Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. If the gentleman will yield further, Mr. Speaker, this is not the meaning of the plain language of the provision. It does not state that the Secretary of the Interior shall issue regulations under subsection (3)(a) of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to exempt the Armed Forces. Instead, the Secretary of the Interior is required within the 1-year period to begin the process of exempting the Armed Forces' military readiness activities from the incidental taking prohibition of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Secretary of the Interior is not required to complete the process within 1 year.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, in 1991 when we went into Iraq, we thought, our best projection was that he was 3 to 5 years away from having a nuclear device. We found out when we got there that he was actually only 6 months to a year away from having a nuclear device. To have waited at that time, as many folks proposed, would have been disastrous. Now, the Committee on Armed Services, Democrats and Republicans, have held now three classified briefings inviting every Member of the House to participate to see and to understand the weapons of mass destruction program that is ongoing and robust and working toward completion right now in Iraq with respect to nuclear, chemical, and biological systems. My own opinion is that there are going to be nuclear devices manufactured in Iraq within 24 months. To have waited in 1991 would have been disastrous. To wait today would be disastrous. We have got one leader, one person elected by all the people, our President, who is now our Commander in Chief. It is time for us, having been informed, having understood the problem, to rally behind him and take up this burden. Let us support this resolution.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Armed Services had a couple of minutes left, but I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), a gentleman with a long and distinguished military background.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), who chairs our Subcommittee on Military Construction and has spent many hours on this issue as the chairman of the Panel on Terrorism on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), who has been a 22-year member on the Committee on Armed Services and is leaving this year. The gentleman has been a very wise contributor to this debate in the committee. (Mr. HANSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), who is the very distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the House Committee on Armed Services has spent a great deal of time working on this issue. We have had 5 major open hearings. We have had three classified briefings in which we invited every Member of the House to come in and listen to our intelligence agencies with respect to Iraq's capability and weapons of mass destruction. Most Members came. We did have over almost 200 Members appear at those particular briefings, and our Members put in a great deal of time on this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert).

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, this morning, the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition released an important report detailing the increased healthcare burden incurred by our nation's twenty-four counties that share a border with our southern neighbor, Mexico. I am privileged to represent a congressional district that includes nearly all of the California/Mexico international border. As a result, I can tell this body firsthand what the study proves--border communities suffer a significant financial burden from providing unreimburseable healthcare services to undocumented aliens. The study, titled ``Medical Emergency: Costs of Uncompensated Care in Southwest Border Counties,'' estimates that at least 25 percent of the border county hospitals uncompensated care costs, or $190 million in 2000, are incurred from providing services to undocumented aliens. In addition, emergency medical service providers lost about $13 million providing care and transportation for illegal aliens injured while crossing the border. In 1998, Imperial County alone incurred nearly $1.3 million in unreimbursed healthcare services provided to undocumented aliens. Unfortunately, Imperial County is already one of the poorest counties in the country and certainly in the State of California. As a result, this financial burden is particularly difficult for this community to sustain. While the cost of healthcare delivery is high, it is not the only cost incurred on behalf of illegal aliens. In total, Imperial County estimates that, in 1998, it spent more than $5.4 million providing services to undocumented aliens and that amount continues to increase. At the same time, San Diego County is also bearing a significant cost for unreimburseable services provided to illegal aliens. The County estimates that in 1998 they spent nearly $10.8 million for emergency medical care and over $50 million in total services provided. Clearly, this money would be better spent delivering services to needy county residents. The impacts of uncompensated emergency services does not stop at an affected hospitals' balance sheet. Healthcare costs and insurance premiums are on the rise, partially in order to cover the unreimburseable costs incurred by the healthcare institutions. Rising health insurance premiums are threatening employers' ability, particularly small businesses, to offer their employees affordable health care benefits. High liability costs and low levels of compensation are threatening the viability of emergency rooms and emergency transportation providers all along the border, and particularly in California where the healthcare system is already in crisis. Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have fought for additional border security, not only to address safety concerns, but also as a way of addressing the financial impacts of caring for the undocumented alien population. The fact is, securing our international borders is the responsibility of the federal government. So it logically follows that providing necessary medical care for individuals who penetrate our border is also a federal responsibility. To make matters worse, the federal border agencies, in order to avoid paying the costs associated with healthcare delivery to the injured alien, will report an emergency situation to local emergency personnel without officially taking control of the alien. As a result, when the ambulance picks up the undocumented alien for transport to the nearest hospital, they are also accepting total financial obligations for the immigrant. It is unacceptable for federal agencies to be passing on their responsibilities to our already financially-strapped local communities. This practice must come to an end. The study makes several important recommendations for addressing these problems, all of which appear to have merit. The primary solution, however, is clear: border communities must be compensated for the costs incurred from caring for undocumented aliens. I plan to work closely with my colleagues who represent affected counties to find a solution to this problem and I hope my colleagues throughout the Congress will join us in this effort. After all, it is a matter of fairness and accepting responsibility of our federal obligations.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I have respect for my colleague, but let me just say that the opposition which has been stated to the border fence is, at best, bizarre. When we started this fence, Mr. Chairman, there were 300 drug trucks a month full of cocaine and marijuana which were hurtling across the border in these uncontrolled areas, in this mountainous region, the region extending from Otay Mesa to the Pacific coast. We had scores of border patrolmen who were hurt and injured because they were pelted with rocks from the other side of the border and we had an average again of about 10 people a year murdered by the armed gangs, many with automatic weapons, which moved back and forth across what was known as a no-man's land. In fact, it was so bad that Joseph Wampaugh wrote the book ``Lines and Shadows'' about this no-man's land that existed on the U.S.-Mexican border. Since we have built that fence, the first 12 miles of fence, we have totally eliminated the 300 drug trucks a month that were coming across, we have knocked down the 12 murders to almost zero, and people that live on both sides of the border have expressed, and the border patrol reports are very clear, that this fence has been a center of stability, it is a modern fence, it is a double fence, it has a large overhang, it has not hurt anybody. In fact, it has prevented 10 murders a year. The idea that you do not complete the last 2 miles of that fence once again, Mr. Chairman, is, at best, a bizarre notion. I would hope that we would be rational and simply build the last 2 miles of what the border patrol has said is one of the greatest deterrents to illegal crossing and could be a deterrent to the crossing of a terrorist organization into that area just a few miles south of the biggest naval base on the west coast.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that would offer a sense of Congress stating that the border fence which lies in the 14-mile border sector between San Diego and Tijuana be completed. We have now completed some 12 miles of that 14-mile border fence. When we started that fence, that corridor was considered to be the most prolific smugglers' corridor in North America. Through that corridor came most of the cocaine that was smuggled into the country as well as most of the illegal aliens and was an area which was very dangerous, in which massive violence took place and an average of 10 people a year were murdered on the border. It is also an area that is just a couple of miles south of the west coast's biggest naval base at San Diego. It is an area of extremely difficult terrain, rugged terrain. It includes Smugglers Canyon and a number of other canyon areas feeding out into the Pacific Ocean. Since we have built the 12 miles of fence that we have built so far and it is a double fence that is very, very difficult to pass through, but since we have built the 12 miles that is completed, we have cut down the average of 10 murders a year, murders which took place by armed gangs, some of which had automatic weapons, we have cut that down to almost zero, to where we have almost no murders on the border. It is also an area of vulnerability, once again because it is an area where terrorists could move fairly quickly and upon crossing the international border be within only a couple of miles of the San Diego naval base. This resolution just very simply states that it is a sense of Congress that we should complete the fence. It has been several years since we have attempted to get that last 2 miles of fence completed, and because of environmental work which has taken a long time, that vulnerability still exists. I would ask that we pass this. It is consistent with present law that says that the entire 14 miles should be completed. In fact, there is a mandate in the law passed in, I believe, 1996, signed by the President, stating that the entire 14 miles in that smugglers' corridor should be completed. Right now only 12 miles are completed, we have 2 to go, and if we do not do that, we are going to continue to have a stretch of vulnerability there which at some point could accrue to our detriment. I would ask that we pass this. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I would like to yield to my good colleague from Pennsylvania to make another remark about this issue.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my colleague for his remarks; and, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to talk briefly about the bills that we are sending to conference here because I think there has been a little confusion because of the time deadlines and the exigency and having to move these bills, particularly this second piece of the defense bill, which is kind of unprecedented, this second $10 billion segment and adding that to the $383 billion base bill. I just want to say at this time, this has been an exercise in which we have had to move expeditiously; but the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), our chairman, and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), our ranking member, have really worked together and brought out the best in terms of our bipartisan concern and our bipartisan caring about how we shape the U.S. military. We have got some major challenges right now. We have to try to modernize, and we are way behind the modernization curve. We are probably $30 billion per year short in terms of replacing all the tanks, trucks, ships, and planes that have to be replaced so our guys are driving equipment that is halfway modern. At the same time, we have got to keep the wheels turning in this war against terror, and we have a major operation going in Afghanistan that is costing us a couple of billion dollars a month. Beyond that, we have got our air operations in the Iraq theater and in other parts of the world that are taking a lot of operational dollars. In this last piece, this $10 billion piece that we moved that is going into conference today, we have got a lot of things that we have to have for the next couple of months in this next fiscal year. We have got things like military pays, combat-related pays going to the war fighters and to their families. That is an important piece of this. We also have intelligence money because we are going to need some new intelligence assets, as this is going to be a fairly large burden now for us to carry, but we have to have it because we are now entering the phase in this war against terror where the people who wanted to come to the war, basically come to the sound of the American guns and meet us on the battlefield, are no longer with us; and the people who remain now and the al Qaeda and the other organizations that support them now have to basically be hunted down. That is very difficult. It requires a large and effective intelligence capability, and this is why we are having to build a significant amount of the budget into that area. We also have operational requirements. We have got all the spare parts, and if my colleagues were over there recently, and I had the good fortune to be there with a CODEL a week or so ago, and if my colleagues were over there watching the operators in the theater with C-17s, the C-130s, all of the carrier aircraft and the supporting aircraft, we have got a lot of steel we have to keep in the air and spare parts is critical, and a lot of this money goes to the spare parts sector in the first couple of months of the next fiscal year. So I think we have got a good package, and I hope everybody would vote to move this to conference quickly. I just wanted to finish up by saying that our folks, staff folks and our leadership, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), have really put, as well as all the members of the committee have, put a lot of hard work in trying to get these disjointed pieces that now are kind of mismatched with the Senate's pieces of the defense bill into play and into conference; and it is going to be a difficult process to make this thing work. I think we are going to be able to get it because we have got a lot of great people working it. I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) for his work and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for his, and I hope the House moves expeditiously to take us to conference.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that half the time in support of the bill, that is the time that I have of 20 minutes, that half of that be designated to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for purposes of control.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to address just one point from my friend from Ohio, and that is that the combat air patrols that are listed in the bill and in the report are listed as Operation Noble Eagle, which is combat air patrols over the United States, over American cities, which have been ongoing, and I believe there are some $500-plus-million in the bill for that. I would further say that this bill came up in two pieces, which is extremely unusual for our system. One reason it came up in two pieces was because we were undertaking continuing military operations and, because of that, the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), at whose direction I am acting today, worked with the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and we put together a bipartisan bill that did give some direction to where some of this money went. Let me just describe for the Members where some of the money went. Some of it went to what is known as combat pay enhancements. That includes increasing family separation allowance, increasing flight pay for crew members, increasing the death gratuity given to survivors, increasing career enlistment flying incentive, increasing diving pay, increasing hazardous duty pay. We also put in a number of required items that, in fact, the administration had requested that had been early on in the base bill. They include the chemical and biological antiterrorism program for homeland defense, $480 million; command and control, computers and intelligence, KC-135 tanker aircraft, linguists, military construction, war pay, and the list goes on. So we did leave some flexibility with the administration and we did give some direction. I would simply say that it was because of the hard work of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the hard work of the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and all of the members on our committee, and I think we have heard from several of our very thoughtful Members today on the Democrat side who participated very fully, such as the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), I think, and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) gave a very full evaluation of what this did. Once again, the key point that they reiterated was that this money can only go to the military programs that are allowed under the September 14 resolution, and, once again, I want to read that resolution, because this is a base resolution that these dollars are expended under. The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations or organizations or persons. So this money is expended only in a manner, and can be expended only in a manner, consistent with that resolution of September 14. I might add, it is simply the last piece of the President's defense budget. Now, on the other side, the Senate passed the full $393 billion authorized or requested by the President. So they go to conference with a full budget, so to speak, and until tonight, we only go to conference with 383; that is, the budget less the $10 billion piece. So it was important for us to act quickly. We just got the details on this plan several weeks ago, we marked it up in the Committee on Armed Services in a bipartisan way, and it was important to get this second piece in place to be able to go to conference and do an effective job. So I want to thank all of the Members that participated in the debate.

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 bill under consideration, H.R. 4547.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, on July 18, the House Committee on Armed Services reported out the bill presently before the House, H.R. 4547, on a near unanimous vote of 50 to 1. To understand what this bill does, allow me to first provide a bit of background. The President's budget request for fiscal year 2003 contained an unprecedented request for the Congress to establish a $10 billion war contingency fund that would allow the Department of Defense maximum flexibility in expanding these funds to prosecute the war on terrorism. In response, the House adopted a budget resolution in March that set aside $10 billion of the defense budget in a special reserve fund for this purpose. The operative language of the budget resolution establishing the procedure by which the House would be able to consider authorizing or appropriating the $10 billion fund requires that only legislation that provides new budget authority for operations of the Department of Defense to prosecute the war on terrorism will qualify to use this fund. On July 3, the President submitted to Congress a request to amend his budget to provide a bit more detail on how DOD proposes to expend these funds but would still essentially remain one large $10 billion contingency fund. When the committee and the House acted on the defense authorization bill earlier this year, we recognized that this approach would require that we split the defense authorization bill into two pieces. One would involve the requested defense program minus the $10 billion, and the other would be the $10 billion which would follow at some later point. In passing the base defense bill, we also took preliminary action on the $10 billion bill by authorizing about $3.5 billion worth of programs that we judged to be more appropriately considered as part of the so-called ``cost of war'' fund. Since then, the Senate has passed its version of the defense authorization bill and chose to include the $10 billion, unlike the House. So at this point, we are disconnected with the Senate over the $10 billion as we prepare to go to conference. All this background brings us to today. The objectives of this bill are twofold: First, to preserve the prerogative of the Congress and the authorizing process by considering and issuing our recommendation on this remaining piece of the defense budget; and, second, to move this bill through the process so that we can go to conference with the Senate with both sides having acted on the totality of the defense budget for fiscal year 2003. H.R. 4547, as amended by the Committee on Armed Services, represents a compromise of sorts. It authorizes specific activities where we have received specific detail on how the Pentagon intends to execute war- related activities and it grants the administration flexibility for these accounts that traditionally are nearly impossible to define in such a situation. This bill accomplishes a number of objectives: First, it preserves the action already taken by the committee by fulfilling our commitment to authorize the $3.5 billion worth of war-related items we deferred earlier in May. Second, it would keep intact all major elements of the budget request and authorize those amounts for which the administration has identified a specific purpose. Third, it provides the Department of Defense significant flexibility by creating two transfer accounts that the Secretary can use to move money around and to meet the needs of the war as they emerge. Finally, it fully and specifically complies with the terms of the budget resolution by ensuring that all activities funded by this bill are directly for the prosecution of the war on terrorism. I would repeat that to my colleagues, that all the dollars that are expended in this bill must be compliant with the resolution that this House passed on September 14, 2001. Mr. Speaker, we are moving this bill through the House tonight on an expedited schedule for a good reason. The President has asked the Congress to send him first those bills that he needs to ensure that we continue to prevail in our war against terrorism. The House has done everything possible to comply with this important request, and tonight's expedited consideration of this war funding bill is a continuation of this commitment to properly support our men and women who are on the front lines of this challenge. In closing, I thank committee members on both sides of the aisle who worked so cooperatively to move this process forward with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member. Mr. Speaker, this bill was developed on a bipartisan basis with the mutual objective of striking a balance between congressional prerogatives and the need to provide the department with some flexibility in financing this unprecedented global war on terrorism. The bill represents a very reasonable approach that accomplishes all these goals. I urge Members to give it their very strong support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4547) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for military activities of the Department of Defense and to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2003.

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

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on an issue that is very important to our nation's veterans. If you were to ask Americans if they knew that their veterans were being denied benefits to which they earned in an effort to save money, there would be outrage. Well Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say that that is exactly what has been occurring for many years. Today, veterans who served our country and retire after 20 years but endure a service-connected disability, have their disability benefits offset dollar-for-dollar by a reduction in their retirement pay. This unfair practice is a disgrace for those who selflessly served our country and sacrificed so much on our behalf. These offset dollars are taken away from veterans seeking to make a better life, send children through college or have an opportunity to spend time with grandchildren. Well Mr. Speaker, there is good news. After many years of trying to correct this problem, I am very proud that my committee, the House Armed Services Committee, included a provision granting concurrent receipt for our most severely disabled retirees in H.R. 4546, the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. This provision provides $5.8 billion to phase in, over a five-year period, an elimination of the concurrent receipt offset for disabled retirees with a disability rating of 60 percent or greater. Though the offset is not eliminated completely for all disabled veterans, it is a first step. This measure passed the House on May 9, 2002, by a vote of 359- 58. Mr. Speaker, there is still more work to be done. It is my understanding that, like the House, the Senate has included a concurrent receipt provision in their authorization bill and I plan on working actively with them on this issue when this bill is brought to conference. Our veterans earn their retired pay by committing themselves to the defense of our country and I believe there is no better way to honor America than to give our nation's veterans all the benefits to which they are entitled.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing this vote today on H.R. 3937. I would also like to express my appreciation to my constituent, Mr. Frank Dokter, who brought this important issue to my attention, and to Chairman Gilchrest whose leadership was necessary in bringing this bill to the floor. The legislation is necessary to enable a family in my district to continue operating a long time outdoor recreation camp on a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) permit, which is in danger of being cancelled since the BLM recently discovered that the camp was included in the creation of a National Refuge in 1964. Mr. Dokter and his family operate Walter's Camp, a BLM concession on land near the lower Colorado River in Imperial County, California. The facility provides visitors with a family-friendly outdoors experience, which includes camping, hiking, canoeing, fishing, birdwatching and rock-hounding. In an increasingly crowded Southern California, Mr. Dokter and his family have provided a welcome diversion from city life to many of the region's outdoors enthusiasts. Walter's Camp was first authorized in 1962, and in August 1964, Public Land Order 3442 withdrew 16,627 acres along the Colorado River to create the Refuge. The withdrawal erroneously included the 140 acre Walter's Camp, but neither the BLM or the Fish and Wildlife Service knew the new Refuge contained the Camp. Refuge personnel even built a fence years ago physically excluding Walter's Camp from the Refuge. The BLM continued to renew the original permit, allowing the recreational concession use to continue unbroken until the present time. However, given this recent discovery, the BLM does not have the authority to continue issuing the concession contracts to Walter's Camp. The Fish and Wildlife Service and the BLM agree that the land has ``insignificant, if any, existing, potential, wildlife habitat value,'' as stated in a Department of Interior memo. Therefore, I have introduced H.R. 3937 to correct this mistake and allow the BLM to continue to issue contracts to Walter's Camp. Again, Mr. Speaker, I offer my sincere recommendation that this land be taken out of the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge, and that Mr. Dokter's family be allowed to continue such a valuable and productive service to our region. Respectfully, I urge my colleagues' support on final passage.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I arrived late. I just wanted to pay my respects to Ron Packard and the action that we are taking today on his behalf. I just wanted to say that Ron really had two great trademarks in the House: his great civility, his ability to get along with other Members, and to argue on the substance but never on a personal level and I think bring us together in many difficult times and also had great conservative values which very much reflected the values of his district and of San Diego County. I think that this naming of the post office is a fitting tribute to Ron and a fitting tribute to those values which have served us so well. So my best to Ron Packard, and I want to thank the chairman for allowing me to come down and talk about him a little bit.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, I heard the gentleman's discussion on the floor about the code talkers and their value to the U.S. military efforts, and I just wanted to add my voice in support for the gentleman's bill. We knew one of the great code talkers, Carl Gorman, who was a Navajo who fought in major campaigns in the South Pacific. Later while he was recovering from wounds in the war, he became an artist. Part of the rehab was to learn art at the rehab center in Los Angeles, and he became one of the Native American leaders in art, and his son, R.C. Gorman, is now one of the leading artists in the world. Carl was a wonderful guy. He told many great stories, which I know is now reflected in a film that is now playing across America. I think it is long overdue that all of the code talkers, Navajos and the gentleman's constituents, be given the recognition that they are due. I am happy to offer my full support for the gentleman's efforts.