Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, let me explain why this case is different from all the rest. This is an extraordinary case. It's a case which, even if you accept the drug dealer's word and all of his testimony as fact, finds results in not only the Members who have sponsored this amendment, Mr. Poe, Mr. Tancredo, myself, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Culberson and many others, that list should be extended to about 1 million ordinary Americans who now know the basic facts of this case, having been laid out in hearings in the other body and soon to be laid out in hearings here, because these gentlemen have been given murder verdicts. They have been given time in excess of the average convicted murderer in the United States. That's what makes this case so extraordinary, along with the facts that attend the way evidence was kept from the jury. Let me just explain this extraordinary case, this case in which the so-called victim was moving close to $1 million of drugs across the border, was shot, was wounded, was brought back into the United States, given immunity to testify against these two Border Patrol agents. Yet after he had been given immunity, and presumably had told the U.S. attorney that in exchange for that immunity he would not continue to move narcotics, he was connected with another massive case of moving almost another $1 million of drugs across the border. That information was never communicated to the court, even though the testimony of that drug dealer is the testimony that sent both these agents to the penitentiary for, essentially, murder sentences; that is, 11 and 12 years respectively. Certainly the U.S. Government at that point had an obligation to go to the court and tell the court that, indeed, the credibility of their key witness had been doubly compromised by this second movement of narcotics. Lastly, let me just say this: Pardons are given, commutations are given. This is, I think you could look at this as maybe another species of commutation. That is, if the Congress speaks loud and clear, and the President signs this bill, then that will be a commutation of the sentence of Agents Compean and Ramos. In light of the commutations that have been given recently by the executive branch, I think we need to remember that people that live in small houses sometimes have a right to commutations of sentences, just like people who live in big houses. In this case, these two Border Patrol men are now in isolation, having spent a long time in jail, Mr. Ramos having been beaten up. Their families, most of us have met their families. This is a matter of little children wanting to see their daddies come home who, in my estimation, have not broken any law anywhere as significant as that which would justify these massive sentences that they have been given, this 11 and 12 years in Federal penitentiary, respectively. Let me add my voice to support of this amendment, which I, along with a number of other colleagues have cosponsored with our great friend from Texas (Mr. Poe). Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Poe the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady for her leadership and also thank the author of this measure and simply point out that we have already passed this measure, and we did pass it on our defense bill last year. Very simply, no American troops are permanently stationed in countries around the world by virtue of the fact that we station them with the permission of the host country. The idea that we are going to insist or enforce, or unilaterally lodge American troops in Iraq is not something that is contemplated by anybody. I just say to the gentlelady that we may have a time in the future, and we have dozens and dozens of countries around the world which on a regular basis give us permission to move our troops across their land area. We may have a time in the future, for example, 5 or 10 years from now, when we have to have an early warning for a missile strike from Iran to Israel. I know that the gentlelady wouldn't object to American forces going in and establishing an early warning station so that we can save the lives of people living in Tel Aviv from a strike similar to the Scud strike that Saddam Hussein launched in the early 1990s at Israel. We may have a time when we have to project American forces for a contingency around the world, and when you do that, regardless of what country you are talking about of the dozens of countries that host us on a regular basis, you go through a protocol. You contact the country. You receive their official permission going through their government, and that describes the parameters of the American presence that will be there, how long it will be there, what the usage will be, whether it is an airfield or a radar station. But there could be a time, should Iran develop weapons of mass destruction or continue on this path to develop weapons of mass destruction and at some point attack a neighbor or prepare to attack a neighbor, and it could well be in the interest of the United States, for example, to have early warning capability should Iran want to make a strike on a country like Israel when that request will be made. And hopefully it would be responded to affirmatively by the free nation of Iraq. I support this legislation, and I will vote for it again, as I voted for it six times. But I would hope that Members would understand and realize that we use dozens and dozens of assets around the world which are all done permissively by the host nations.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield?

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I want to join the gentleman in this amendment to strike the funds for this project on the basis that this poses a security risk for our country. We have absolutely no view of the background of the hundreds and thousands of truckers who will be coming in behind the wheels of these vehicles now with no offload requirement. In the areas of narcotics transportation and potentially terrorist transportation, this is an exposure for the United States. I support the gentleman strongly.

Mr. HUNTER

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment on behalf of myself and the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur). And Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment which goes directly to the security of this country, the homeland security of this country, and particularly the border security and the sovereignty of the Nation. We have right now in Texas a project that is underway, a massive project to build a 12-lane highway heading north, presumably funded largely by private funds, which will head north toward Oklahoma. And the understanding that I have, looking at the statements which have been made by the Security and Prosperity Partnership, is that this is part of an overall plan to develop a corridor between Mexico and Canada transiting the United States. Mr. Chairman, the reason for this amendment, which strikes the funds for the administration to spend money with discussion teams and working groups on this particular project, is because this is a project which cries out for congressional oversight, of which right now there is none. Now, as a representative of a border State, and having represented all the California-Mexican border at one time, my questions would be: What security matters are being discussed right now with these thousands of new trucks which will be transiting this 12-lane highway? What percent of the trucks will be checked? What transparency will be involved with respect to the driving records, and more importantly, the criminal records of the people behind the wheels of these trucks? What are the plans in place to put together a security apparatus to ensure that we have more than 1 percent or 2 percent of this vehicular trade checked? Now, this is a working group which is proceeding, which claims that it has no plans to participate in what they call this private program to deliver this 12-lane highway straight across the middle of the United States connecting Mexico and Canada. Yet, in their own description of what they do, they claim that they undertake these working groups to facilitate multimodal corridors and alleviate bottlenecks at the border. Alleviating bottlenecks at the border, Mr. Chairman, when you only are checking 1 to 2 percent of the cargo containers coming in right now, is a code word for less security, these so-called ``fast passes,'' these passes in which you go through the security apparatus in a matter of seconds rather than in a matter of hours. So I think that it's time, before they facilitate this multimodal operation, for the administration to consult Congress. It's time for our oversight. At this point, I would like to yield to the cosponsor of this amendment, the gentlelady from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest sense of pride that I rise today to honor and pay tribute to Marine Corps Corporal Paul Brodner, Jr. and Sergeant Andrew Lowe. Corporal Brodner and Sergeant Lowe, both constituents of mine from El Cajon, California, recently returned from a seven month deployment to Haditha, Iraq, with Company E of the Second Battalion, Third Marine Regiment. Immediately upon arrival in Haditha, which had a reputation as one of the most dangerous locations within Al Anbar Province and all of Iraq, Corporal Brodner and Sergeant Lowe's patrol were targeted and attacked by Sunni insurgents. For Marines in Iraq, especially those serving in Al Anbar, small arms and sniper fire, grenades and improvised explosive devices are a daily threat that challenge mission objectives and personal safety. The Sunni insurgency in Haditha, at its strength, initiated a campaign of murder and intimidation. Despite being a hotbed of such activity, Marine units in Haditha launched a successful counterinsurgency operation that ultimately restored control of the city's infrastructure and resources to local officials and workers, and suppressed the sense of fear that was preventing Iraqis from joining police and security forces. By the end of Corporal Brodner and Sergeant Lowe's deployment, Haditha's police force exceeded 200 volunteers and began conducting security operations independently of the Marines--who also began receiving regular intelligence reports on insurgent activity from city residents. Progress in Haditha became measurable, especially as attacks against Iraqi and coalition forces decreased from an average of ten per day to only a handful each month. Today, Marines and Iraqi soldiers are serving side-by-side and, most importantly, our Marines continue to provide Iraq's security forces with the training and techniques they will need to protect their government and its people. It is without question that the service men and women who have served in Iraq have demonstrated absolute selflessness and courage. In fact, I am reminded of a recent conversation I had with a Marine leader regarding our efforts in Iraq, particularly the progress of our Marines in Al Anbar Province. The message relayed to me was, ``We are crushing the enemy in Al Anbar.'' Madam Speaker, this continued success in Al Anbar would not be possible without the dedication and commitment of Americans like Corporal Brodner and Sergeant Lowe. Their service and contributions deserve to be recognized and commended, and I hope my colleagues will join me today in honoring these two American heroes.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to honor Liam Swan, a constituent of mine who is currently a student at Oliver Pierce Middle School in Ramona, CA. One of our local hometown papers in San Diego County, the Ramona Home Journal, recently printed a poem written by Liam that memorializes and pays tribute to the servicemen and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice fighting to preserve freedom in Iraq. His poem, titled ``Ode to the Fallen Soldiers of Iraq,'' follows: To all you brave soldiers who have fallen in Iraq, Who left the comforting embrace of Family, friends, and home To fight and protect the freedom of others In a faraway dry, dusty and desolate land, We Americans honor and salute you. Like dry leaves we must crumble and toss Our differences aside. Where you are Hawk or Dove, Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, We must first be Americans Who honor the fallen heroes that fought for us. For you bravely laid down your lives, Spilling your blood and dreams In a foreign land, For a foreign people For an American Cause, Know that you will be greatly missed, Know that you will always be remembered For your sacrifice, For your courage and convictions. Your bright and promising light Extinguished too soon, We celebrate and honor your memory You fallen soldiers of Iraq. As ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, I share Liam's strong support, appreciation and respect for our servicemen and women. I am particularly pleased each time I learn about Americans, like Liam, who are willing to use their creative talents to ensure the memory of those who have voluntarily left the comfort of their homes to defend and protect the interests of the American people, are never forgotten. Madam Speaker, Liam's words reflect our Nation's overwhelming gratitude to the millions of uniformed military men and women that have answered the call to duty with unquestioned courage and commitment. I wish Liam continued success in his academic efforts and it is with absolute pride that I rise today to share his inspiring and patriotic tribute with my colleagues.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I want to express my great respect for my colleague, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, a partner on many, many legislative endeavors and a gentleman who really has the welfare of the troops of the United States in his heart when he speaks and when he legislates. But, Mr. Speaker, let me say this about this piece of legislation which has been brought by the Democrat leadership before this House. This is an attempt once again to stampede a retreat from Iraq, and it is a gratuitous attempt to do this. There is no reason, only 3\1/2\ weeks after the surge of troops has been put in place, to now race for the borders, to demand that the President start to wind up this operation and start to leave, especially when General Petraeus will be making recommendations to us on September 15. There is no reason to do this. And I am reminded of when the surge was first announced and I was on the floor in a discussion with a good colleague from the Democrat side, the day after the surge had been announced when only a few people were even in country from this increase in forces, and she said, There has been a car bombing and that proves the surge doesn't work. And she was ready to immediately start a retreat from the country, and I take it a number of folks on that side of the aisle were willing to do that. There is no reason to do this. We have an interim report which has just come out. The interim report says that in the 18 areas of interest in which progress has to be registered, there has been progress on eight of them, there has been unsatisfactory progress on eight of them, and on two of them it is too early to really make an evaluation. Well, that is the interim report. And on September 15 we will get a further report. And as I look at the important things, the things that to me are important in this report, one thing that is very important is the fact that when we needed to get the three additional brigades and that additional troop strength into Baghdad from the Iraqi Army, we got them there. Even though they didn't show up early on 1\1/2\ years ago, this time they showed up. Mr. Maliki was good on his commitment. They got there. So things that were important to me with respect to this report are being accomplished. But the facts are we are only 27 days into this surge. And the Democrat resolution really spells out no plan whatsoever. It asks the President to come up with yet another plan, which is highly interesting since he has a plan and since General Petraeus has stated that he will recommend adjustments on September 15. So if there are adjustments to make to the plan, they should come after General Petraeus appears before us and gives us his recommended adjustments. So what are we doing here? Well, what we are really doing is counting votes. This is basically an attempt by the Democrat leadership to get a hard vote count, see if any more people have slipped, if there are any more votes on their side of the aisle so that they will be able to tee this thing up and have another vote, hopefully, from their perspective, to forward their goal, which is to start a retreat from Iraq as soon as possible. There is not a single recommendation in the resolution that is offered by my good friend. There is no recommendation for a new strategy. There is simply a series of questions asked of the administration, and those questions can all best be answered when General Petraeus comes before us. So, Mr. Speaker, there are two messages that I see coming from Iraq; and we all see in this very complex, very difficult mission lots of messages. A message I saw the other day came from a senior Marine leader. Do you know what it said? It said, ``We are crushing the enemy in Anbar.'' And then a few minutes later, I saw a message from the Democrat leadership that said, ``We have to get out now.'' I have seen the Democrat leadership many times say, We are going to end this war. Mr. Speaker, they don't have the ability to end this war. No American has the ability to end this war. What they do have if they gain enough power is only the ability to leave this battlefield. Let's not stampede for the border, Mr. Speaker. This is not a time to make a precipitous decision to start ordering the President on a policy that is going to be reported on on September 15. Let's keep our stability. Let's make sure that we don't pass this gratuitous piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, which really is nothing more than a vote count for the Democrat leadership. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield at this time 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton). The distinguished gentleman has been the chairman in the past of the Terrorism Subcommittee and is an expert on special operations.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks), a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to Mr. Pearce, the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Virginia (Mrs. Drake).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to our final speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the Republican leader.

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

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, following my remarks and Mr. Skelton's remarks, I understand we are going to yield to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I would yield an additional 15 minutes of my time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and also I would yield 30 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and that he may be allowed to yield time in turn.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman who started the Iraq Study Group, the gentleman from Virginia, the very distinguished Mr. Wolf. (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to Dr. Gingrey, the gentleman from Georgia, 3 minutes.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield to Mr. McKeon, the gentleman from California, for a unanimous consent request. (Mr. McKEON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)