Jim Saxton

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the process that we've gone through to bring this bill to the floor has been an extensive one. We started under the leadership of Chairman Skelton in January, and as we moved through the days and the weeks, there were numerous, both full committee and subcommittee hearings. There were visits here on Capitol Hill in our office and in other places by military leaders. There were visits by us to the Pentagon and to bases around the continental United States and, I might add, there were visits by us to our soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors who are serving overseas. There were briefings too numerous to count, and a good process. And I want to just take this opportunity to congratulate and thank Chairman Skelton for the orderliness and the fairness with which this process was conducted. This is a good bill, and I intend to support it. It provides for some new things, provides for some force protection measures that are so important in the war that we're now engaged in. It provides for additional money for the Stryker system. It provides for additional resources for up-armored Humvees, and it provides for steps forward in the new Joint Tactical Vehicle program. We added 10 more aircraft known as C-17s, which are strategic airlifters to get us to the fight. We took care of some personnel issues, including a significant pay raise for military personnel. And, because we're at war, and because we're using our military equipment, it wears out. It's a tough terrain that we're involved in in Iraq and Afghanistan, and so we included $3.6 billion for Army reset and $8.2 billion for Marine Corps reset. And I might add that quality of life remains extremely important to the chairman, to the ranking member, and to all of us who serve on the committee, and so military construction dollars were added to provide the quality of life that is important to our military personnel. Now, it's a good bill, and I'm going to support it. If I were the person sitting at the desk writing the bill all by myself, I would have done some things differently. But that being said, it continues to be a bill that is worthy of everyone's support. I would have tried to find a way to include more money for the Future Combat System. We cut it by almost 25 percent. This is the Army's modernization program, and the first modernization program anything like it since World War II. It combines the use of technology that's available today with some more traditional combat equipment, but it's good for the future. It's good for urban combat, it's good for being able to see the enemy who now has found ways to hide on our conventional systems. And it's a big cut. I would have also tried to add back the 9 percent that was reduced from the missile defense system. Today we have a missile defense system that actually will work once it is deployed, but we reduced it by 9 percent. So, Mr. Chairman, once again I hope that the majority of our colleagues on this side of the aisle will support this bill. I think it is a good bill. It is one that is needed, particularly in these times when the United States of America is at war. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask my colleagues to resist the urge to begin a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq within 90 days as this bill requires. Doing so would have a devastating impact on our ability to fight terrorism here and abroad and would have severe security impacts, not only in Iraq but throughout the Middle East and the entire region. My motion to recommit will ensure that when we withdraw from Iraq, we do so based on the conditions on the ground by requiring we take into account our national security assessments and the regional security implications, as outlined by the National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq. We are not in the position to determine when U.S. forces should redeploy from Iraq. Only the commanders on the ground have that information. Only our commanders and diplomatic representatives on the ground can determine effectively when conditions are in place to warrant a troop withdrawal. It would be irresponsible for us to assign such an arbitrary timeline and impose it upon our leadership in theater. We have to consider the conditions that we would leave the Iraqi Government to deal with going forward if we were to precipitously withdraw our personnel. In my view, there are two significant threats that would remain behind, and the Iraqi Government would not be prepared to effectively counter either one. The al Qaeda threat in Iraq is significant. Al Qaeda's deputy commented a few days ago that the establishment of an Islamic state of Iraq is an important milestone on the way to reviving the Islamic caliphate. He noted that the defeat of American forces in Iraq is a key to this objective. Securing control over Iraq is the strategic objective for al Qaeda that will enable it to conduct operations against their targets in the Middle East, particularly against Israel, in addition to Europe and other U.S. global interests. Al Qaeda is particularly interested in the Persian Gulf oil fields, and Iraq would serve as a valuable staging area for such attacks. Right now the Iraqi forces, security forces working in partnership with U.S. forces, are building momentum to erode al Qaeda's influence over Sunni insurgent groups in Iraq. A premature withdrawal would derail those efforts. Al Qaeda in Iraq has been conducting indiscriminate attacks on Iraqi civilians. Sunni Arabs reject this tactic, and there is a growing backlash among the population. Sunni communities have encouraged thousands to join the local police forces and improve security. This is real progress. A few days ago, al Qaeda's deputy warned Iraqi citizens that have supported the U.S. to consider what will happen to them after the Americans leave. If we abandon them now, we will be hard-pressed to gain their trust any time again in the future. Iran also has an interest in seeing us fail and leave Iraq early. We know that Iran has been arming militia groups within Iraq. We know that Iran has infiltrated various levels of Iraqi government and its security forces. If we redeployed from Iraq before the Maliki government has the capability to contain this threat, we would leave Iraq vulnerable to becoming an Iranian surrogate. The porous Iraqi-Syrian border would provide Iran with contiguous, unfettered access to the coast of Lebanon. Through its support of Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran would then become even more a danger to the prospect of security and stability in the Middle East. It would be irresponsible for us to even consider withdrawing from Iraq before the Maliki government has the capacity to deter these two threats. We must be conscious of the dangerous message we are sending with an early withdrawal. First, we would lose the trust and will of the Iraqi people and the democratically elected government we worked so hard to create. The extremists associated with al Qaeda will hear a message that will tell them that Americans acknowledged defeat, and do not have the stomach for this war or any other war with al Qaeda. Our defeat would only inspire like-minded jihadists to take up their cause. One need only look as far as yesterday to see the headlines of what could happen here in this country. A couple of days ago, we were reminded how close to home the terror threat is. The Fort Dix, New Jersey, individuals are just one example. I ask everyone on both sides of the aisle to support this motion to recommit.

Mr. SAXTON. In its present form I am.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. I would like to thank Mr. Lewis for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, this vote to me is about Jacqueline, Kate and Allie. Most of you don't know Jacqueline, Kate and Allie. You see, they are my granddaughters, the next generation, the generation that will perhaps be most affected by this policy. To many in this Chamber, I am afraid this vote is not about the next generation; it is about setting a date for surrender. I believe it is time that this House go on record and vote on whether emergency funding bills should have a troop withdrawal timeline. I want to reiterate to my colleagues the message that we are sending if we include such a timeline in this bill. Make no mistake, it is nothing less than a date certain for surrender. Some in this Congress believe that the withdrawal timeline will send a message to the Iraqi Government to get serious about taking the lead and stabilizing Iraq. This is a flawed argument. It is flawed because it fails to address the collateral effects, the other effects and damage this message will do to the Iraqi people, the United States, to our allies, and to future American generations. A surrender timeline for our troops will send a very clear message to al Qaeda, to the Sunni insurgent groups, and to the Shiite militias in Iraq. It will tell them that Americans no longer have the stomach to see this through. The Iranians, who are continuing down the road of development of nuclear weapon capability despite sanctions and international pressure, will also take note of our timeline. Ahmadinejad already believes that Americans are incapable of resistance. He has said so. Our partner nations in the Middle East are watching to see the level of American commitment to Iraq before they increase their level of assistance. If we tell them we are going to pull up stakes and go home in 2008, can we expect much support from Saudi Arabia, from Egypt, from Qatar, from the UAE, from Jordan? I don't think so. A surrender timeline will cause us to lose credibility with our allies, our other allies in the war on terror. Al Qaeda's front man, al-Zawahiri, warned our Iraqi counterparts already that America is about to depart and abandon them, just as we abandoned our allies in Vietnam. A surrender timeline will certainly degrade the level of trust and confidence that Iraqi soldiers have toward our forces. The negative effect of this surrender timeline on our troops will be significant as well. Some in Congress say the war is already lost. We have heard that already. In my opinion, it is not. We are on the right track with a renewed strategy toward Iraqi security. Fred Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute recently commented: ``The conflict in Iraq is central to our foreign policy and our future, indeed, our well-being. Surely we must keep fighting to win,'' he said, ``as long as victory remains possible. And it is possible although not certain,'' he said, ``that we will win in Iraq. Right now, the signs are more hopeful than they have been in many months. It would be a tragedy for America and for Iraq to abandon the fight just as the possibility of success begins to emerge.''

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I have the highest regard for every man and woman who serves in the United States military. Whether they be a member of the Air Force or the Army or the Marine Corps or the Navy or the Coast Guard, everyone who volunteers to serve our country deserves the gratitude of every American citizen. And to the extent that they have provided the great service to our country, we all thank them, each and every one. Just as people volunteer to be in the military, some people, various people, in the military volunteer to do different things. And those who volunteer to be members of the Special Operations Command are often referred to as the ``tip of the spear.'' This is the insignia on this plate of the Special Operations Command. It is the tip of the spear. And we refer to them as members of an organization that is the tip of the spear because they volunteer to put them themselves in great danger very often. They do it for our country. They do it for our government. They do it for their families and their friends and neighbors; and it makes them, in my view, a very special cadre of people in the United States military. Today, there are 53,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines in the joint organization made up of members of all four services known as the Special Operations Command. The acronym, of course, that we use is SOCOM. These are highly trained individuals who devote themselves and commit their lives to the very defense of our country. There are people in the Special Operations Command who take part in something called direct action. The Navy SEALs would be such an organization, Naval Special Warfare Command actually is the formal name, or Navy SEALs as they more generally are known as people who are often direct actors. And then there are special operations folks who are indirect actors, who try to manipulate, if you will, the shape of the battlefield or attitudes on the battlefield among our enemies that would be beneficial to us. These are civil affairs people and psychological operations people and others who take part in an indirect way rather than in a so- called direct way. Since SOCOM's inception, the special operators have conducted high- profile missions, including operations to establish a democratic government in Panama, hunting Scuds during the first Gulf War, providing relief to Kurds during Operation Provide Comfort, and the mission to capture Mohammed Hadid in Somalia, and many other operations around the world. Not only did they put themselves in great danger, and not only do they perform a great duty to our country, but they do it at great sacrifice for themselves and their family. They train constantly. They have deployed very often and they are, indeed, a credit to themselves, a credit to their families, who pay a sacrifice as well, and a great credit to our Armed Forces. So I rise today to commend the gentlelady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake) for offering this resolution. It is certainly one that is well deserved on this 20th anniversary of the establishment of the United States Special Operations Command.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from San Diego for yielding me this time. I rise in support of this legislation and want to highlight two key components of the Wounded Warrior Assistance Act that have significant relevance to some of my own constituents who are currently recovering at Walter Reed Mologne House. Section 101 of the bill concerns improving the medical and dental care for servicemembers assigned to hospitals in outpatient status. Under this section, medical care case managers will have the training and resources to enable them to work closely with servicemembers in managing patient care and ensuring that patients fully understand his or her status and has a realistic expectation of the process ahead. One of my constituents has been at Walter Reed for close to 10 months now after being evacuated from Iraq. During this time, he has had challenges in knowing his status in the disability determination process. He has been told that he had anywhere from 30 to 60 days left, although Walter Reed is working hard to get him home sooner. He is eager to get back home to his family and employer. His employer is holding his job for him. It is difficult for him to plan accordingly, however, because without being fully informed of his status in the system, it makes his future uncertain. This bill would ensure that going forward, this individual would have up-to-date information on his status so that he is no longer kept in the dark about when he can expect to go home. Section 101 of the bill also includes the establishment of the service-member advocate who will assist the patient in ensuring quality of life issues are taken care of, assisting in resolving problems related to financial or administrative matters, and overall ensure the patient and the family members are informed of benefits and program issues. Both of my constituents who are currently at Walter Reed could have benefited greatly from the servicemember advocate. They have both encountered various administrative problems that have since been resolved with the assistance of their chain of command. However, I believe these problems would have been avoided in the first place had they been in contact with an advocate mandated to assist in these types of issues. During discussions with these two soldiers and Walter Reed officials, the pattern that I have seen is that the actual medical care these wounded warriors receive is actually quite outstanding. The problems have really occurred in the red tape and bureaucracy that surrounds the administrative requirements and disability process. It should not take 3 or 4 months to begin receiving combat-related injury rehabilitation pay, for example. Servicemembers should receive accurate information in a timely manner when they inquire about their recovery plan or about specific benefits for which they might be eligible. It is difficult at best for care managers to provide the necessary attention to a patient when they are handling caseloads beyond their capability. This bill goes a long way towards addressing this problem by limiting the number of cases for managers to oversee. This bill and any other actions that this Congress can do to improve this system to ensure servicemembers receive the attention they deserve merits our full support; and I, therefore, urge everyone to support this bill.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, in the upcoming debate on the supplemental, I just want to point out to my friends on both sides of the aisle that the message counts. As we prepare for the debate on the supplemental appropriations bill, I want to caution my colleagues to bear in mind that our words are heard and seen all over the world by the Iraqi people, by our allies, and by our enemies. The President has given guidance on benchmarks for the Iraqi Government to meet, but this does not give Congress license to attach timelines and penalties. If we do, we are undermining the authority of General Petraeus, to whom we have entrusted this very important mission. Perhaps those who would vote in Congress to set deadlines, or any other maneuver aimed at limiting the ability of the White House and the Department of Defense to manage this dangerous situation under the guise of sending a message to the Iraqi leadership, will consider how their message will be received and interpreted by others. The future stability of Iraq and the national security of the American people would be better served with a message that clearly states ``We will stand with our allies and partners until Iraq's goal of stability is utilized.''

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Harry H. O'Claire Chapter #637 of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE), on the occasion of its 50th anniversary. Chartered in 1957 and located in Lakewood, New Jersey, Chapter #637 has maintained an abiding commitment to developing, promoting and implementing policies and programs to enrich the quality of life in its community. Its mission and focus has remained constant, and its efforts to protect and improve the retirement benefits of federal retirees, employees and their families have remained strong. Throughout my time in Congress, it has been a privilege and a pleasure to work with Chapter #637, and in particular, my good friend, Frank Spatola, the current Legislative Chair. Over the years, we have worked together on behalf of seniors and retirees in Ocean County, New Jersey, on a variety of issues--including health care, Social Security, and other issues of importance to this community. I congratulate the Harry H. O'Claire Chapter of NARFE on its 50th anniversary, and salute its exemplary history as an organization of concerned, responsible and involved citizens. I wish my friends at Chapter #637 many more years of success.

Mr. SAXTON

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield at this time 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter), former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, now the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes at this time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to note that one of the previous speakers talked about veterans who support this resolution. As a matter of fact, yesterday I was able to announce that the national commander of the VFW said that he opposed this resolution or had grave concerns about it, and I have just been notified that the national commander of the American Legion, Paul A. Moran, announced strong support for the President's new initiative, which includes deploying 21,500 troops. And, in so doing, he said these words: We will not separate the war from the warrior. Debating the new strategy is an American way, but let this be a warning that precipitous action by the Congress could lower troop morale and hinder the mission. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Bloomfield Township, Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Jacksonville, Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Mobile, Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlelady from Cape Girardeau, Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Heller).

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from York, PA (Mr. Platts).

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Roanoke, VA (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SAXTON. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).