Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, let me say this: I have always greatly respected the ability of our guys, this great resource that we have of flag officers--and nonflag officers, incidentally, NCOs and company grade officers--to go over to a warfighting theater and come back and bring you the news, whether it's good or bad. In fact, I've hosted forums in the Armed Services Committee when I brought in dissenting officers who would come back and tell us what they thought was wrong with the war because you've got to listen to it. If you're going to shape good policy, you've got to hear both sides to these things. I would just say to my colleagues who say, well, these people were hosted; they came over and they were hosted. Listen, you have respected people like General Zinni and Barry McCaffrey and other respected leaders and generals, and they go over to a warfighting theater, you can bet that they are hosted by their colleagues that they grew up with in the military, fought alongside with, and that's absolutely appropriate. And you can bet that they were given transport and they got to look at the operations, they got to give their analysis. And you know something? That has value. I always want to see the guy that thinks that the operation isn't going well and listen to his remarks and his comments. So the idea that we're going to label the guys who we don't agree with as having been ``propagandized'' and we're going to label the guys we agree with as being seers and prophets and truth tellers, that just doesn't work. We've all been surprised. As you look at this array of general officers, often you'll say, I would have bet that that guy likes the operation. You talk to him and he says, ``no, I don't like it, I think we're there for the wrong reason, I don't think it's going to work.'' And the guy that you thought probably is not going to support it says, you know, I've seen this, this, this and this, and I agree with the operation. You want to listen to all of them. And the idea that we're going to crunch down on them and also the idea that somehow Don Rumsfeld got these people in a room and told them what to say, if you believe that, you don't believe in the independence of these general officers. None of them are used to having people tell them what to say. They're independent. They're a source of information to us. They're a valuable resource. And we ought to respect all of them. We ought to urge them all to go to theater, come back with their remarks and their comments.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. HUNTER. I would yield myself such time as I might consume. Madam Chairman and my colleagues, we have general officers, flag officers who go over to Iraq, Afghanistan just as they have gone to every war theater we've fought in. They talk to their colleagues. Their colleagues give them the facts as they see the facts. They come back. They repeat those facts, the ones that they concur in, and they draw conclusions. Now, they do that on dozens and dozens of talk shows and other media outlets throughout the United States. Some of them are for the operation and some of them are against the operation. The idea, and this sounds like something we might want to adopt for our campaigns because I've found myself falling prey to this now and again, thinking what my opponent said was propaganda, what I said was the absolute truth. But how about the General McCaffreys who come back, having talked to their friends in theater, and they come back and give their set of facts and they say, therefore, we don't think things are going well, as opposed to the general who goes over and talks to friends in the theater, some of them the very same people, and they come back and say our conclusion is that things are going well. The idea that we take this great resource, and I understand this is directed at general officers who go over to the theater, come back, appear in the American media, and give their take on where they think this war is going. I think that's a great asset for this country, and I say that, even though I've appeared many times opposite general officers and flag officers who have the opposite opinion from mine. But it's a great resource to have people that have that background and are able to look at the situation and come back and give their opinion freely. The idea that the people who agree with the operation over there are giving propaganda, but the generals who have come back and said that we think there is a problem with this operation, and there are quite a few of them, that somehow their point is right on and they are precisely accurate and they are serving the public, that's nonsense. You've got to let your general officers go over, make an evaluation, come back, give that evaluation, and we get to cross-examine them in committee, as we often do. We'll have people on both sides who have seen the same wars and the same operations and come to different conclusions. The idea that we are going to label the people we don't agree with propagandists and the ones that agree with us are philosophers and statesmen is kind of a zany idea. Let's let all of our general officers, let's look at them as a great resource, whether they agree with us or not. I've always said that, even about the folks that come back and have a totally opposite view from mine. I've always said this is a great resource to have retired military people with a long background, who go over, have these insights, make an evaluation and come back and give us that evaluation. Believe me, ladies and gentlemen, we've had it on both sides on the Afghanistan and the Iraq operations. We've seen guys like General Zinni come back and give a viewpoint totally opposite the administration. Yet I listen to that gentleman. I greatly respect him. I think he's got a lot of wisdom. I disagree with him in some cases. But the idea that we call the people who disagree with us propagandists and the other ones great seers and statesmen and philosophers doesn't make any sense. Let's let everybody come back and exercise the right to free speech, and let's not have any of these inhibiting amendments. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. How much time do we have?

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I would like to recognize the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Broun) for 5 minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. In that case, Madam Chairman, we do not object to this amendment. Madam Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. HUNTER. I understand that. The way it's drafted, it appears to me that it's a flat prohibition, and any organization with even one U.S. citizen might be precluded from using this business form, which I think is a far more anticompetitive approach than the gentleman might want. My feeling is this, that if we approve this amendment, I would hope that the gentleman would work in conference to make sure that it's narrowed to this focus on making sure that these companies pay taxes and that it doesn't have some kind of exclusionary or unintended consequence. Will the gentleman work with us in conference?

Mr. HUNTER. I have a lot of respect for the author of this amendment, and I understand what you're trying to do. You're trying to keep a corporation from basically employing through a subsidiary American citizens who are not contributing to the tax withholdings. Is that right?

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairwoman, I would like to yield to Dr. Gingrey such time as we have left.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I would like to yield at this time to another gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland) 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER. I want to yield very quickly to Dr. Gingrey. But first, we have that list, and any Member can go look at it but it is not made available to the public. And I think there is a safety issue here. I think there is a safety issue with respect to the families, the children, the wives of the folks that attend this particular institution. And you know something else? We applaud our military people regularly. We acknowledge that they're some of the most honorable of citizens. We trust them with the lives of our children and in battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. And yet it seems like the amendments that come up show quite a bit of distrust. We don't trust our interrogators, so now we're going to videotape them as if they were stealing candy at a 7-Eleven because we don't trust them. And here we don't trust these great military folks that run WHINSEC who, I think, are going to have a salutary effect on the leaders that come from other countries that come to this school. Americans are the best. Our military people are often the very best ambassadors for this country. And the idea that we continue to try to close down the best ambassadors, so that the people who will offer schools to them are people like Hugo Chavez, I think that doesn't make a lot of sense. So as much as I respect my colleague who is offering this amendment, I would hope that my colleagues would vote against it. I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield the gentleman an additional minute.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for his answer. But if you have a situation where you are doing intel interrogations close to the battlefield, which you are in many places, a matter of minutes or hours could make the difference between life and death. And if you don't have video equipment available, which you wouldn't have in many of those cases, you could still have what I would call a disastrous result. I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. HUNTER. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman, and then I will yield to Mr. Thornberry.

Mr. HUNTER. I am going to yield to Mr. Thornberry, but first let me just say this. I respect the gentleman who just made the statement who has been in Iraq. But my son was in Iraq, also, and on two missions, two tours, and Afghanistan. And one important fact that I think comes out when you talk to folks who have been there is the exigency of the battlefield. That is the need to do things quickly, to be creative, to be able to move quickly to save the lives of your comrades and to carry out your mission. Now, let's think about this. You have to videotape interrogations. What happens if you have got people coming in, moving in a pincer movement against a particular area, maybe some buildings, maybe you have got some machine gun fire, and you have been hitting IEDs, and you capture somebody and you have got people in movement. And you have to bring up then the video cameras to interrogate before you can have a successful interrogation. And what if you don't have video cameras? You are going to have people who are deterred from being able to do that because they are going to be worried that somehow they are going to be found in violation of the rules. Now, we have got a letter here from the Under Secretary of Defense who says that the Defense Department very strongly opposes this requirement to video record all intelligence interrogations. They say: This requirement runs contrary to sound Defense Department policy, which relies upon careful selection and empowerment of the chain of command to execute the mission. Currently, commanders video record interrogations only after determining that the environment is conducive and the recordings will add value to the mission. I might add that if you have interrogations, especially if you have got special operators who are out among the population and you lose one of the recordings, then you expose them to enormous risk. So the idea of making this not discretionary and mandating it I think doesn't make a lot of sense.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I would just say to my colleagues that you do have to be certified, you do have to be trained, you have to be supervised, and you are subject to prosecution. So our special operators have laid down a pretty strict set of guidelines. And the last thing that I saw coming from the department was that this would severely hamper Special Operations' capability if it was passed. Now, that may be because many of the things Mr. Thornberry talked about with respect to language, with respect to availability. I think we should respect what the warfighters say about this and get more information before we take a vote like this.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, let me go over the adequate safeguards that are currently in place. The contract must specify the interrogation support. All support must be in accordance with applicable law and policy. They must be trained and certified, in- theater training. They must be closely supervised and monitored. They will not oversee, direct or monitor interrogations. They operate only in fixed facilities. They must submit a written interrogation plan. And, lastly, they are subject to prosecution. Let me say to my friend from Virginia and the author of this amendment, because they are both friends and I know their hearts are in the right place, I have observed one interrogation, one of the first times I have seen an interrogation. It was an older lady reading a children's book to a detainee. I said, ``You gotta be kidding me.'' I expected all the classic stuff like we see in the movies. And our escort said, ``Are you kidding?'' They said, ``This lady is one of the most effective people we have, and she does extremely well.'' I believe she was a contractor. She sure as heck wasn't a uniformed service person. Now, my point is that there is a lot of psychology, that there is a lot of art to this, there is a lot of human relations. And if you have prohibitions against coercive behavior, and we have got rows of those in all of our manuals, if you have got somebody that you can contract with who can walk into a room and walk out maybe 2 days later, maybe 8 days later, maybe 6 months later with information that will save the lives of your troops and advance the mission, who cares if that is an elderly lady who happens to be a civilian and may not want to join the Army?

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who has been a member of the committee and also the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.