Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. You know, as freshmen, we can honestly say that we're not responsible for what's going on right now, but we are trying to fix it. We came into this Congress in January with President Obama; and, frankly, I believe what he said when he was campaigning. When he talked about making tough choices, when he talked about not spending so much, when he talked about tax cuts for the middle class, when he talked about our foreign debt and the money that we owe China and money that we owe the rest of the world, I believed him, along with majority of the American people. But it turns out that those tax cuts and that spending reduction and that reduction in debt and that reduction in borrowing were simply campaign talking points because they don't exist in the administration's budget as it exists now. I would like to know where those tough choices are. Where are those cuts? Where is Bob's tax cut? First, how are we going to pay for all of this spending? For that chart that shows that debt, how are we going to pay for it? As my colleague from Ohio mentioned, we're going to raise taxes on people who use electricity. I have news for the administration; this is everybody. Everybody uses electricity. We're going to put a $640 billion tax on Americans who use electricity. For every small business that uses electricity, that has carbon emissions, this cap-and-trade tax is going to kill American business. We're going to raise taxes on small businesses. We're going to raise taxes on the middle class. Bob's tax cut isn't there. You know, we talk about energy right now. I would encourage my colleagues to be extremely skeptical over any talking points that talk about energy in this country and becoming self-sufficient on energy when it doesn't mention nuclear. If you don't mention nuclear, then it is not a real alternative to using oil that we get from foreign countries, especially when we are going to tax the American people for using electricity. It's hard to trust the administration when they talk about fixing the economy, but they want to tax small businesses and the middle class, and we maintain record trade deficits with countries around the world. We're not talking about trade right now. No one is talking about fixing our trade relations with China so that American companies and American manufacturing firms are punished right now for making American goods and trying to ship them overseas. They're being punished, but we're not talking about helping them out. We're going to tax them more. When we talk about national security, the administration wants us to think that they're going to be good on national security while at the same time cutting defense. Where are these hard choices? Right now, every man, woman, and child in this country owes $35,000 in debt that you show on that chart. With the President's plan, that's going to increase to $70,000 in 8 years. Every man, woman, and child is going to owe $70,000. I have three children, too. Each one of them is going to owe $70,000 in 8 years if the administration budget goes through. I would like to say to my colleagues and to the President; we don't need anymore stimulus. We don't need any more TARP, no energy tax, no small business tax raise, no tax raise on the middle class. The President is spending, taxing, and borrowing into oblivion. It is time that he put the checkbook down.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from Utah. Thank you for your leadership and for your courage in telling the American people and in telling the Members of Congress what is really going on and what the money is being spent on that the President is asking for and that the Democrats are asking for. Thank you for your kind words as well. I have been to Iraq twice as a United States marine, and I have been to Afghanistan once. We are probably at the biggest tipping point that we have ever seen since World War II when it comes to national defense and to national security. We have more violence along our border region than we have ever had in this country. Right now, with those two, large, pressing issues, we are spending a pittance on those two issues--the national security issues that involve the border and that involve Iraq and Afghanistan and China and North Korea and Russia-- compared to what we are spending in giving money to the failed companies run into the ground by their executives who have been ruled by greed. I would like to go over some of those shortfalls in the President's defense budget coming up. First off, in fiscal year 2010, the President's budget is $30 billion less than what the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked for. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are the ones who are the experts on the military and on what the American military needs to sustain itself and to fight future threats and future enemies. We are $30 billion short. They asked for $584 billion for fiscal year 2010. The President is only going to give them $533 billion. This is a 10 percent decrease over what the joint chiefs asked for over 10 years. That is a $1.3 trillion deficit for the U.S. military at a time when we are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and when we are prosecuting terrorists around the world for our security here at home. We have veterans returning home, and we have people coming home who have given that ultimate sacrifice, those who have paid that ultimate price, who have given that final measure of devotion. We are going to cut spending for them. We are going to cut their benefits here at home. We are going to cut the money that goes towards their armor and their bullets and their food and their medicine. We are going to cut that right now. In this time of gluttonous spending, we are going to choose to cut spending for our U.S. military. Our Navy fleet has declined from 568 ships in the late 1980s to 276 ships now. We need over 300. The average age of the airplanes in the Air Force has risen from 9 years in 1973 to 24 years old. I mean the average age of each of the Air Force's airplanes is over 27 years old. They used to have 37 fighter wing equivalents in the '80s. Now they have only 20. This past year alone, ship maintenance funding is $417 million short. That is not what I would call putting America's security first. That is putting America's security last. When I hear the President talking about national security or when I hear the Democrats giving a moment of silence in this room for our military, it seems insincere to me that they would do that on one hand and tell the American people that they are helping out and that they are doing everything that they can do for national security's sake while, at the same time, they are going to cut defense spending. JFK spent more on defense than we are spending now. Ronald Reagan spent more on defense than we are spending now. While in the middle of two wars, we need to increase, if anything, defense spending and keep it at 4 percent of our GDP to keep America safe. We have more threats now than we have ever had. I would like to yield back to the gentleman from Utah.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding, and you're absolutely right. Whoever thinks that we can spur this economy back into action by taking money out of the American people's pockets is delusional. Whoever thinks that we can bring this economy, the greatest economy in the world still, put it back on its feet by taxing people for using electricity is delusional. Whoever thinks that by increasing the per capita debt for each man, woman, and child in this country from $35,000 to $70,000 in 8 years, that that's going to help the country out, they're delusional. I'd like to read a letter here from a small business owner in my district in eastern San Diego: ``President Obama has unleashed his massive grassroots army in an attempt to sway Members of Congress to support his bloated $3.55 trillion budget.'' I think it's actually higher now. It was 3.55 when this letter was written. ``I urge you to resist such attempts, and oppose his irresponsible budget plan that would usher in massive tax hikes, including the imposition of a global warming carbon tax, a doubling of the publicly held national debt, and a permanent expansion of the Federal Government. ``There is no measure of fiscal responsibility and accountability with this budget. Instead we are merely breaking the backs of hardworking taxpayers and passing the buck on to our children. ``Any budget that doesn't have the best interests of the American people at heart must be opposed.'' And that's the key to this budget. It does not have the best interests of the American people at heart. What it has at heart is the biggest government Federal grab of power that this country has ever seen. From our founding--the gentleman from Utah is absolutely right-- it's been about rugged individualism and individual responsibility, people taking responsibility for their actions. Right now, we're punishing those people that take responsibility for their actions, punishing those people that pay their mortgages, punishing those people that actually can get out there and start businesses and hire people. And we're doing it so we can help out those who maybe don't want to help themselves, who look to us here in this Congress as their savior. When this stimulus bill was passed, one of our Democrat colleagues from Florida actually said that this stimulus bill will heal the sick, feed the hungry, and house the homeless. The stimulus bill was not the Messiah. I have news for him: it was not the Messiah. It will not do any of those things. What it will make happen is make the American people more dependent on a failing Federal bureaucracy that's growing at an unprecedented rate. I thank the gentleman from Utah and the gentleman from Ohio for their leadership in this and for pointing out to our colleagues in Congress and to the American people the evils that are about to befall us in this country if we have unrestrained spending, unrestrained taxing, and unrestrained borrowing, which is exactly what the President's budget gives us.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, recently released documents from AIG accounts for some of the more than $180 billion in aid that AIG has received. And it's revealed that over $58 billion of that $180 billion has gone to foreign banks around the world. And $58 billion have gone to French banks, German banks. French and German banks, respectively, pulled in $19 billion and $17 billion of American taxpayer money. I understand the outrage over bonuses, $166 million in bonuses, but that's a pittance compared to the $58 billion that have gone to overseas banks. Societe Generale, based in France, was the top foreign recipient, at $11.9 billion. Deutsche Bank of Germany received $11.8 billion of taxpayer money. Barclays, based in England, got $8.5 billion. BNB Parabas, based in France, got $5 billion. The House Oversight Committee also discovered a list of questionable foreign investments conducted by the largest recipients of TARP funds. Citigroup, JP Morgan and Bank of America each received $25 billion in TARP funds on October 26th of last year. Citigroup then loaned Dubai $8 billion of American taxpayer money. JP Morgan invested $1 billion of American taxpayer money in India. And Bank of America gave communist China $7 billion of the American people's money. Now, the American people have the right to be outraged at the fact that they are being taxed so that a government-owned, failed company like AIG can give bonuses to the very same executives who brought about the ruin of their company. Mr. Speaker, $166 million in bonuses is a lot of money. But it's a pittance, again, compared to that $58 billion that AIG used to bail out the rest of the world. So while hundreds of thousands of Americans get laid off each month, and even people with good credit can't get homes, can't get home loans, can't get car loans, our tax dollars are hard at work making sure foreign countries get helped first. Instead of giving billions of dollars worth of tax breaks and incentives to American companies who manufacture American products and hire American workers, our government has sided with foreign countries instead of being on the side of the American worker. To compound the problem, the United States has record trade deficits with the rest of the world. So while our government punishes American companies who actually make things with high taxes, burdensome regulations, petty environmental restrictions and unfair trade laws, foreign countries are getting American tax dollars to invest in their business infrastructure so they can take away more American jobs during an American recession. We allowed Bank of America to give $7 billion in taxpayer money to China, $7 billion in Americans' money to communist China, so they can build up their military and steal American jobs. That's criminal. The AIG bonus scandal is a big deal. The Treasury losing track of where the bailout money is going is appalling. But it's too late to just ask where the money's going or to try to get back the taxpayer- subsidized bonuses, although those are good starts. What we need to do now is stop spending. Just stop. No more TARP. No more stimulus. No cap-and-trade energy tax on small businesses, and surely, no more bailing out foreign countries like China and India while we spend and tax and borrow our way into oblivion. I respectfully ask the President of the United States to put the checkbook down.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 1388, the Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, that ensures veterans are no longer denied the educational benefits they earn through national service programs. My amendment simply removes GI benefits from the maximum educational award calculation so that veterans have full access to national service educational benefits. Under current law, individuals who participate in national service programs earn educational awards to support their postsecondary education. The total amount a student can draw down for any one period takes into account the cost of attendance at an institution, Pell Grants, and the amount a student receives in veterans' educational benefits. In other words, veterans qualify for lower benefits if they choose to participate in national service programs. At some low-cost institutions, educational benefits provided to veterans through the GI Bill either significantly reduce the national service award or deny access to this benefit altogether. In States such as California, where the true cost of living is not accurately captured by an institution's cost of attendance, veterans are often unfairly denied the educational award they earn for participation in national service programs. Full access to these benefits would make a significant difference for some students in high-cost areas, particularly when college costs continue to increase at a rate of 6 or 7 percent a year. Additionally, removing GI Bill benefits from the maximum educational award calculation would likely increase the enrollment of veterans in national service programs, an idea that I hope all of us would support. Our Nation's veterans are experienced leaders with invaluable skills acquired through years of military service. These qualities make them ideal candidates for volunteer opportunities, yet only about 2 percent of the total AmeriCorps participants are veterans. That is due in large part to the fact that current law discourages this type of service among America's veteran population. National service programs provide important services that improve the lives of others. Increasing the enrollment of veterans in these programs will only serve to improve their quality and effectiveness. This amendment is consistent with provisions included in the Higher Education Opportunity Act enacted last year that excluded veterans' educational benefits from a student's eligibility for Federal financial aid. Policies on veterans' educational benefits should be consistent. Students should not be denied the educational assistance they earn through volunteer programs because of their service in America's Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment so that we can build on our commitment to promote and advance educational opportunities for America's veterans. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the honorable gentleman from California, the ranking member on Education and Labor, Congressman McKeon.

Mr. HUNTER. I would like to thank Congressman Andrews and the Democrat side for just recognizing that we have the best of this generation serving in the U.S. military at this time. They are put under extreme stress all the time. If there is any way that we can give back to them, for them to have higher education opportunities and for them to share in those things which people who did not serve share in and not to penalize them, we should do so. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege last night to meet with Angelia Phillips. Her son, Specialist Michael Phillips, was killed in Iraq on February 24, 2008, with the 1st of the 502nd, 101st Airborne. She was adamant, Mr. Speaker, when she was talking about the Dover Policy. That's the policy that we have right now that does not allow the media to take pictures of our soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan. She said that that return of her son, Specialist Phillips, his returning to America, that was him coming home and to her, that was more important than the actual funeral because that was finally her son coming home to his country that he loved so much and that he gave his life for. The Dover Policy is good policy. The American public does not need to see the flag-draped coffins of those who carry the burden of freedom for this country. It's up to that family because that's a special solemn moment, Mr. Speaker. The Dover Policy is good policy. We should not reverse it.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Obama became the President, the economy has been his focus. But through executive orders and not so subtle hints in recent speeches, his administration has put some effort into making America less safe than it was 2 years ago. Some examples: Throwing out the case against the USS Cole bomber; the closing down of Guantanamo; limiting our interrogation techniques; cutting defense spending; and announcing a troop surge in Afghanistan without the proper infrastructure or funding to support it. The French just today released five terrorists that the United States released to them for prosecution. If even one of the brave men and women who carry the burden of our security on their shoulders in Iraq and Afghanistan are harmed by the fact that American operatives can no longer get timely information from the enemy through interrogation or are attacked by a prisoner released because of the closing of Guantanamo, if even one of our men and women in uniform pay the ultimate price for these reasons, it will be a sacrifice made so that President Obama can score political points with the liberal fringe of his party. I am a United States Marine and I served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I will not stand by while our national security is put in peril for political expediency. Let us not betray those who sacrifice for our freedom.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the Fairness for Military Recruiters Act, legislation that supports the efforts of our armed forces to recruit talented young Americans from our nation's high schools. This legislation reaffirms and strengthens existing federal law, enacted in 2001 under the No Child Left Behind Act, that provides military recruiters the same access to high school campuses and basic student contact information that is given to institutions of higher education. Before the enactment of No Child Left Behind, it was reported that nearly 2,000 high schools across the country either banned military recruiters from their campuses or restricted access to student directories. Since then, despite some early opposition from several school boards and administrators, military recruiters have maintained regular and unrestricted access to high schools nationwide. Under current law, any high school that receives federal education funding must provide military recruiters access to its campus and student directories--the same access that is provided to colleges and universities. At the same time, schools are required to notify parents and students of their right to ``opt-out'' of the program. A request from a parent is all it takes for a student not be contacted or approached directly by a military recruiter. This is a straightforward, balanced approach to ensuring that students are familiar with the education and career opportunities offered by any one of our military service branches. Military service promotes discipline, self-esteem and a strong work-ethic, and young Americans should not be discouraged from serving their country or simply exploring the benefits of serving in the armed forces. Of course, there are some school administrators and activist groups that oppose the idea of military recruiters contacting high-school students. There are even reported cases of these groups, known as ``counter-recruiters,'' attending parent-teacher conferences and loitering outside schools with opt-out forms in hand. Likewise, administrators have creatively interpreted notification and consent requirements in the interest of denying recruiters access to student contact information. Students and parents should make the decision to opt-out on their own, without influence from activists and administrators with anti- military bias. Families that recognize and honor the commitment of our military to defending the freedom of the American people should not be represented by the small minority of those who actively seek to denigrate our armed forces. The legislation I am introducing today simply reaffirms current law by protecting the right of parents and students to opt-out while also maintaining military recruiter access to high school campuses and directories. Schools would still be obligated to notify parents and students of their options, ensuring there is a mechanism in place that prevents the contact information of those who wish not to be contacted from being released. The alternative suggested by some of my colleagues, particularly in anticipation of the upcoming reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, is to create an opt-in process. In other words, military recruiters would be denied access to student information unless parents send in a release authorization form. They question whether the recruitment provision violates a student's right to privacy, even though it is consistent with federal law and court- tested privacy rights. An analysis by the Congressional Research Services also acknowledges this fact, noting that, unlike medical records, the basic information available to recruiters is no different than the information ``typically found in a phone book.'' The legislation specifically prohibits the implementation of an opt- in process and clarifies the notification and consent requirement by placing the personal information and career interests of students firmly in the control of parents. Only parents, legal guardians or students 18 years of age, could make a written request that contact information not be released. Madam Speaker, our national security continues to hinge on patriotic and talented Americans coming forward and volunteering military service. Restricting recruiter access to high schools would serve to reduce the quality of our armed forces and undoubtedly constrain the ability of students to consider military education and career opportunities. I urge my colleagues to support this effort as we continue working to strengthen our national security and raise awareness about the education and career benefits provided through military service.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, as the father of three, I feel it is my duty to fight for the rights of our most innocent--the unborn. That is why, today, it is my honor to introduce the Right to Life Act. This bill accomplishes the simple, yet important goal, of protecting all unborn children from the moment of conception. While it is the fundamental and primary duty of the federal government to protect and defend the rights of all its citizens, America's unborn have continually been harmed by Congress's inaction to establish their constitutional right to life. Due to both the United States Supreme Court's decision in the 1973 landmark case of Roe v. Wade and Congress's failure to establish personhood thereafter, over 1.3 million babies have had their life taken from them prematurely. Since abortions became legal in 1973, over 40 million babies have had their life unjustly taken from them, an entire generation of who will never experience the joys and promise of being an American. It is now time for Congress to stop this tragedy and recognize the life in every unborn child. Congress needs to effectively overturn Roe v Wade by enforcing four important provisions in the Constitution: (1) The due process clause (Sec. 1) of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from depriving any person of life; (2) Sec. 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which gives Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this amendment; (3) The due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, which concurrently prohibits the federal government from depriving any person of life; and (4) Article 1, Section 8, which gives Congress the power to make laws necessary and proper to enforce all powers in the Constitution. The Supreme Court, in refusing to determine when human life begins and therefore finding nothing to indicate that the unborn are persons protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, has left to Congress the responsibility of protecting the unprotected. The Court conceded that, ``If the suggestion of personhood is established, the appellants' case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.'' Throughout my military service, I took great pride in knowing that I was protecting all Americans. From those who have lived many years, to those just conceived. I do not believe my responsibility to protect the lives of Americans ended when I returned home from Iraq and Afghanistan. I view service in this great House as an opportunity to continue protecting those who need protecting. I ask Members of this House to listen closely to their conscience and pass this legislation so that every unborn child will be legally recognized and afforded the same protection all other Americans enjoy. For those who have supported this legislation in the past, I wanted to bring your attention to a new provision holding women harmless if they do proceed with an abortion. It is important to recognize that the purpose of this bill is to protect the life of the unborn child, not put women in jail. Unfortunately, some supporters of this legislation have been accused of sponsoring legislation that incarcerates women for utilizing contraception. As a result, I wanted nothing to detract from our purpose of protecting the unborn. While I hope that this does not reduce the enormity of their action, I will not allow such an important issue to become sidetracked by those who wish to change the debate. Technically, the Right to Life Act establishes and recognizes the personhood of an unborn child at the moment of conception. The reality is it does so much more. It gives the unborn the chance to experience life, to realize their hopes and dreams, to make a difference. I hope my colleagues will support me in this important effort.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Camp. I think that the Democrats have lost perspective, Mr. Chairman. I want to put things in perspective. With the bailout bill, the Wall Street bailout bill added to this stimulus bill, we're spending over $1.5 trillion. The interstate highway system only cost $425 billion. The race to the Moon cost $237 billion. We're spending $1.5 trillion. President Obama did promise economic recovery. Unfortunately, congressional Democrats are going to destroy his vision of stimulus. This act is not bold. It is not quick acting. It is the old policy of borrowing and spending. And we're thinking that more borrowing and more spending is going to get us out of this crisis that we're in now. Mr. Camp's amendment is the last best chance for economic stimulus for the next 2 years of a Democrat-controlled government. This Democrat bill is not a stimulus. It is just another wasted bailout.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because in this last week and next week, we are going to be considering in this Congress spending more than we've ever spent since World War II. With the Troubled Assets Relief Program, otherwise known as TARP, and I like to call it the bailout, Mr. Speaker, the bailout is $700 billion. The bailout was a mistake by the last President, and I believe it will be a mistake from this administration. Only $350 billion is left of that bailout bill, and Congress is probably going to spend that also. Out of the first $350 billion, we don't even know where any of that went because the administration didn't have to tell us. The legislation being considered now for this bailout bill and this stimulus package is being considered under a false promise that more spending in the wrong places is going to help the economy. It's being considered under the false promise that it's going to create millions of jobs. It's simply throwing bad money after bad programs. The reality is that this plan does very little to help working-class families that are having to pay bills, that are having to make mortgages, that are having to make car payments. People are struggling day in and day out, some working two jobs to try to pay health care, raise the kids. This stimulus bill does not help them. Instead of providing relief and jobs for Americans, this Democrat stimulus package, when combined with the bailout, totals over $1.5 trillion, but it still contains things such as $50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts. That's not going to help anybody. That's a waste of money, Mr. Speaker. The first half of this bailout bill has already been spent, and it would be a mistake to spend the second half of $350 billion without knowing where that money is going. But for me, everything has to be in perspective. And $1.5 trillion is a lot of money. I don't know how much money that is really. I have heard somebody say if you stack it up in $10 bills, it would stretch over 4,000 miles. That's $1.5 trillion. So to put it in perspective, Mr. Speaker, I created this graph here. This shows you how this stimulus bill, along with the bailout bill for Wall Street, compared to other American expenditures since World War II. This is how it compares to it, Mr. Speaker: What it shows is that the Vietnam War costs just under $700 billion. That is the entire war. The Iraq War that we're fighting now, that we have been fighting since 2003: $600 billion. Our entire interstate highway system that we drive on every day: $42 billion. That's what it has cost for the roads that we drive day in and day out. That puts things in perspective for me. Education spending since 1965, Federal education spending, this is all that we have spent compared to this bailout bill: under $400 billion. Let me say that again. Our entire education spending since 1965 by the Federal Government: under $400 billion. Congress is going to spend almost $400 billion in one day and hardly any of that on education. Lastly, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that if this money was spent now, if it was spent tomorrow and it all went into jobs and it all went into infrastructure, that would be different. But according to analysis of this bill, only $3.8 billion of the $1.5 trillion is going to be spent on infrastructure by 2010. That's only 12.7 percent of this money that is going to be spent on infrastructure. So when you hear people talk about spending this money, creating jobs, does it really do that? Are we really spending that? Are we really injecting this much money into the economy so it will create jobs right away? That is not what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. What we are doing is creating government programs that my son and my daughters are going to be paying for for years to come. Mr. Speaker, one of my colleagues said it best when asked why this TARP, this bailout bill to Wall Street fat cats, and this stimulus bill was a bad idea. And his answer was very simple: We simply don't have the money.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Corporal Jonathan Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter, who grew up in different parts of this Nation but gave their lives to this country together in Iraq. Both have been nominated for the Navy Cross for their actions on April 22, 2008, and both are owed a great gratitude by this Nation for their actions. Tony Perry--a journalist who I got to know in Fallujah in 2004--from the LA Times, who has covered this story, describes what transpired that morning best. Corporal Jonathan Yale, 21, grew up in poor rural Virginia. He had joined the Marine Corps to put structure in his life and to help support his mother and sister. He was within a few days of heading home. Lance Corporal Jordan Haerter, 19, was from a comfortable middle class suburb on Long Island. As a boy, he had worn military garb and he had felt the pull of adventure and patriotism. He had just arrived in Iraq. On April 22, 2008, the two were assigned to guard the main gate to Joint Security Station Nasser in Ramadi, the capital of the Anbar province, once an insurgent stronghold, and still a very dangerous place. Dozens of marines and Iraqi police lived at the compound and some were still sleeping after all-night patrols when Yale and Haerter reported for duty that warm, sultry morning. Yale, respected for his quiet, efficient manner, was assigned to show Haerter how to take over his duties. Haerter had volunteered to watch the main gate, even though it was considered the most hazardous of the compound's three guards station because it could be approached from a busy thoroughfare. The sun had barely risen when the two sentries spotted a 20-foot long truck headed toward the gate, weaving with increasing speed through the concrete barriers to the gate. Two Iraqi police officers ran for their lives, so did several Iraqi police on the adjacent street. Yale and Haerter tried to waive off this truck, but it just kept coming. They opened fire, Yale with the machine gun, Haerter with an M-16. Their bullets peppered the radiator and windshield. The truck slowed, but kept rolling. A few dozen feet from the gate the big truck exploded. Investigators found that it was loaded with over 2,000 pounds of explosives and that its driver, his hand on a ``dead-man switch,'' was determined to commit suicide and slaughter the marines and Iraqi police. The thunderous explosion rocked much of Ramadi, interrupting the morning call to prayers for many mosques. A nearby mosque and a home were flattened. The blast ripped a crater five feet deep and 20 feet across into the street. Shards of concrete shattered everywhere, and choking dust filled the air. Haerter was dead, Yale was dying. Three marines about 300 feet away were injured, so were eight Iraqi police and two dozen civilians, but several dozen other nearby marines and Iraqi police, while shaken, were unhurt. Mr. Speaker, we all hope that in times of great crisis, we will rise to the occasion and do the right thing. Haerter and Yale rose to the occasion and defended their fellow Marines. It is an honor to call them fellow Marines. Major General John Kelly, Commanding General, First Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward) interviewed the witnesses himself. What he learned from these interviews led him to nominate the two for the Navy Cross, the second highest award for combat bravery for the Marine Corps and the United States Navy. In General Kelly's statement in support of the Navy Cross, he writes: ``Because they did what they did, only 2 families had their hearts broken on 22 April, rather than as many as 50. These families will never know how truly close they came to a knock on their door that night.'' We are winning in Iraq and Afghanistan because of brave Marines like Corporal Jonathan T. Yale and Lance Corporal Jordan D. Haerter. To their families I offer my heartfelt condolences. And to Corporal Yale and Corporal Haerter, I say, Marines, job well done. This is but one example of the bravery and sacrifice of over 4,000 men and women who have given their lives to the cause of liberty since 2001 and the over 1.5 million men and women who have served in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom and come home, and, of course, the over 150,000 that are serving now. Mr. Speaker, I would like to include for the Record Tony Perry's entire article and Major General Kelly's statement in support of the award of the Navy Cross. I encourage all of my colleague and hope all Americans will read about these two brave Marines and keep their families in their prayers. [From Los Angeles Times Dec. 29, 2008] A Speeding Truck Bomb, and A Shared Act Of Courage (By Tony Perry) San Diego.--Two Marines in Iraq saved dozens--but not themselves. They'll be awarded the Navy Cross. They had known each other only a few minutes, but they will be linked forever in what Marine brass say is one of the most extraordinary acts of courage and sacrifice in the Iraq war. Cpl. Jonathan Yale, 21, grew up poor in rural Virginia. He had joined the Marine Corps to put structure in his life and to help support his mother and sister. He was within a few days of heading home. Lance Cpl. Jordan Haerter, 19, was from a comfortably middle-class suburb on Long Island. As a boy, he had worn military garb, and he had felt the pull of adventure and patriotism. He had just arrived in Iraq. On April 22, the two were assigned to guard the main gate to Joint Security Station Nasser in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, once an insurgent stronghold and still a dangerous region. Dozens of Marines and Iraqi police lived at the compound, and some were still sleeping after all-night patrols when Yale and Haerter reported for duty that warm, sultry morning. Yale, respected for his quiet, efficient manner, was assigned to show Haerter how to take over his duties. Haerter had volunteered to watch the main gate, even though it was considered the most hazardous of the compound's three guard stations because it could be approached from a busy thoroughfare. The sun had barely risen when the two sentries spotted a 20-foot-long truck headed toward the gate, weaving with increasing speed through the concrete barriers. Two Iraqi police officers assigned to the gate ran for their lives. So did several Iraqi police on the adjacent street. Yale and Haerter tried to wave off the truck, but it kept coming. They opened fire, Yale with a machine gun, Haerter with an M-16. Their bullets peppered the radiator and windshield. The truck slowed but kept rolling. A few dozen feet from the gate, the truck exploded. Investigators found that it was loaded with 2,000 pounds of explosives and that its driver, his hand on a ``dead-man switch,'' was determined to commit suicide and slaughter Marines and Iraqi police. The thunderous explosion rocked much of Ramadi, interrupting the morning call to prayers from the many mosques. A nearby mosque and a home were flattened. The blast ripped a crater 5 feet deep and 20 feet across into the street. Shards of concrete scattered everywhere, and choking dust filled the air. Haerter was dead; Yale was dying. Three Marines about 300 feet away were injured. So were eight Iraqi police and two dozen civilians. But several dozen other nearby Marines and Iraqi police, while shaken, were unhurt. A Black Hawk helicopter was summoned in a futile attempt to get Yale to a field hospital in time. A sheet was placed over Haerter. When it was considered safe to take Haerter's body to a second helicopter, his section leader insisted he be covered by an American flag. ``We did not want him carried out with just a sheet,'' said Staff Sgt. Kenneth Grooms. Maj. Gen. John Kelly, the top Marine in Iraq, wanted to know how the attack happened. Like many veteran Marines, he is haunted by the memory of the 1983 bombing of the barracks in Beirut, when a blast from an explosives-laden truck killed 241 U.S. service personnel, including 220 Marines. Not given to dark thoughts or insecurities, Kelly, who commanded Marines in the fight for Baghdad and Tikrit in 2003 and Fallouja in 2004, admits that the specter of another Beirut gives him nightmares as he commands the 22,000 Marines in Iraq. He went to Ramadi to interview Iraqi witnesses--a task generals usually delegate to subordinates. Some Iraqis told him they were incredulous that the two Marines had not fled. When Marine technicians restored a damaged security camera, the images were undeniable. While Iraqi police fled, Haerter and Yale had never flinched and never stopped firing as the Mercedes truck--the same model used in the Beirut bombing--sped directly toward them. Without their steadfastness, the truck would probably have penetrated the compound before it exploded, and 50 or more Marines and Iraqis would have been killed. The incident happened in just six seconds. ``No time to talk it over; no time to call the lieutenant; no time to think about their own lives or even the American and Iraqi lives they were protecting,'' Kelly said. ``More than enough time, however, to do their duty. They never hesitated or tried to escape.'' Yale was always trying to boost the morale of his buddies, said Lance Cpl. Brandon Creely, 21, of Boise, Idaho. ``Whenever I was down, he'd tell a joke, tell me it's not as bad as it seems.'' Staff Sgt. Grooms, 28, said he knows how Haerter should be remembered. ``He was a hero,'' Grooms said, ``and a damn fine person.''