John McHugh

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman, the gentleman from California, for yielding me this time, and I give my compliments both to both him and the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) for always working together to bring us a good bill. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), my distinguished ranking member, pretty much gave my speech, except for perhaps the closing comments that he made, and I am looking forward later, at the appropriate time, to making some comments about the path that we traveled to get to the issue of women in combat. But without trying to be too redundant, Mr. Chairman, let me just say that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) indeed spoke about the 3.1 percent pay increase, and that reduces the gap in civilian and military pay from 5.1 to 4.6 percent. Importantly, this is the seventh year in a row that the subcommittee has recommended a pay raise that is larger than the level that is granted for private-sector pay raises. We also very importantly recommend continued growth in the Army and the Marine Corps end strength. The House has long advocated those kinds of increases. We supported increases of 10,300 in fiscal year 2003, 6,200 in fiscal year 2004, and in fiscal year 2005, Congress authorized manpower increases of 20,000 in the Army and 3,000 in the Marine Corps. Under the bill today, we propose additional growth of 10,000 in the Army and 1,000 in the Marine Corps, and that would bring Army end strength to 512,400 and the Marine Corps to 179,000. I think this is critical to alleviating the stress on the operations and personnel tempo that has been so negative upon our troops. This bill also provides very important recruiting and retention and pay initiatives that increase the maximum amounts that may be paid for active duty enlistments from $20,000 to $30,000, and Reserve enlistments from $10,000 to $15,000, and active duty enlistments and reenlistments from $60,000 to $90,000. As the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) said, it would eliminate BAH II, which is an irritant within the Reserve component. With this mark, Reserve rates for the basic allowance for housing will be the same as active duty rates when Reservists are mobilized for more than 30 days, and on and on and on. In essence, Mr. Chairman, this is a very, very good bill. It continues this House's very remarkable and, I think, very admirable record toward trying to respond to the efforts of those brave men and women, men and women who do such an amazingly incredible, fantastic job for us as they go about the hard work of defending freedom across this globe. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, I would urge all of our Members to support this initiative, and I look forward to its passage.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, let me just say with respect to what the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) said, never has so much been written and said about one issue in such a short period that has been so wrong, and I wanted to clarify the record. The amendment that was introduced, and the second amendment that the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder) described as terrible and that the manager's amendment will replace, has been described as antiwoman, has been described as disruptive to current operations, and has been described as confusing to commanders. I just want to be clear, Mr. Chairman. The language that was inserted would not have resulted in one woman losing her job or risk being shut out from any position for which she was qualified or that was open to her, not one, not now, not at any time in the future, despite what some of the opponents have said. That was the entire intent, to make it clear for the first time in law that the women who are doing a fantastic job on behalf of the military could not be excluded from any job for which they are operating and were qualified at that moment, not from forward support companies, not from any other position which they had, just because the traditional, linear battlefield had changed. As to the confusion that some say occurred, let me just say to my friends in the military and to my friends who have questioned this amendment, and particularly my friends in the Army, does it not trouble you when you say that it would be confusing to your commanders when, for the first time ever, they are handed something that just embodies what you say is your policy? The policy that was developed and placed into that amendment, the military wrote and now you claim that you are following. Congress did not make that up. Politicians did not define it; the military did. Now you say it is confusing. I would ask my friends in the military particularly, when did you plan on making it clear? The amendment today will clarify matters even further. I fully support it. But I really think the characterizations that have been made against the text that is replacing it have been unfair and simply inaccurate as to what the position would be with respect to the honorable men and women in military uniform.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Thank you for that explanation. It really is a marvelous program that many of us have experienced. I wanted to mention briefly that the German Marshall Fund this year for the first time sponsored a bipartisan team to go to Germany and spend a week visiting campuses in Germany. John Anderson and I went just a few weeks ago and had a great experience meeting with the students and faculty, and indeed others as well. I think it is a particularly important time to promote these kinds of exchanges, because, as you know, there are some differences these days between our friends in Europe and the United States; and I think the exchange of views was very useful, both for us and hopefully for the students as well. I hope that the Marshall Fund will sponsor additional teams, and I would certainly encourage my colleagues to take advantage of that if they do. Thank you very much.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Wayne Spruell, principal director for manpower and personnel, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, upon his retirement from Federal service and to thank him for his contributions to the United States of America over the past 36 years. Since graduating from the Virginia Military Institute in 1968, Mr. Spruell has served his country honorably and with great distinction in both the military and Federal civilian service. His 3 years of active duty as a lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps included 18 months in the Republic of Vietnam. During this period he was awarded two Bronze Stars with combat device. Subsequent to his active duty, he completed 20 years in the Marine Corps Reserve, retiring in 1992 at the grade of lieutenant colonel. Mr. Spruell's career as a Federal civilian employee began in the U.S. Customs Service and continued as an operations officer and intelligence analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency from 1972 until 1981. His assignments included overseas tours in Vietnam and Panama. In 1975, the CIA awarded him the Intelligence Star--an award for voluntary acts of courage performed under hazardous conditions or for outstanding achievements or services rendered with distinction under conditions of grave risk. From 1981 until 1985, he had responsibility for the Army's individual training programs and then moved to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs as a program analyst. In recognition of his exceptional skill as a leader and manager, he was selected as the director for manpower programs, a position he held until 1994. Subsequently, his success and effectiveness as the principal director for manpower and personnel resulted in his selection as a member of the Senior Executive Service in 1999. Mr. Spruell is the leading expert within the Department of Defense on National Guard and reserve manpower and personnel matters. In that capacity he has been instrumental in many of the legislative and policy initiatives that have fundamentally reshaped America's reserve components. His contributions to the Reserve Officers Personnel Management Act, the Reserve Component GI Bill, and military technician reforms were especially noteworthy. He led the transformation of reserve personnel management and employment by removing statutory and policy barriers to allow for the seamless integration of the active and reserve components while accomplishing defense missions. In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, Mr. Spruell was the architect of the Department's personnel policies and procedures for mobilized Guard and Reserve members. Noteworthy as these accomplishments are, there are other aspects of Mr. Spruell's career that I believe deserve our respect and thanks. For one thing, Mr. Spruell is a consummate, constant professional who can be counted on always to both lead and to provide reliable, objective insight and assistance in all matters pertaining to reserve component personnel. For another, over the years he has helped my subcommittee and others in Congress immeasurably in shaping important legislation and as a result has made a difference for the better in the lives of many. In my view, however, Mr. Spruell's value to this Nation and to the men and women who serve it in uniform rests in his unhesitating, unselfish commitment to doing the best job he can in every way, without thought of formal recognition or gain. That kind of lifelong dedication and professionalism is what makes his service doubly worth recognition. When he retires in January, the Department of Defense will sorely miss his leadership, knowledge and experience. A dedicated patriot, Mr. Spruell leaves a legacy of unquestionable successes, positive relationships, and a solid foundation for the future. I want to thank him, on behalf of my colleagues on the House Armed Services Committee, for all that he has given to the Nation and to wish him, his wife Lan, and family well in all their future endeavors.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his gracious comments. Like every other Member that has risen here today, I certainly want to extend both my appreciation and my admiration to the distinguished chairman of this full committee and his partner in this, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the distinguished ranking member, for the terrific work they did. The challenge in bringing this bill together is not disagreeing as to what needs to be done; it is deciding, of all those important steps we can and probably should take, which ones should we take now as we begin to work on a new agenda, almost immediately. I think the committees in both bodies have done a terrific job in doing that. I also want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), our ranking member, who is my partner in our endeavor to try to provide those programs that are usually most associated with the welfare, the morale of our troops, of our brave men and women in uniform. It is so important at all times, but certainly in this period of great conflict and turmoil across the planet. We have many good things in this bill, much of which has been discussed, and all of us are flattered on the subcommittee that members of the committee are deservedly, understandably, taking a great deal of pride in those. There are a couple of things that may not have been mentioned as succinctly as they might have. One is the increase in end strength, Mr. Speaker, something that many of us have been working on for a good number of years, in our opinion, a key to alleviating the stress and the operations and the personnel tempo that our Guard and Reserve and our active components have been under; A 23,000 total in the next fiscal year increase to the Army and to the Marine Corps, a 3.5 percent increase in basic pay for members of the Armed Forces, a continuation of the year-by-year commitment that this committee has made to making life in the military a little bit more livable; Permanent increases in imminent danger pay and family separation allowance; Those very modest but very important kinds of pays that recognize that when a member is away at war, he or she is paying a price, but of course, so are the families back home who miss their loved ones as they are out doing the hard work of freedom. We have talked about the increased health care benefits that are so important that play into readiness but also are critical to the fairness as we are in an era of increased utilization of the Reserve component and, as the gentlewoman from California said so correctly, are playing such a vital role, such a high percentage of our war on terror, and on and on and on. Lastly, I would like to mention a $7 billion program, a program that we will, in 4 years, reverse years and years of inequities and injustice. The Social Security survivor benefit plan offset will be corrected, something that the veterans service organizations have made their number one priority in this bill, and this Congress and this committee did it. So I urge all my colleagues to join in support of what is a terrific bill in critically important times.

Mr. McHUGH

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 163) to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

Mr. McHUGH. Is that a parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. McHUGH. I know the gentleman thinks it is. I am waiting for direction from the Chair.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I would say I support the consideration of the this bill at this time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I fully support the consideration of this bill at this time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I would say, if I may, in response to the gentleman's claim, that I am disappointed he has less faith in his power of persuasion than I do, because I came here prepared to be persuaded. But if I must decide now, I would vote no, so I do not claim to be a proponent of the bill.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, that leaves me where? I would claim the time in opposition.

Mr. McHUGH. Under the rules of the House, I would claim that time in opposition.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I believe the time has already been claimed.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, as a matter of comity, I would be happy to split the time in opposition with the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much controversy here. Nobody is going to vote for this bill. If it were controversial, I think we would have a very close vote here. I doubt we will. In fact, I was not going to raise a point of order. I will not. I would ask the Chair rhetorical without expectation of a response, what happens when the sponsor claiming the time in support of the bill actually will vote against it? It will be interesting to see how the final tally is actually taken. I am fascinated. I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New York, my fellow New Yorker, but I find it a bit amusing at best to hear him claim that the reason that this is a controversial issue is we read about it on the Internet. The only thing we read about on the Internet is what some of his colleagues are planting with respect to that. The basis for our being here today is simply to answer the concerns of the American people that have been created by political forces who are trying to create controversy where none should exist. The administration clearly, the Department of Defense clearly, and I suspect that at the end of this vote it will be shown the House of Representatives clearly rejects the fact, either before an election, at election or after election, that there is a need, there is a rationale, for returning to mandatory conscription by the United States military. I would say to the gentleman from New York that he is the only sponsor of a bill in my 12 years in the House that is complaining that his bill has been brought to the floor. We have a great deal of respect for the gentleman. I suspect and I strongly believe he put together his bill with a great deal of conviction and belief, and we felt it time, given the Internet discussion and all the other absolutely baseless charges that were floating about, that this issue be put to rest, not for the issue and not for the concern of politics, but for the comfort of the American people who have been whipped into a frenzy unnecessarily about this issue. Now some may say today that this legislation is really about the need to establish a system of national service--an attempt to instill in our youth a sense of responsibility and a clearer understanding of the sacrifices made over many years to win our freedoms--and what it takes to better secure our future. And I would say--that is a legitimate topic of discussion--an area that perhaps merits exploration. But the clear objective of this bill--and the undeniable intent of recent claims of secret plans and post election plots is focused on a return of the draft--forced military conscription. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Michigan feels it is inevitable, he has a chance to vote for the resumption of the draft, if that is what he wants. By the way, he said the bill was introduced 2 days ago. I suspect he misspoke. It was introduced in January of 2003. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am stunned by the fact that my friend from New York stands up in his beginning comments and sites the reason we have to deal with this is because the Internet is saying so, and then criticizes people that it is an Internet rumor. He seems to be very comfortable with his Presidential candidate's position of being everywhere at every time. Also, I would just say to the gentlewoman from California, who complained about her bill and increasing end-strength, the House Committee on Armed Services which, as we will remember, has already passed a bill into the House and we are in conference with the Senate, would increase end-strength by almost 40,000 troops. So we have responded to that this year and have for the past 2 years as well. Frankly, we did not need her bill. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes), a distinguished member of the House Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and it proves perfectly why we are here tonight because that is what the message is the American people are listening to, what the gentlewoman just said. And there is one way to dispel this, and that is to defeat this. No President can impose a draft without the consent and the approval of the United States House of Representatives. It will not come tonight or at any other time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There are few people I have more respect for than the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He made a very eloquent argument, very correctly, for an increase in end strength, not to a return of the draft and for the problems that that would create. We have an end strength increase of 40,000 in our bill in the House that has passed, and there is a conference with the Senate. Those are the people we need, and we should move on that and not a draft. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a distinguished member of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. WILSON of South Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, perhaps the gentleman's heard of the 9/11 Commission. I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), a distinguished member of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth). (Mr. HAYWORTH asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a veteran of the first Gulf War. (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)