rd Airborne, reconstituted in Italy, had jumped into Iraq. We were with another great former trooper from Vietnam, Tom Carhart, with the 101st Airborne. It was awfully good to see a great comrade of the 173rd Airborne when the Sky soldiers have gone into northern Iraq, they are stabilizing that front, they are giving some American spine to that community, the Kurdish community, and acting as a great stabilizing force in northern Iraq right now. So the Sky soldiers were famous folks in Vietnam, and they are proving their mettle in Iraq. That takes us to the point that the gentlewoman made when she went over the units that are in Iraq. When we look at the enormous firepower arrayed there, when we combine that with the great leadership they are moving under right now, and the fact that the 4th is now moving into place, it is clear to Saddam Hussein's forces, now isolated in a number of very poorly defended areas, that time is drawing short. I would ask the gentlewoman to give us a little description of her thoughts of that, of the present situation in Iraq.

Mr. HUNTER. Yes. I think I introduced him to the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Let me say that we definitely have some thoughts about countries which heretofore the United States had relied on very strongly. I am thinking of France, a country that we saved twice, actually three times in this last century, in World War I, World War II, and of course the Cold War; and also Germany. I am reminded of that Berlin airlift which was a lifeline for free Germany, that enabled them to stand up to the Soviet Union with the help of 300,000 American troops over a long period of time, and finally marry up with the captive portion of Germany, East Germany, and become a community again. That was all done because of the strength and the friendship of the United States. So, of course, I think lots of Americans have thoughts about those countries. But I would ask the gentleman if we could shift back just briefly. I was thinking about the operation taking place right now in Iraq. In fact, I had my old company commander, Jim Yarrison, a great gentleman, a wise officer, here.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield on that point, if we go back to precision munitions, it is important for the American people to understand what that means. That means that instead of having to carpet bomb a bridge to knock it down, we can hit one strut on that bridge, if you hit the right one and you know where you have to go, with one precision munition that goes in and hits that particular strut and brings that entire bridge down. Now, that not only gives you your military goal, which was to knock the bridge down with only one bomb instead of maybe hundreds of bombs, but it also means that the village nearby is not going to be damaged, it means that the car halfway up the road is not going to be damaged, although I remember Norman Schwarzkopf talking about the world's luckiest taxicab driver. When that one precision munition went into a bridge in 1991, just about a split second after the taxicab had gotten on to firm footing, that bridge went down. But those precision munitions give us a chance to be more humane and not to hurt people, and that is what we strive for in these operations, and we have done it very successfully. As the gentlewoman said, most of our munitions now are precision munitions, and that enables us to use these big platforms, whether they are the fast-movers, the F-15s, F-15Es, F-16, our stealth aircraft, 117s or even the large heavy bombers, we are able to use those platforms to bring an enormous amount of firepower into a very tight area. Madam Speaker, I saw the after-action photos that were taken after the Kosovo operation where we were trying to destroy the revetments for the Serbian Air Force. We did not want their planes to escape and come up and challenge ours. And B-2 bombers had flown all the way from Whiteman Air Base in Missouri to those targets; it hit the targets and returned home, and those craters and those revetments were as precisely placed as if somebody had walked out on the tarmac with an explosive and placed it by hand and then finally detonated it. That is the American technology that allows us to use less assets and to turn these platforms really into very precise military equipment that spare civilians and do not cause collateral damage.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for that wonderful story, and I think that really reinforces the idea that the best ambassadors we have are not folks that stay in consulates and embassies. Of course we have Marines in consulates and embassies also, but they are the folks in uniform. And the gentlewoman mentioned Kosovo and of course the Bosnia operation preceded Kosovo, but I am reminded of a story that is another true story about another Marine, and that is General Randy West, now retired, who was undertaking a recon operation in Bosnia and came with his unit, with his force, to a bridge where a massacre had taken place, and Randy noticed among all the bodies there was a blanket laying on the frozen ground. It was the dead of wintertime. There was a little lump under that blanket, and he peeled it back, and it was a little baby boy. And he wrapped the baby up and sent it back to a hospital in the rear, and a couple of months later Randy was asking the governmental officials what had happened to this little boy that his recon element had shipped back to the hospital, and the official told him that the baby was still in the hospital, that he had not been claimed because the mom was Bosnian and the dad was Serbian and that the baby was still there but without anybody to come and claim the baby. So Randy was telling me this story as we were walking up to his house in the Blue Ridge Mountains a couple of months ago, and as we got to the door, I said well, Randy, what happened to that little baby boy? And Randy opened the door, and there stood a young man, a couple of years old, and Randy said, ``I want you to meet Randy West, Jr.,'' now his son. And that kind of heart and those types of values is something that permeates the United States military. Madam Speaker, interestingly, and I would say to my colleague, the Vietnam experience was largely reflected, and I would say in an aberrational way, to the American public through the prism of some folks who probably would have to work hard to qualify for the title of drug-crazed hippies. Of course I am referring to some of the folks in Hollywood who saw Vietnam through the prism of their own experience. And generally, that experience was one of not participating in the Armed Forces and not having any idea of what went on in Vietnam. So we had these nitwit movies like Full Metal Jacket and Platoon and all of these other things where every other GI was setting fire to a hut or madly spraying the countryside with his M-16, which, of course, were totally false and erroneous images. And in reality, most of the GIs, a great, great majority of GIs who were in Vietnam were also wonderful ambassadors. They were good people. They treated the people well. That is why after we left that country, half the nation tried to swim after us. Now, they did not try to rush to the North where they could consolidate with the North Vietnamese Communists who offered them, of course, a worker's paradise, and they did not try to rush out to join up with the Hollywood directors who felt this great kinship for the folks from the North, but they tried to follow the GIs, because they knew the GIs were basically really good people. That has been the story of this country. We see it in every town, every city of any size. We see the Korean community, much of which came over to the United States after getting to know the American military community, and we see the German community, and many other communities that got to know Americans and, because of that, wanted to be in our home within the boundaries of this great country. So these folks are making relationships right now. They are meeting people. They are working with people. They are smiling, they are just being GIs. You cannot fake it. You cannot fake that sense of humor. I know when I was in Afghanistan here a few months ago with a good CODEL of folks, Pete Geren, our great former colleague from Texas was with us, and Pete pulled me off to the side as we were going down through the row of tents and he said, we have to take a picture over here. I said, what is it? He said, I have to show you a picture. And this was in the middle of a windstorm and stuff was blowing all over the place. There was not a speck of grass. One of the tents had a sign in front of it that said ``yard of the month,'' and Pete had to get a picture of that sign, ``yard of the month,'' and that little windswept front of that tent that I think had a couple of cactus in a tin can prominently displayed. So GIs still have that great sense of humor. They also have a sense of goodness about them. Madam Speaker, Tom Brokaw wrote the book about the greatest generation, and since 50 years or so have passed since we won World War II, I think he felt he could now feel close to the people who probably had a lot of values that he probably would not agree with. But I think this generation that is over in Iraq right now in that theater is every bit as great a generation as the generation of World War II, the generation of Korea, and the generation of Vietnam. I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. The USA will prevail. {time} 2015

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I think it is time to tell the American people, ``steady on.'' This operation in Iraq is proceeding according to plan. Our troops are well equipped, well trained, well led. Don Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense, is doing a great job. General Tommy Franks, who is the CINC commander and in charge of the operation, is doing a great job. This plan was well thought out, and it is being well executed. And as I looked at the map and looked at the bridges which we overran so quickly with a fast armor attack in which the defenders, the Iraqi defenders, did not have a chance to blow, I look at the oil wells that they did not have a chance to fire up, to put aflame as they did in 1991 when we came into an Iraq that was literally carpeted with fires because the Iraqi defenders had a chance to ignite their oil fields, when I look at the other key infrastructure that has not been destroyed and was not laid down in the wake of the retreating Iraqis as a barrier to the American forces, one thing comes to mind, a lightning armor strike as fast as we moved it up those narrow causeways coming up through the center of Iraq has paid off. And if we had waited, if we had held back, if we had choked those roads with more men and material and we had given them time to blow key bridges, we would have had engineers working in an exposed manner, being subjected to sniping, to potshotting; and we would have taken, in my judgment, Madam Speaker, more casualties. This operation is being conducted very effectively right now, and the Iraqi military is feeling that effectiveness. Beyond that as we are ringing now the Baghdad area and hammering the remaining Iraqi divisions with heavy air power, it is very clear that even if we had heavy units ringing Baghdad, if we had another two, three, four, five divisions, we still would not have gone in until we attrited or brought down the strength of the Iraqi divisions with air power. So the number of heavy divisions that we had in that staging area at this time would not have been relevant. So once again in reflecting on that and going through the many hearings and briefings that we have had on the facts as they emerge on a day-by-day basis, Madam Speaker, I once again am impressed with the great leadership of our Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld; the leadership of the President of the United States, George Bush; and the great operational leadership in theater of General Tommy Franks. Madam Speaker, it is clear now that there is another war being fought, and that is the war for hearts and minds; and incidentally I am proud that the gentlewoman of New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), a member of the Committee on Armed Services and a veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces, has put together this Special Order because this is kind of a time to talk about that other effort that is being undertaken, and that is what I would call the ambassadorial effort, the effort that is undertaken by all men and women who wear the uniform of the United States, and those people are proving to Iraqis who may have been subjected to lots of propaganda coming from Baghdad about how Americans were going to rough them up and be mean to them and ill treat them and they now have American GIs doing what American GIs have always done, and that is hand out candy to kids, be kinder than usual, giving away their rations and doing all those other things that young Americans are taught to do because of their moms and their dads and the communities that they are brought up in. And, Madam Speaker, I think this is a historic time. I think it is a little bit like the days right after the close of World War II when all of Japan lay prostrate before the American military machine; and Japan's military leaders, because they were brutal and because they were cruel and because they were inhumane and especially looking at the things that they did to Chinese civilians when they took Nanking and looking to the beheadings and the mutilations that they undertook against American forces and the executions, they told their people to expect the same thing from the Americans. And yet when those GIs walked down the streets of Tokyo, completely unopposed, in total power, they handed out candy bars to the kids; and we had almost no incidents, Madam Speaker, of brutality, of GIs acting out bad behavior. They were good ambassadors for this country and for our values. And they are doing the same thing right now, those grandchildren of those great GIs who persevered and won us our freedom in World War II. They are doing the same thing in Iraq because they are great people, and we are seeing now incident after incident of Americans proving that they have great values and that this thing that we call democracy over here is a good way to foster those values and maybe, when we get this country stitched back together, a good thing for the Iraqis to emulate. I yield now to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), my great colleague on the Committee on Armed Services, who has some very good evidence of those good ambassadors; and I yield to the gentlewoman.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of my friend, Leo March, who passed away last October. Leo was a successful entrepreneur, a devoted family man and a solid public servant. Born in September of 1932, Leo suffered many hardships through his youth, including being stricken with polio and having to leave school after the tenth grade in order to support his family. Despite these setbacks, Leo was determined to succeed. In 1982, Leo began his own company, Integrated Sign Associates, in La Mesa, CA. Starting in a small office, his business grew to include up to 40 employees, a satellite office in Van Nuys, CA, and a complete fabrication and installation facility of 18,000 square feet located in El Cajon, CA. Leo was very active in his community and loved San Diego. He was involved in local politics working several campaigns. Leo served on the Mayor's Sign Force Committee for the City of San Diego, was an expert witness for sign design and planning for the California Supreme Court and served as President of the California Electric Sign Association. He was a member of an advisory board to the California State Senate Select Committee on Small Business Enterprises for ten years as well as a Panel Moderator for the White House Conference on Small Business and the director of the Boys and Girls Mental Health Centers. For over a decade, Leo was the Vice Chairman of the Small Business Advisory Board in San Diego and he sat on the Selective Service System Board Member as a Presidential Appointment for seven years. Leo's efforts did not go unnoticed. Leo received a Commendation Service to Community Award from San Diego Congressman Bill Lowery. He also gained a California State Assembly Resolution touting his Community Service in 1991 and in the year 2000, he received the same award from the California State Senate. Due to his community service, the City of San Diego proclaimed December 6, 1999, as Leo March Day and the County of San Diego made May 16, 2000, Leo March Day for the entire county. Leo's family was an important part of his life as well. He married his wife, Donna Jean, on November 27, 1953, and they had two children, Ronald James and Linda Ann. He enjoyed spending time with his four grandchildren, Lisa, Lori, Chanda, and Ryan, as well as his great granddaughter Nicole. Leo enjoyed flying and owned an airplane, a Piper Dakota. He was a member of the Gillespie Pilots Association and was appointed to the Gillespie Field Development Council in January 2001. Leo also enjoyed playing golf and other recreational activities, but cherished taking part in activities involving his family most of all. Throughout his life, Leo March faced challenges with a positive attitude and a determined spirit. Leo accomplished many of the goals he set for himself and leaves behind a group of loved ones that admired his dedication to community, business and family. I ask you to join me in honoring the life of Mr. Leo March.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, based on the misleading and erroneous statement made by the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, I feel compelled to correct the record. In an effort to suggest inconsistencies in my historical support and commendation of the troops, Mr. Hoyer stated that on December 13, 1995, I voted against a resolution regarding Armed Forces deployment to Bosnia that resolved, ``That the House of Representatives unequivocally supports the men and women of the United States Armed Forces who are carrying out their mission in support of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary bravery.'' However, a simple examination of the record tells a different story. What the gentleman from Maryland failed to note, is that on December 13, 1995, the House considered two competing resolutions on the deployment of the United States Armed Forces to Bosnia--House Resolution 302 sponsored by Mr. Buyer and House Resolution 306 sponsored by Mr. Hamilton. If the Hamilton resolution had consisted of only the resolved clause, which my colleague quoted, I would have supported it. However, H. Res. 306 was compiled mostly of whereas clauses that justified the deployment of our Armed Forces to the former Yugoslavia. Had my colleague thoroughly researched this, he might have noticed that, also on December 13, 1995, I opposed this deployment by voting for Mr. Dornan's bill, H.R. 2770, which would have prohibited federal funds from being used for peacekeeping operations or any implementation force in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I, instead, voted for the Buyer resolution, which expressed dissatisfaction with the President's policy of deployment and his disregard of the action taken by the House on two separate occasions to disallow the use of United States Armed Forces for these purposes. Nonetheless, this resolution also declared that the House of Representatives, ``. . . is confident that the members of the United States Armed Forces, in whom it has the greatest pride and admiration, will perform their responsibilities with professional excellence, dedicated patriotism, and exemplary courage. . . .'' Incidentally, the Buyer resolution passed the House by a vote of 287 to 141, with one voting present. The resolution Mr. Hoyer criticized me for voting against, the Hamilton resolution, failed by a vote of 190 to 237, also with one voting present. It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Hoyer made such a misleading statement and questioned my unfailing dedication to the young men and women of our Armed Forces.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for his great work in bringing this to the floor and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) and the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) for accommodating and working this resolution and, of course, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), my partner on the Committee on Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, Iraqi officers today must consider one thing, the United States will win this conflict. Iraq may have the ability to delay that victory for a short period of time, but they cannot stop it. Secondly, after we win this war, and we will win it, all Iraqi officers will be held accountable for their actions with respect to POWs and the Geneva Conventions. So if prisoners of war are abused in any way, if bodies are displayed, if POWs are displayed or humiliated, or if you abuse women POWs in any way, as they have been abused in the past by Iraqi service personnel, you will be held accountable. That means that those Iraqi officers will be identified, the people who are in charge of that particular operation, and if you go to the far corners of the globe, you will be found by Americans. Just as we have found dozens of terrorists in very remote niches of the world, we will find you; and at that point you will be brought to justice. So the message for Iraqi military officers right now is a very clear one. If you want to protect your own future after this war is over, you had better protect POWs today.

Mr. HUNTER

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

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

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. I had hoped that this time, that this resolution which was brought forward this evening would bring us together as a House, and perhaps after having some partisan work and working on a policy, budget policy, which often divides us, we would come together and find some common ground in commending our troops and commending our President. I think anybody who must be watching this from overseas must be wondering at this point, what is in this resolution that so many Members have come out from the Democrat side to condemn? I thought it might be good to go through the resolution, because this resolution is extremely similar to the resolution that we passed in 1991 after we took our first action in Iraq. What did we do here? The whereas clauses talk about the fact that there was an Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 in which we stated it would be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime. That vote passed, Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly, Democrat and Republican. It also states that on October 16, 2002, the President signed into law House Joint Resolution 114 of the 107th Congress, the authorization, and I would say this clearly for my colleagues, many of whom probably voted against this, but nonetheless it was the authorization for the use of military force against Iraq. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that vote passed 296-133. It passed overwhelmingly. It passed more overwhelmingly than the vote that we passed in 1991. So what was so wrong with this resolution? This resolution followed the law, the steps that we took under the law, under United Nations resolution and under our own law that brought us to the culmination of this event in which it was necessary for the United States to interject force into the Iraq theater. We talked about Security Council Resolution 1441, now well known to most Members of this body that voted unanimously that Iraq will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations to disarm in accordance with all relevant United Nations resolutions. It also said that Iraq remained in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions. That was clearly stated by the reports that were adopted by the United Nations. It was in material breach, and Saddam Hussein is in material breach of his obligations. So just like the resolution in 1991, we followed the law. We followed this trail of steps, very patient steps that the United States took, including acts that were signed by a Democrat President, stating that it was our policy to bring about a free Iraq. That is what we state in this resolution that you think is so poorly worded. What else did we do? When you get down to the meat of the resolution, and we talk about what it actually says, let us go to the resolved clause. First I want to go to the resolved clause that we passed in 1991 regarding the President and the troops and their families. We said in 1991 that we acclaim the President for his decisive leadership, unerring judgment and sound decisions. We say in this resolution, Mr. Speaker, that we express our support and appreciation to the President as Commander in Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing global war on terrorism. Now, many of the faces that I see here who are condemning this resolution were thanking Mr. Rumsfeld a few hours ago for the clear judgment that is being shown by this administration in prosecuting this war. I had many Members come up to me from the Democrat side who said he was doing the right thing. They said we were lucky to have a person of that capability. We are lucky to have a team like this team that President George Bush has put together. So we commended our President because he is the Commander in Chief. We commended him in 1991. We commend him tonight. What else did we do? In 1991 we expressed our highest commendation and sincerest appreciation to the members of the United States Armed Forces and other members of the international coalition who participated in Operation Desert Storm and have demonstrated exceptional bravery, dedication and professionalism. Where is the trick language in this that you object to so much? And what did we do in this resolution? We said that we express our appreciation ``to the members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom,'' the present operation, ``who are carrying out their missions with excellence, patriotism, and bravery.'' Where is the trick language there? Where is the double meaning? Now we go to the families, and we say in this resolution ``to the families of the United States military personnel serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, who are providing support and prayers for their loved ones currently engaged in military operations in Iraq.'' We give the unequivocal support and appreciation of the Nation. That is what we do in this. What did we do in 1991? We said almost the same thing, and we conveyed our deepest sympathy and condolences to the families and friends of the United States and coalition forces who had been injured or killed during that operation. So, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is extremely similar to the resolution that we passed in 1991, I might add, with a Democrat Congress, those words that I read to you about the President exercising unerring judgment even though many of the Democratic leadership had voted against this operation in a much closer vote, incidentally, than the vote to allow force that we took this fall. So they talked about his judgment, and many of them have talked privately about his good judgment in the present operation when we are referring to the present President. The President and his team have done an excellent job. So maybe what we are really talking about is the cause. The many Members who I think did not represent a majority of the Democrat Party who came out here could have worked this resolution if they wanted it to say we do not really believe in the cause, but I do not think a majority of the Democrat Party wanted to say that because I do not think they believe it. I think they do believe in the cause. Do the Members know something else, Mr. Speaker? I think the people we are commending that we have been talking about all night believe in this cause, and maybe that is the difference between those people, those people wearing the uniform of the United States, and the people who wanted to use this forum to continue to debate this policy. The facts are this body believes in this cause. We have given permission to the President to use our most valuable asset, our most precious resource, our Armed Forces, to ensure that this just cause is carried out. And, Mr. Speaker, since we have all given our foreign policy statements here tonight, maybe we should listen to the foreign policy statement of a Marine leader just before he took his people across that line, and I want to read a statement that was issued to every member of the First Marine Division before they went into operation today. It comes from the commanding general, J.N. Mattis, and this is what he states. Even though I am sure some Members of the other side could take exception to his language, this is his position: ``For decades Saddam Hussein has tortured, imprisoned, raped, and murdered the Iraqi people, invaded neighboring countries without provocation, and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. The time has come to end his reign of terror. On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind. ``When I give you the word, together we will cross the line of departure close with those forces that choose to fight and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people nor is it with members of the Iraqi Army who choose to surrender. While we move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression. ``Chemical attack, treachery, and the use of the innocent as human shields can be expected as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted. Never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down. Use good judgment and act in the best interests of our Nation. ``You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and a strong spirit. ``For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles, who fought for life and never lost their nerve, carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world that there is `No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy' than a United States Marine.'' Ladies and gentlemen, those people that wear the uniform do not have the disagreement with this resolution that so many Members from the other side had tonight. They know this is a good cause. They believe in this cause. They share this cause. They also believe that they have a great President leading them. May God bless them. May God bless America.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Burns).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I just say to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services, that I would hope that the gentleman would discourage Members like the Member who just spoke from using this time when we are supposed to be commending our troops from demeaning other Members of this House.

Mr. HUNTER

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