Duncan Hunter

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons), one of our great veterans.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the rule, I think every Member who was listening to the debate as they listened to a number of speeches being made over and over, sometimes the same things being said by different Members, they understand the subject which we are addressing today, which is the criminal acts of what has been identified so far as six individuals, with three of them having been recommended under article 32 of the UCMJ to the court martial convening authority for general court martial for abuse of prisoners, assault, and dereliction of duty. That is one of the purposes of this resolution, for this House to condemn those activities. Understand that the criminal prosecutions have not taken place yet, the trials have not been held and that we are not passing judgment at this point on people who are being focused on as potential defendants in these cases. But I thought it was important, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the other people, because the tendency of the media and the discussion has been to forget about the 300,000 uniformed Americans who are serving our country with bravery, with compassion, with ingenuity and doing great things, not in their own communities, but in communities thousands of miles away where the only reward they may receive is from a kid that they have given a soccer ball to like hundreds of the 101 Airborne members, or for people whom they have hooked up a water supply as people have done in all of the cities throughout central Iraq or children that have been vaccinated by American medics. The only thanks they are going to get, obviously, is not going to come from the American press at this point because the American press is fixated on what you might call the six bad apples who have been identified to date, and there may be more. We all know that. But the 300,000 who served honorably, they are not going to get too much attention here because it is not in keeping with a good sound bite today if you want to get on television to talk about the good things that have been done in the country. My great partner on this Committee on Armed Services, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), was in full accord with this. We wanted to make sure that the good people got talked about and that this did not turn into the action of the demoralization of our fighting forces in Iraq. So we wanted to talk about the good things they have done. And this resolution, and I would commend it to every Democrat and Republican, from the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and all of the others who may have had trouble or problems with this resolution, I would commend it to them to approve and to support and to vote for. I just wanted to say, Mr. Speaker, I am looking at right now some of the untold stories; and I wanted to cite an untold story to you, a couple of them. It is true that there were abuses so far by six people who have been identified in this Abu Ghraib prison; but while that was going on, Gunnery Sergeant Jeffrey Bohr of the United States Marine Corps was awarded the Silver Star posthumously for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action against the enemy while serving as Company Gunnery Sergeant, Company A, 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, Regimental Combat Team 5, 1st Marine Division. While moving through narrow streets toward the objective, the convoy took intense small arms and rocket-propelled grenade fire. Throughout this movement, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr delivered accurate effective fires on the enemy, while encouraging his Marines and supplying critical information to his company commander. When the lead vehicles of the convoy reached a dead end and were subjected to heavy enemy fire, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr continued to boldly engage the enemy while calmly maneuvering his Marines to safety. Upon learning of a wounded Marine in a forward vehicle, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr immediately coordinated medical treatment and evacuation. Moving to the position of the injured Marine, Gunnery Sergeant Bohr continued to lay down a high volume of suppressive fire, simultaneously guiding the medical evacuation vehicle until he was mortally wounded by enemy fire. Yes, we had abuses by some six people. We have had apparent abuses by some six people who are now going through the criminal justice system of the U.S. Army, which I think our Members will find moves a lot faster than the domestic justice system. But at the same time, Corporal Marco Martinez was undertaking actions which led to him being awarded the second highest award that our government can give for heroism, the Navy Cross. So I thought I might take a little bit of this time that was intended to beat up the U.S. military, to congratulate some of those 300,000 people who have served U.S. so well. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address what the gentlewoman just said because she has made a mistake. She said that the 3-month-old investigation has only now come to light. I have in front of me the news release that I will give to the gentlewoman. As of January 16, which was 3 days after the soldier came forward and gave to his commanding officer the evidence that bad things were taking place at the prison, CENTCOM released a news release to every news agency in the world stating that an investigation has been initiated into reported incidents of detainee abuse. So they announced to the world 3 days after the soldier came forward in January that an investigation had been started; and General Kimmet announced to the combined audiences of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, by my calculations over 20 million people, on January 16 that an investigation had been started. Outside of that, nobody was told.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. To address the distinguished majority whip, the distinguished majority whip, like the previous speaker, is wrong. The statement was put out by the Army on January 15 that this investigation was taking place, 2 days after the soldier came forward. And 3 days after the soldier came forward, it was given in General Kimmitt's address to the combined audiences of Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN. That is not turning a blind eye. I will give the gentleman the notice. It was put out on January 14. He can look at it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my friend, you say some knew about this. The combined audiences of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN heard this in the daily briefing in January. So your statement that the administration turned a blind eye to it is not true. They initiated an investigation, once again initiated by General Sanchez, 3 days after the soldier came forward.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 628, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 627) deploring the abuse of persons in United States custody in Iraq, regardless of the circumstances of their detention, urging the Secretary of the Army to bring to swift justice any member of the Armed Forces who has violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, expressing the deep appreciation of the Nation to the courageous and honorable members of the Armed Forces who have selflessly served, or are currently serving, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a former member of the Committee on Armed Services, who is a colonel in the Army Reserve and was in fact a JAG officer at our POW camps in Gulf War I.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield our remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume just to reiterate the same thing that I have been stating, and that is that 2 days after the soldier in January reported to his superiors that abuses were taking place, the United States announced to the world in their press release that we were undertaking an investigation. And a few days after that, 4 days after the facts came forward, we announced to the combined audiences of Fox News, MSNBC and CNN, millions of people, that the investigations were taking place. The investigations proceeded. We now have three individuals who are being recommended to the Court-Martial Convening Authority for court- martial for prisoner abuse, assault, dereliction of duty, and a large number of people in the chain of command have had their career ended, not because we found any connection between them and the acts, but because it was on their watch that these things took place. I want to say just one thing about Mr. Rumsfeld before I recognize another speaker, Mr. Speaker. We have 135,000 good, hard-working, courageous uniformed men and women in theater. They are in contact in firefights on a daily basis. The job of the Secretary of Defense is to see to it that we win this war. He assigned to the legitimate, appropriate departments this investigation and told them to go forward, which they did, resulting in the criminal prosecution machine being set in motion under our court-martial authority, and he went back to trying to win this war. That is the appropriate action for the Secretary of Defense. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson), a great member of the 173rd Airborne in the Vietnam War.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would simply say, before we knew about this, the criminal procedures were going forward. It was the United States Army soldier, not a press, not an IG who brought this forward. It was a United States Army soldier who brought this forward. Criminal investigations are going on, undertaken by the Army. The court martial process is in process.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague that when the publicity flush is finished on what was done by who we have identified as some six individuals now, they will have received thousands and thousands, as much time and publicity as the 300,000 good Americans who have served this country, and as much attention from this Congress.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, let me just answer the gentleman who has just spoken. There are three investigations going on right now. There is a CENTCOM investigation, a criminal investigation going on right now. If there are other people involved beyond these six, those people will be picked up in that investigation. There is also a Department of the Army investigation and a Department of the Navy investigation going on. Further, let me say to my friends, the ranking member, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), and I worked on this together. The Committee on Armed Services was the appropriate standing committee to do this. We worked on this until late last night, and the people who vetoed what we thought we had an agreement on were the Democrat leadership. Let me tell Members the two paragraphs they vetoed. They wanted to kick out the two paragraphs that referred to the good works in terms of providing food, providing education, providing medical capability to the Iraqi people that were given by our people in uniform. I thought it was appropriate since we have 300,000 people who have done right to continue to mention the fact that they have done some good things in Iraq. I think the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) agreed with that also. The Democrat leadership did not want to include those good things in this particular resolution, and that is why this had to come forward not under unanimous consent agreed to by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) and myself, but it had to come forward through the rules process.

Mr. HUNTER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to refocus. The focus should be on the fact that we have had over 300,000 Americans in uniform serving in this theater. The vast majority of them have served honorably and courageously, I would say to my colleague who just spoke who said, sure, we have some criminal acts, but why can we not convict more people up the chain of command for those acts. The facts are in this country when somebody commits a criminal act, they are held accountable for that act. They are being held accountable. I want to remind my colleagues once again of the numbers. The numbers are 300,000 Americans serving honorably in Iraq. The numbers further at this point are that six of them have been recommended for criminal prosecution under UCMJ for these acts. Once again, I saw in The Washington Post this morning that picture of that same lady undertaking a reprehensible act with respect to a prisoner. We have seen thousands of pictures. The ones that I have seen at least that have come forward all have the same several individuals. My point is 300,000 people serving honorably, over 3,000 Purple Hearts awarded, thousands of Bronze Stars awarded, 127 Silver Stars awarded for valor, four Distinguished Service Crosses or Navy Crosses awarded for valor in this war, and our troops in contact right now. So while we have potentially six bad apples, and I want to set the record straight, three have been recommended to the court martial convening board for court martials. It is the convening board's decision whether or not those court martials go forward and when. So three out of the six who have been recommended for court martial under article 32 are now before the court martial convening authority. That is six people. Sure, investigations may show more people, but they do not show thousands of people. They do not show tens of thousands of people, and what the record in Iraq does reflect is 300,000 courageous Americans serving our country. One other thing that we put in this resolution, while all of this national media and international media is going to the six, to the six bad apples who have been identified so far, and the careers have been ended of about seven superior officers up through the chain of command up to the general who is the brigade commander, not because they knew anything about it, in fact, in some cases probably because they did not know anything about it, but because it was on their watch it happened, those careers have been ended. We have thousands of acts of compassion and nation-building and government-building carried on by the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States. They have started city councils, repaired sewage lines, and inoculated kids so they will not get sick. They have done great things, and we put that in this resolution because they deserve a little attention, not just the six bad apples.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been watching the national debate and, of course, all of the talk shows and all of the discussion about Senator Kerry's service to the country, the President's service to the country, who is patriotic, who is not patriotic. I think that it is important to lay out in lines of demarcation across what is fair political comment and what is not. I think that, first, service to our country gives any Member who has served, especially in a war like Vietnam, the platform, the right, to certainly have a position, a credible position on what we should do with respect to national defense. On the other hand, service in the military does not by and of itself mean that you are not accountable for, if you are elected to Congress, your voting record. What I would like to do is to simply say that I have no quarrel with Senator Kerry's having served in Vietnam. I think that is a good thing and I think that being a veteran is something people should be commended for. On the other hand, I think it is very important to say that that is not a substitute for a strong defense voting record. I heard several people attacking the President the other day and Vice President Cheney in particular, saying that Vice President Cheney had a poor voting record on defense and that Senator Kerry had a good voting record on defense. So what I did was go to the Almanac of American Politics, which puts together a series of ratings on Congressmen and Senators. It is done by the National Journal. It is considered to be nonpartisan. It is considered to have a great deal of credibility. They give people ratings by groups that they think are good, honest brokers of where you stand in particular areas. For example, I have, I think, a fairly low AFL-CIO rating. Other Members of Congress have a high rating. That rating is in the National Journal, where people can open it up and see my rating. Senator Kerry also has a rating from the American Security Council. He has a rating that was given at the same time that he was in the Senate that the Vice President, Richard Cheney, was in the House of Representatives, and in which a real barometer for being a good, strong defense Democrat, Sam Nunn of Georgia, was in the Senate. I looked at this rating. The rating at the time when they were all three in Congress, Vice President Cheney, at that time Congressman Cheney, had a 100 percent American Security Council rating for being strong on national defense as reported by the Almanac of American Politics. Sam Nunn, Democrat from Georgia, had a 100 percent rating for being strong on national defense under the American Security Council rating system as reported in the Almanac of American Politics put out by National Journal. Senator Kerry had a zero for a national defense voting record as rated by the American Security Council, as reported by the National Journal's Almanac of American Politics. Once again Vice President Cheney, 100 percent in votes in support of a strong national defense. Sam Nunn, Democrat from Georgia, 100 percent for a strong national defense. Senator John Kerry, zero. I do not think we should continue to debate ad nauseam Senator Kerry's record with respect to Vietnam. I think his words when he testified to the Senate and said that American servicemen had murdered 200,000 people, I think he should be accountable for that. I think he should be accountable for the statement when he said that 80 percent of them were stoned on pot 24 hours a day and that they ravaged the country like Genghis Khan. But I do not think that we should ad nauseam debate his service. We should, though, debate his voting record and whether that voting record portends well for the United States of America in terms of a strong national security should he become President of the United States. I think that we ought to go to the record, we ought to get off this who shot John and who is bad and who is good and who served and who did not, but go to the voting record and analyze who would be best in terms of making a strong national security apparatus for our country. In my estimation, that is not Senator Kerry. I again thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. HUNTER

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman for his remarks.

Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her great service on the Committee on Armed Services and her dedication to our people in uniform. What a wonderful, wonderful statement she has made, and especially relating it to the people that wear the uniform, because they are literally America's heart and soul over in that military theater. So I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia very much, and now I would like to yield to the gentlewoman's colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Schrock), who has done a great job on our committee and works very hard and has served our people in uniform, so he has a little background there himself. Let me ask the gentleman what his take is on the situation in Iraq right now. How does my colleague see it?

Mr. HUNTER. Stay steady.

Mr. HUNTER. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. HUNTER. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest the gentleman not praise me too much, because this Special Order has to stay credible. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his great remarks, and I now want to welcome the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who is carrying on the great tradition of Floyd Spence, my great buddy and friend and former chairman of the Committee on Armed Services. I thank him for the sacrifices his family has made and he has made in being in the service, and for his dedication to our people in uniform.