Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2006 and 2007
FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 2006 AND 2007 -- (House of Representatives - July 20, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I would like to rise in strong support of the Rohrabacher amendment arguing that our facility in Guantanamo is essential to the defense of the U.S. and our coalition partners.
Mr. Chairman, the Guantanamo Bay facility currently houses some of the elite of our enemy's crop in the war against terror, including enemy combatants ranging from terrorist trainers and recruiters to bombmakers to would-be suicide bombers and terrorist financiers.
Guantanamo provides a strategic interrogation center where these enemy combatants can be questioned and where the results of the interrogations have produced information that has saved the lives of U.S. and coalition forces in the field, as well as has thwarted threats posed to innocent civilians in this country and indeed throughout the world.
Through the detainees held at this facility, we have learned about the detonation systems used in roadside bombs in Iraq, bombs that have been used by the insurgency to kill our troops and innocent Iraqi citizens. Detainees include some of Osama bin Laden's personal bodyguards and one of the suspected 20 hijackers in the 9/11 attacks.
Closing Guantanamo Bay, as some of our colleagues have suggested, will not relieve the United States of needing a facility to house and interrogate suspected terrorists. Should Guantanamo close, the government would have to relocate those functions. Furthermore, given the history of al Qaeda and the jihadists, the closure of Guantanamo would provide an enormous boost in morale to the terrorists and their supporters.
Finally, detainees held at Guantanamo pose a significant threat to Americans, to U.S. allies and civilians in their home countries. There are reports of detainees released from Guantanamo, returned to their home countries, only to resume terrorist activities and attacks against the U.S., our allies, and innocent civilians.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues strongly to support the Rohrabacher amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 38 offered by Ms. Ros-Lehtinen:
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I did not arrive at the decision to offer this amendment lightly. I discussed it with former staffers and current interns who have served recently in both civilian and military capacities in Iraq. I discussed the situation with my husband, Dexter, a decorated Vietnam veteran who was wounded in combat and awarded a Purple Heart. But it was my talks with my stepson Dougie, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps, who is being deployed to Iraq in just 1 week, that had the most profound effect. He helped me to fully comprehend the importance of our mission in Iraq and the impact of what we say here and do here with the impact it has at home and on our Armed Forces serving abroad.
Mr. Chairman, our mission is just. It has far-reaching strategic and political ramifications. It is helping to further U.S. security and foreign policy goals throughout the region. For these reasons, and most importantly for my stepson, Dougie Lehtinen, his financee, Lindsay Nelson, who is also a Marine officer who will ship out to Iraq also in a week, and to all of the members in our proud U.S. Armed Forces serving in Iraq, I am offering this amendment and I ask my colleagues to render their full support for it.
Iraq is one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to fight terrorism worldwide. Our ability to project major armed forces to the very heart of the Middle East provides the United States and our allies in the war against terrorism the wherewithal to directly address the tactical and the ideological challenges of Islamic extremism.
Our presence in Iraq further strengthens our leverage against current and emerging threats and it increases the deterrent value of U.S. power.
Finally, through the promotion of incipient Iraqi democracy, we can continue our concerted efforts to counter root causes of Islamist extremist and terrorism in the region. The terrorists are fighting for their survival because freedom threatens them. Democratic governments deny terrorists the weapons, the funds and sanctuary they need in order to survive. Democracy denies them new recruits.
Terrorism mastermind al-Zarqawi acknowledged that coalition forces were having success and that Iraqi sovereignty and democratic governance would thwart their plans. In a February 17, 2004 letter to an al Qaeda operative, al-Zarqawi said, ``Our enemy is growing stronger day by day. By God, this is suffocation. We will be on the roads again.''
One of Osama bin Laden's closest associates wrote in a book published in December 2003 that ``democracy is a far more dangerous threat,'' adding that it makes Muslims refuse to take part in jihad.
The continuing presence of U.S. and coalition forces must be determined by the achievements of concrete objectives, not by arbitrary dates on the calendar. Some may argue that my amendment sets the threshold too high by stating that ``calls for an early withdrawal are counterproductive to security aims of the United States and to the hopes of the Iraqi people.''
However, as we have repeatedly argued in this Chamber, words matter. What we say here to condemn human rights violations, incitement and anti-semitism or expressing support for pro-democracy advocates throughout the world has a tremendous positive impact. In stark contrast, incessant calls for an established date for withdrawal from Iraq has a negative effect. They diminish the morale of the troops and serve to embolden the enemy.
Do we want to send a message to the terrorists that their war of attrition is succeeding, that their commitment to violence, to hatred, and to terror is greater than our commitment to a democratic Iraq, to spreading freedom and fighting tyranny?
The amendment before us seeks to restate our commitment to the successful completion of our mission in Iraq. It establishes as U.S. policy the pursuit of transfer of responsibility for security to Iraqi forces, but cautions against withdrawing prematurely, calling for withdrawal to take place when U.S. national security and foreign policy goals relating to Iraq have been or are about to be achieved. Is this asking too much?
Let us not waver on our commitment to our mission in Iraq. The Iraqi people have not wavered. Our men and women in uniform are not wavering. In fact, this weekend we saw newspaper stories reporting that soldiers are reenlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets. Army officials say this is due in part to a renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism.
Let us demonstrate to our forces that just as our Nation stood behind the greatest generation during World War II as they fought against tyranny, so too do we stand behind our forces in Iraq, a new great generation of heroes whose actions will not only help to make the world safer, but will alter the political landscape towards the irreversible path of freedom and democracy.
I ask my colleagues to support our troops. I ask my colleagues to support the Iraqi people. I ask my colleagues to fight the good fight for freedom and for democracy. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I did not arrive at the decision to offer this amendment lightly.
I arrived at this decision after listening to a former staffer of mine, who recently returned from Iraq, and one of my current interns who served with the United States Army in Iraq.
I arrived at this decision after discussing the situation in Iraq with my husband, Dexter, a decorated Vietnam veteran who was wounded in combat and awarded a Purple Heart.
But it was my talks with my stepson Dougie, a first lieutenant in the U.S Marine Corps, that had the most profound effect on me and helped me fully comprehend the importance of the mission that our men and women in the armed forces are embarked on in Iraq.
My stepson, Dougie, is on his way to perform his duty in Iraq.
To him, it is not an obligation. It is an honor and a privilege to have the opportunity to serve his Nation, to contribute to the freedom of the Iraqi people, to confront the terrorists, and, perhaps, most importantly, to fight tyranny as the ``Greatest Generation'' did during World War II.
Our mission is just. It has far-reaching, long-term, strategic and political ramifications. It is helping to further U.S. security and foreign policy goals throughout the region.
For these reasons and, most importantly, for my stepson Doug Lehtinen, his fiancée Lindsay Nelson, who is also a Marine officer who will ship out to Iraq in a week, and all the members of the U.S. Armed Forces serving in Iraq, I am offering this amendment and I ask my colleagues to render their full support for it.
Simply stated, we cannot afford to yield a victory to the terrorists in Iraq and throughout the region.
Iraq is one of the epicenters of the U.S. comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism worldwide--a strategy that includes: killing and disrupting terrorists abroad, confronting theocratic and autocratic regimes that harbor terrorists and facilitate terrorist attacks, and promote economic reform and democracy as a means to address the grievances of people throughout the region that have been manipulated and turned against us by the dictatorial regimes that permeate the region.
Our ability to project major armed forces to the very heart of the Middle East provides the United States and our allies in the war against terrorism, the wherewithal to directly address the tactical and ideological challenge of Islamist extremism.
Our presence in Iraq further strengthens our leverage against current and emerging threats and increases the deterrent value of U.S. power.
Finally, through the promotion of an incipient Iraqi democracy, we can continue our concerted effort to counter root causes of Islamist extremism and terrorism in the region.
The objective is for the U.S. to proactively engage and support reformers and assist in developing within the Middle East a bastion of stable, free-market democratic societies.
We are engaged in a struggle between moderation and extremism.
The terrorists are fighting for their survival. Freedom threatens the terrorists.
Terrorist mastermind al Zarqawi acknowledged that coalition forces were having success and that Iraqi sovereignty and democratic governance would thwart their plans.
In this February 17, 2004 letter to al-Qaeda operatives, al Zarqawi said: ``Our enemy is growing stronger day after day ..... By God, this is suffocation! We will be on the roads again.''
He further said: ``we are racing time ..... If the government is successful and takes control of the country, we just have to pack up and go somewhere else again, where we can raise the flag again or die .....''
Democratic governments deny terrorists the funds, weapons, and sanctuary that they need to survive. Democracy and freedom deny recruits.
One of Osama bin Laden's closest associates wrote in a book published in September 2003 that ``a far more dangerous threat'' is ``secularist democracy.''
He cautions against democracy's ``seduction'' as it drives Muslims to ``refuse to take part in Jihad.''
This is a clear illustration of how our efforts in Iraq are serving our long-term goals of spreading democracy as an antidote to extremism and terrorism.
Success does not come without challenges. Creating new and effective political and security institutions in Iraq takes time.
The task before us is not insurmountable, but, if rushed, we do risk failure for lack of persistence.
The continuing presence of U.S. and Coalition forces must be determined by the achievement of concrete objectives, not by arbitrary dates on the calendar.
The process of, and criteria governing, the withdrawal of U.S. and Coalition forces from Iraq must be performance-based, not chronologically-based.
Some may argue that my amendment sets the threshold too high by stating that ``calls for early withdrawal of United States and coalition forces are counterproductive to security aims of the United States and the hopes of the Iraqi people.''
I respectfully disagree. As we have repeatedly argued in this Chamber and in the International Relations Committee--words matter.
What we say in this Chamber through resolutions condemning human rights violations, for example, or condemning incitement and anti-Semitism, or expressing support for pro-democracy advocates throughout the world, have a tremendous positive impact.
These statements and measures serve to empower those who toil for freedom throughout the world.
In stark contrast, incessant calls for an established date for withdrawal from Iraq have a negative effect. They serve to embolden the enemy and the terrorists.
Do we want to send a message to the terrorists that their war of attrition is succeeding? That we are weakening in our resolve?
That the terrorists' commitment to violence, hatred, and terror is greater than our commitment to a democratic Iraq, to spreading freedom, and to combating the forces of evil and tyranny?
Many of our coalition allies in Iraq understand the importance of completing our mission there--allies such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and the Ukraine who understand the lessons of history and want to take steps to prevent any people from having to experience the suffering that they endured under German occupation and Soviet communist rule.
My colleagues, this amendment does not question anyone's patriotism.
In fact, the amendment before you is a modified text which includes recommendations from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
This amendment seeks to re-state our commitment to successful completion of our mission in Iraq.
It establishes as U.S. policy the pursuit of a transfer of responsibility for Iraqi security to Iraqi forces, and cautions against withdrawing prematurely, calling for withdrawal to take place when U.S. national security and foreign policy goals relating to Iraq have been or are about to be achieved.
Is this asking too much--considering our goals are to combat those seeking to export their extremist, terrorist ideologies; those who seek to deny the Iraqi people their freedom; those who threaten global peace and security?
Let us not waiver on our commitment to our mission in Iraq.
The Iraqi people have not wavered.
Our men and women in uniform are not wavering.
In fact, this weekend saw newspaper stories reporting that ``soldiers are re-enlisting at rates ahead of the Army's targets.''
Army officials say that this is due, in part, to a ``renewed sense of purpose in fighting terrorism.''
Let us demonstrate to our forces that, just as our nation stood behind the ``Greatest Generation'' during World War II as they fought the evil pursuits of a tyrannical ruler, so too do we stand behind our forces in Iraq--a new great generation of heroes--whose actions in Iraq will not only help make the world safer in the long-term, but will alter the political landscape toward the irreversible path of freedom and democracy.
I ask my colleagues to support our troops.
I ask my colleagues to support the Iraqi people.
I ask my colleagues to fight the good fight for freedom and democracy.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I echo the sentiments of my good friend from California (Mr. Lantos) in praising the strong bipartisan show of support for our Armed Forces in this debate, and I thank the chairman for his great leadership and guidance throughout the years.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader and a staunch defender of human rights and a supporter of our fighting men and women who wear the proud uniform of the United States and our coalition partners.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov