WASHINGTON—Today, U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter made the following statement regarding reported changes to U.S. hostage policy:
“After a long, drawn-out review of U.S. hostage policy, the changes offered up by the White House prove that neither the right questions were asked nor were any lessons learned. Wholesale changes are needed, but what’s being put forward is nothing more than window dressing, I fear. It’s a pathetic response to a serious problem that has plagued the ability of the U.S. to successfully recover Americans held captive in the post-9/11 era. It’s a sure bet that more Americans and westerners will be captured given the threat of ISIS and others, and while there’s always opportunity for success if things go right, the new policy falls significantly short overall.
“The fact that the FBI has retained the leadership role within the fusion cell ignores the long list of mistakes and grievances presented over the duration of the review—and I was one of many individuals to offer my concerns and recommendations. There needs to be a single person situated above the fusion cell, with the authority necessary to direct certain activities, isolate turf battles, and streamline the bureaucracy. The FBI is not organized or developed for hostage recovery in hostile areas, yet they are leading the fusion cell. Even with two Deputy Directors representing the Defense Department and the State Department beneath a Director housed at the FBI, there’s no chance that the FBI will have the authority to direct either entity. It also makes no sense to house the director of the fusion cell within an agency, specifically when that agency has comparatively limited overseas reach. Bottom line: the controversy regarding U.S. hostage policy started with the FBI and will likely continue with the FBI. Look no further than Army Lt. Col. Jason Amerine—who testified before the Senate recently—as a prime example of how the FBI retaliates against any interest that’s not their own.
“Among all the issues I believed the White House could get right, this was one. I was wrong. And sadly, I was told of numerous reports of infighting during the progression of the hostage policy review, with both the FBI and the State Department arguing for the leadership role, while discrediting the other. All the while, the early recommendation for the Defense Department, with its assets, intel and global reach, to assume the direct lead was scuttled. This is all very unfortunate—and while I have hope we can be successful, which we are sure to be from time to time, what’s needed is a hostage recovery policy that works for every American held captive in hostile areas. The changes put forward show that there’s still a lot of work to do.”Read More
[Editor's note: The following is an open letter from Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., to Maj. Mathew Golsteyn. The officer faces a board of inquiry that begins Tuesday at Fort Bragg, N.C. The board is to recommend weather he could remain in service.
Two-plus years of investigations and administrative gamesmanship by the Army have led to this week's Board of Inquiry to determine your fate. The Army's case against you is weak, but their advantage is that they control the venue, the process and everything else.]
You have been outnumbered before and you fought your way out. Expect to do the same again. The Army wants to believe that you are guilty of "murder" and "conspiracy," even though they were unable to substantiate an allegation that you killed a confirmed bomb maker in Afghanistan — a bomb maker who had the blood of at least two Marines on his hands.
They want to believe the allegation in the absence of any evidence or witnesses. This was evident as soon as they revoked your Silver Star and Distinguished Service Cross, in addition to your Special Forces Tab — all of it without material evidence or witnesses, and without awareness of the threats you and your men faced in the war zone.
No less to blame is the Central Intelligence Agency, for being manipulated by Army investigators to disclose details from your job interview with the clandestine service. You are the type of operator the CIA wants and needs. And instead of being punished for the alleged action, you should be on the CIA payroll right now or given a combat command.
You deserve better than the treatment you've been given.
Your service and sacrifice, your repeated deployments — all of it should call for mutual respect and fairness. It's an absolute shame to observe your struggle.Young men and women have been following your case —soldiers and civilians, alike. Your case was even brought up recently by a high school class in my congressional district and they too were confounded by the Army's actions.
They're not alone.
You have support far and wide. And without request, a thousand-plus petitions reaffirming support for you showed up in my office, signed by American families that care about you and are equally angered by your struggle.
No matter what the Army tries to take from you, remember that your actions in combat are your own. The respect you earned is your own. None of this can ever be stripped. When it came down to it, your brothers and sisters in arms were all that mattered.
While the bureaucrats and armchair generals were in Washington D.C., you were in the thick of the fight. Tired, dirty, and alone with your team. Things are different now, but you are still in the fight— and all I ask is that you don't give up now. Show that same tenacity that led to your nomination for the Distinguished Service Cross. Show the same courage. Stand proud, knowing what you have accomplished. Stand proud for your family and for your country. We are proud of you. And, remember… you are not alone.Read More
Mark your calendar. This coming Monday, June 22, U.S. Representative Duncan Hunter is hosting a San Diego Military2Maritime career fair—and hundreds of veterans and active military members are already expected to attend. This is a free event. And along with the American Maritime Partnership and the Port of San Diego, Representative Hunter will help to connect San Diego’s veterans and transitioning servicemen and women with jobs—and job prospects—in the maritime industry.
Monday’s event is scheduled between 10 AM and 2 PM at Port Pavilion on Broadway Pier (1000 N Harbor Drive, San Diego). To find this and even more information, including a link for registering, the American Maritime Partnership has created a convenient and informational web page that you can access by following: Military2Maritime Career Fair Details.
Why is this career fair important? It’s because California is home to more than 34,000 jobs that support the maritime industry. This not only makes California fourth in the order among states that support the maritime industry, but San Diego is a major supplier of those jobs and the associated economic benefits. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that maritime jobs alone contribute more than $6.6 billion to California’s economy each year. That’s quite significant. And it shows just how important the maritime industry and its workers are to the San Diego region, the State of California and the entire nation.
Representative Hunter is proud to support efforts to strengthen the industrial base and place workers in jobs that fit their skillsets. Connecting San Diego and California veterans and active military with family-wage jobs in the thriving domestic shipbuilding and maritime industry is sure to translate into something meaningful for workers and families—and Representative Hunter is honored to welcome the Military2Maritime program to San Diego for this great event.
***If you know someone who might be interested in attending, please forward this event advisory. And encourage them to attend.Read More
“Yesterday was a disturbing day for us not only as Members of Congress, but also as military officers. With regard to hostage issues presently involving our constituents, Lieutenant Colonel Jason Amerine, U.S. Army Special Forces, has brought to light serious and critical flaws in this country’s hostage recovery efforts. After witnessing his testimony at the “whistleblower” hearing held today by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, we’re compelled to speak out in solidarity with Jason, who has served this country bravely, selflessly and loyally for over 26 years, has an impeccable and impressive service record, and has made and witnessed sacrifices for this Nation too numerous to mention. Jason is a true American Warrior. But rather than even acknowledging his tenacity, integrity and fortitude, the Department of Defense and the Obama Administration have decided that treating him like a common thug is more appropriate – by suspending his security clearance, suspending him from his duty position, deleting his retirement orders, considering court martial and launching a criminal investigation against him.
Jason epitomizes the Army Values – the last tenet of which is “Personal Courage - facing fear, danger or adversity…which may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially when not popular with others.” But rather than acknowledging his courage and investigating how to fix grievous errors in the hostage recovery process, Jason is now being vilified. Perhaps the unfortunate and regretful part of this debacle is the breathtakingly poor example we’re now setting for Service Members who are learning a lesson that never should be taught: that you should only do what’s right when there’s no fear of reprisal. This is not what this country was founded upon, not what it stands for, not what sets it apart from every other country in the world.
We thank Jason, applaud his personal courage and fortitude, and stand in support of him.”
For more information about Lieutenant Colonel Jason Amerine and the recent Senate hearing click here.Read More
WASHINGTON— Rep. Duncan Hunter joined with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, in issuing the following joint statement today regarding the impending vote on fast-track executive authority:
“When the Senate voted on fast-track, many Senators were unaware that they were voting to authorize the President to form a new transnational governance structure. The Trans-Pacific Partnership resembles a treaty more than a trade deal. And like a treaty, it confers the power to both compel and restrict changes to U.S. policy, to commit the U.S. to new international obligations, and to cede sovereign authority to a foreign body. Specifically, TPP calls for the formation of a permanent political and economic union known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission, which will have the power to issue regulations impacting not only trade but immigration, the environment, labor, and commerce. This global union would be able to add new member countries and, because TPP is a ‘living agreement,’ it will be able to change the agreement after its ratification.
By adopting fast-track, Congress would be formally authorizing the President to finalize the creation of this Pacific Union and will have surrendered its legislative prerogatives. Before a word, line, paragraph, or page of this plan is made public, Congress will have agreed to give up its treaty powers. Not only that, but Congress will have also given up its powers to amend the deal, revise the deal, fully debate the deal, or apply a cloture vote in the Senate. In effect, one of the most sweeping international agreements seen in years with be given less legislative scrutiny and process than a Post Office reform bill. And, once the trade implementing legislation is enacted, that implementing language itself will necessarily supersede U.S. law.
In its rush to approve these new powers for the President, Congress risks the jobs, wages, rights, and sovereignty of U.S. citizens. President Obama demands we give him this new authority, yet he refuses to answer even the most basic questions about it. What we do know is that whatever structure the President creates with these new powers—we are told that the plan is ‘the most progressive in history’—it will endure long after he has left office.”
WASHINGTON— Rep. Duncan Hunter made the following statement regarding the death of Dr. Warren Weinstein, an American aid worker held hostage by al Qaeda, who was killed in a U.S. drone strike:
“Warren Weinstein did not have to die. His death is further evidence of the failures in communication and coordination between government agencies tasked with recovering Americans in captivity—and the fact that he’s dead, as a result, is absolutely tragic. The FBI was the lead organization in the recovery mission, but, as I have said repeatedly, the FBI is incapable of leading these efforts in hostile areas. And the CIA’s focus in this case and others is not on the successful recovery of Americans held captive. Above all, this incident reaffirms the necessity to install an interagency coordinator—as I have proposed—in order to ensure there’s effective and constructive engagement at all levels.
“This incident also calls to attention the fact that the only government organization seriously developing options to recover Weinstein and others in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region was within the Pentagon—led by war hero Jason Amerine. In the lead up to the Bergdahl trade, Amerine and his team were developing plans to recover all Western hostages in the area—not just Bergdahl. Their planning did not include a 5 for 1 trade, as occurred, but rather a 1 for 7 exchange that included Weinstein. Due to infighting and disagreements among lead organizations, Amerine and his team struggled to get attention beyond the walls of the Pentagon and were ultimately sidelined. And when the State Department-led 5 for 1 trade was initiated, the deck was reshuffled for all the other Americans in captivity in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. This is just one more failure in a string of failures related to the Administration’s decisions and efforts related to Bergdahl’s release.
“My thoughts and prayers are with Warren Weinstein’s family. And my hope is that the Administration examines this entire incident with the understanding that opportunities were missed.”Read More
The U.S. Army is an institution of greatness. Its history and tradition are steeped in the service of sacrifice of generations of Americans who have stepped forward in times of war and peace.
These soldiers have also counted on the steady hand of strong leadership at the top. Many times, a decision regarding one soldier is a decision that affects all. But there are times when that same leadership gets things wrong and stubbornly refuses to do the right thing —for whatever reason.
The latest example of such a mistake involves a former Special Forces soldier and war hero, Maj. Matthew Golsteyn. Soon, Matt will face a board of inquiry to decide his future in the Army. The allegation under review: In 2010, he killed an unarmed insurgent bomb maker responsible for the death of at least two Marines in the area of Marjah.
The same leadership in place to protect soldiers like Matt has already created a premature presumption of guilt without a shred of verifying evidence. Specifically, based on the allegation alone, Secretary McHugh revoked Matt's Silver Star, which was the interim award for an earlier and separate incident that led to a Distinguished Service Cross nomination. McHugh even signed off on the DSC, but he revoked that, too. And, as a thumb in the eye, McHugh directed that Matt be stripped of his Special Forces tab, which he earned, along with the Silver Star and DSC.
This is not just the Army trying to hurt Matt. It's kicking him when he's down. A point of deep pride and respect is that Matt refuses to fall. He's so far withstood it all. Even without his tab or his awards, he's the same soldier he was through the course of operations in Marjah and over his service career.
As a Green Beret, Matt, like many others in this position, dedicated himself to the life of a Special Forces soldier. He accepted the dangers that came with it. He embraced the good, as well as the bad, and he commanded a deep sense of respect among his fellow soldiers.
In every way, Matt is the type of officer that the Army wants, possessing all the qualities that are needed to secure victory against the enemy and create a seemingly ever-present shield in front of the soldiers in the fight with him. Medal of Honor recipient Will Swenson called Matt "the finest officer I have served with," further saying, "I would gladly stand with him on any battlefield against any enemy." Coming from one of the Army's own heroes and top award recipients, there is perhaps no greater compliment and testament to Matt's character.
Trouble for Matt began when he submitted to a polygraph with the Central Intelligence Agency as he was being considered for employment. There, Matt is alleged to have discussed an incident involving the death of a bomb maker, but the CIA, in reporting the incident informally to the Army, instructed that any statement or information provided could not be used to charge him criminally. Put differently, the Army would have to investigate the allegation and determine what evidence existed. This is where the Army came up short. Not a single piece of evidence was discovered. The Army even went as far as confronting Matt's men. Some were offered immunity. Nothing turned up.
So in the absence of evidence, McHugh stripped Matt's tab and his valor awards, well before he ever had an opportunity to defend himself. What a shame. Infuriating, too. That's because the process by which decisions are made should have integrity, without the impulse of subjectivity and politicization.
Think about it this way: an allegation is made, regardless of with whom it originates. In wartime especially, a recounting of events can be incorrect, misunderstood, distorted or even exaggerated. The Army then has a process by which allegations must be investigated, but that process cannot be allowed to invent consequences in the absence of evidence — which is exactly what's happening to Matt.
When Matt faces his board of inquiry, let's hope that better judgment prevails. It's hard to imagine any scenario that would lead Matt to desire serving more, but this is yet another instance that should force Army leadership to look inward and ask whether it's doing the right thing. If they do, they may actually see the error in their treatment of this hero.Read More
WHAT’S IN A NAME, MR. PRESIDENT? There’s still much confusion around the President’s refusal to identify Islamic extremism. In recent remarks, the President stated that we mustn’t be politically correct when battling terrorism. Yet he refuses to say Islamic extremism. Make sense?
After serving three tours as an officer in the Marine Corps, I can say—as many others can also attest—there’s no such confusion on the battlefield. The threat is clear. The enemy is obvious.
Worth a look: Check out my latest interview regarding the White House summit on violent extremism. I also spent time with KUSI on the same issue, and reiterated the importance of strong and decisive leadership in combating the Islamic State.
JORDAN COMMITTED TO ISLAMIC STATE DESTRUCTION. A new dimension in the battle against the Islamic State was introduced through Jordanian airpower—a direct response to the death of a Jordanian pilot. The same day that news broke of the pilot’s death, I met with the King of Jordan, as did other members of the House Armed Services Committee. In that meeting, the King channeled Clint Eastwood, referencing and quoting a scene in a movie to fully describe his feelings and intent. I talked a bit about this to Byron York. And as for my take-away from the meeting, watch more on what I had to say, courtesy of Real Clear Politics.
RESOURCES NEEDED—NOW. That was one of several direct messages from the King. And a big part of delivering these resources requires breaking down bureaucratic impediments that are either delaying or blocking the transfer of equipment and technology. Soon after, it came to my attention that the Administration denied a license request to provide Jordan unarmed drone platforms used strictly for intelligence and surveillance. This capability, of course, is essential to any battlefield action. I immediately contacted the White House to express my concern and urge a reversal—more on this here.
RECENT EVENTS HAVE ALSO DEMONSTRATED THE NEED FOR A NEW HOSTAGE POLICY, one that permits an all-government approach without prompting infighting and turf wars. I’m soon offering legislation on this front. In fact, Politico recently covered my proposed legislation in detail—and there’s definitely good buzz generating.
DO AVERAGE SOLDIERS TRUST THEIR LEADERSHIP? That’s an important question. New poll results indicate that only 27% of the military thinks senior leaders look out for their best interests. Should it be any surprise why? Check out my take, written for The Daily Beast.
DID INVESTIGATORS REALLY GO THROUGH THE TRASH OF A MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENT? Unfortunately, that answer is YES. Allegations against another soldier were the cause—but actions like this always reverberate through the ranks. There’s even an account offered from a Marine in-the-know, which is definitely worth a read.
REMINDER: MY OFFICE CAN ALWAYS HELP—here’s just one example recently reported by 10 News. A local family in Costa Rica experienced a rafting accident and, as the report shows, they desperately needed help. Fortunately, we were able to intervene and provide assistance. The family is back in the U.S. – and I’m grateful the recovery is going well.Read More
A survey last year showed only 27% of the military felt senior leaders looked out for their best interests. To fix the morale crisis generals need to stop acting like politicians.
Through a decade-plus of war, America’s military men and women, and the families that support them, have experienced their share of hardships. Separations through multiple deployments and the inherent dangers of combat are enough to press the emotional and physical limits of even the strongest individuals.
For some of these faithful defenders of America’s interests, there have been difficulties far beyond the battlefield—difficulties not imposed by any enemy or the distance and time that separates them from their loved ones. Most ironically, the assault against them—intended or not—can sometimes come from within the military institution for which they fought, bled and sacrificed so much.
It’s no wonder why there’s concern for morale in today’s force. Just recently, outgoing Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said he too is worried about the decline in enthusiasm, and he believes it will take some time to reversing the mindset and perspective of the force.
There’s no single reason for the decline in morale, although some reasons are more pronounced than others. Take for instance the question about whether “senior military has my best interests at heart.” In 2009, 53 percent of respondents answered yes. By 2014, only 27 percent answered affirmatively.
One recurring complaint involves what many service personnel perceive as the excessive politicization of the military during wartime, giving rise to high profile prosecutions, excessive punitive actions and decision making that is at odds with the best interests of service personnel. So much so, instincts necessary in combat have been replaced with second-guessing and hesitation, matched by a growing sense of distrust among the ranks.
The examples are plentiful. So too are the excuses—often given in defense of ambiguous and restrictive rules of engagement—that seem to ignore the realities of war or the fact that in combat, split-second decisions must be made for the purpose of preserving lives and attaining objectives.
In one case, a Special Forces soldier, Major Matt Golsteyn, was investigated by the Army for more than a year and a half under the suspicion that he violated the rules of engagement and illegally killed a known enemy fighter and bomb maker in Afghanistan. The allegation was presented through informal channels to the Army, which went to extraordinary lengths to investigate Golsteyn. The Army tried to turn up anything it could, but was unable to find one piece of evidence to corroborate the allegation.
Today, Golsteyn is still waiting for the Army to make a determination about his future. He’s been sidelined, his Special Forces recognition stripped, all while a guessing-game has ensued about what will happen to this decorated warfighter. Even the men who served under Golsteyn have been threatened at times, with the Army going as far to promise them full immunity several times over. None of them had anything to say.
If that wasn’t enough, the combat valor awards that Golsteyn received for heroism— including a Silver Star and Distinguished Service Cross—were recently revoked by the Secretary of the Army, John McHugh. It’s McHugh’s belief that if the nominating and approving authorities were aware of allegation, Golsteyn would never have been awarded two of the Army’s highest awards for valor.
How unfortunate. The career of a decorated soldier and everything he has accomplished over a nearly fifteen-year service career has been taken away. The reason: an allegation that the Army was never able to substantiate.
That’s no way to treat one of America’s top soldiers.
There is also Clint Lorance, who is serving 19 years in military custody for giving an order to engage several fighters. The Army argues the individuals were not a threat, but evidence denied to Lorance’s legal team could prove differently. That same evidence may have been withheld by the chain of command for reasons that are still being examined and sure to be raised on appeal.
The case was reviewed and Lorance’s command was cleared of any wrongdoing, but there is still no explanation about why the Army refuses to produce the criminal investigation report and other information. Perhaps Lorance was not the best soldier, which may in fact be true, but is he a murderer who deserves nearly two decades in prison? Unlikely.
Another incident involves a soldier who received the Medal of Honor, but only after a major fight. That soldier, Will Swenson, found that his nomination for the top valor award was reportedly “lost” after he criticized commanders for denying him and others air support in Afghanistan out of concern for the rules of engagement, leaving them stranded. Swenson and his men fought their way out of danger, but not without taking casualties.
Swenson’s nomination was finally recovered and he received the award years after being nominated. However, events that transpired during a period of investigation are unspeakable, giving credibility to the idea that the Army resisted the award at every turn.
In fact, Swenson’s overall experience was so bad that the Army was forced to alter its process for Medal of Honor nominations and for the Secretary of Defense to issue him a direct apology. What most people and soldiers in particular took away from the whole episode was a warning not to criticize—when permissible—the chain of command for its failures.
Again, that is no way to treat America’s military heroes.
In another incident, several severely wounded Special Forces soldiers were twice nominated for Silver Stars, the second time coming after the initial paperwork was lost. The Army had said the awards were downgraded, but years later, a mistake by a private contractor provided information on the Army’s top award recipients. Within that listing, the soldiers in question were all listed as receiving Silver Stars. The Army responded that a “typo” by the contractor might have caused the error. What they didn’t say but was discovered sometime later was that there was an unrelated disagreement with the nominating officer.
A typo? No way. A poor excuse? More like it. All at the expense of soldiers who deserve better.
These occurrences certainly differ in their severity, but each is useful in demonstrating the pursuit of political ends to situations that begin with the battlefield actions of America’s sons and daughters who willingly and selflessly put their lives on the line. Unfortunately, there are many more incidents like these, which have only served to make servicemembers more suspicious of their leadership.
The services—and the Army, in particular—must look inward. There must be a desire to initiate a cultural shift that reassures service personnel that the institutions under which they serve won’t let them down, and they will receive the support—whether through legal, administrative or operational channels—that is worthy of their service. They want to know their best interests won’t be disregarded.
More than ten years at war and distressed budgets are sure to have an effect, but there is no denying the fact that a problem of equal size exists that’s been brought on by a propensity to question the actions and judgments of young men and women tasked with carrying out dangerous missions. With the right leadership from within, this could be the easiest change to make, and perhaps make the biggest impact.Read More
WASHINGTON— With the release today of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission report, Representative Duncan Hunter commends the Commission for its substantive recommendations. Representative Hunter also commends the commission—and General Peter Chiarelli, in particular—for recommending improvements and coordination among DoD and VA drug formularies, with specific focus on assisting those with PTSD and TBI.
“General Chiarelli has been instrumental in raising awareness on the importance of taking action to address discrepancies in VA and DoD drug formularies,” said Hunter. “For those who are injured and those who rely on the continuation of effective treatments for PTSD and TBI, this is one improvement that demands a high level of attention from Congress. Our heroes deserve a system that works to support their medical needs—and I’m grateful for General Chiarelli’s leadership on this front.
“I look forward to reviewing the rest of the Commission’s recommendations as we prepare for important work ahead.”Read More
223 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Congressman Duncan D. Hunter represents California’s 50th Congressional District consisting of East and Northern County San Diego. In 2008, Hunter was elected to his first term in the House of Representatives, succeeding his father, Duncan L. Hunter, who retired after serving 14 consecutive terms in Congress.
Hunter is a native of San Diego. He graduated from Granite Hills High School in El Cajon and earned a degree in Business Administration from San Diego State University. Hunter worked to pay for his education by creating websites and programming databases and ecommerce systems for high-tech companies. Immediately after graduation, he went to work full time in San Diego as a Business Analyst.
Soon after our nation was attacked on September 11, 2001, Hunter quit his job and joined the United States Marine Corps. Hunter entered active service as a Lieutenant in 2002 and excelled in the area of field artillery, much like his grandfather, Robert O. Hunter, who was a Marine Corps artillery officer in World War II.
Over the course of his service career, Hunter served three combat tours overseas: two in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. In 2003, Hunter deployed to Iraq with the 1st Marine Division. Hunter completed his second tour in 2004, where he and his fellow Marines were at the center of combat operations in Fallujah, Iraq.
In September 2005, four years after he quit his job and joined the Marine Corps, Hunter was honorably discharged from active military service and started a successful residential development company. Still a Marine Reservist, he was promoted to the rank of Captain in 2006, and to the rank of Major in 2012.
Less than two years before Hunter was elected, he was recalled to active duty and deployed to Afghanistan. Hunter returned home after more than six months on the front lines and, with the support of the San Diego community, became the first Marine combat veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan elected to Congress.
Hunter is a strong conservative who is committed to strengthening national security, enforcing our borders, creating opportunities for American workers and protecting the interests of taxpayers. He is also a strong proponent of the Second Amendment, protecting traditional marriage and the rights of the unborn.
Congressman Hunter and his wife live in Alpine, California. They are the proud parents of three children: Duncan, Elizabeth and Sarah.
Retweeted by Rep_Hunter
Retweeted by Rep_Hunter
Retweeted by Rep_Hunter
Retweeted by Rep_Hunter
Retweeted by Rep_Hunter
"Ceding our amphibious ships to other countries -- it's almost silly and I can't believe it is even an option for the Navy," said Rep. Duncan
I have been pressuring the Army for years to cancel its social science program--which sends civilians social scientists to combat areas. A waste
A victory for Army Major Matt Golsteyn. Some of my comments are included in today's report from the Washington Post.
Major Matt Golsteyn is in the final day of his Board of Inquiry--and the testimony and reports are in his favor. I'm proud to be in his corner.