Pete Hoekstra

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, Mr. Saxton.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 6 minutes to Mr. Hensarling from Texas. (Mr. HENSARLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Texas, a member of the Intelligence Committee (Mr. Thornberry).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this time, I yield 6 minutes to our colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 10 minutes to the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Granger).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to a Member from California, a member of the Intelligence Committee (Mr. Issa). (Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from Texas (Mr. Carter).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my colleague from Michigan, let me make just a couple of comments. I think, as we all know, the Iraq Study Group did allow for a surge in troops on a temporary basis to allow us to achieve our objectives. Also, as a previous speaker, I was negligent in not acknowledging the comments of my colleague from Maryland when he recognized the contributions that were being made by our intelligence folks in Iraq and around the world. There are some who believe and are confused by what they may believe or perceive to be the callous omission of any reference to the contributions being made by our intelligence folks in Iraq today. It is a significant shortcoming of this resolution, and I am thoroughly confused as to why they would be omitted in this resolution, and their contributions. They are working side by side each and every day with our Armed Forces, and this resolution forgets to even recognize that contribution. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would now like to recognize my colleague from Michigan, a member of the Intelligence Committee, who thoroughly recognizes and has met with these people in Iraq and Afghanistan and understands their contributions. He is as confused as I am as to why they do not want to recognize their contributions. I yield 7 minutes to my colleague from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, let me give you four reasons why I think the resolution we will debate today is a bad resolution. Number one, it is nonbinding. It is a paper tiger. It does nothing to influence our strategy or our direction in the global war with radical jihadists. Secondly, it ill defines the enemy. It does not recognize that we are in a global war with radical jihadists who have attacked us around the world. Third, it omits recognizing key U.S. personnel that are serving, and serving ably, in this global war with radical jihadists. Why does it not recognize our intelligence professionals? Why does it not recognize our Armed Forces and intelligence professionals serving in Afghanistan, throughout the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia? Finally, most ironic, the bottom line of this resolution tells the President to stay the course. That is not good enough. This is a tough enemy. We need to develop and evolve our strategy to be successful.

Mr. HOEKSTRA

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Would it be appropriate at any time during the debate on this resolution to ask for unanimous consent to modify this resolution to address the significant oversight in the underlying resolution?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the Chair With that, I would like to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from the State of Illinois (Mr. Manzullo).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. When would it be appropriate to ask for unanimous consent to correct this oversight in this resolution that only addresses support for our armed services, but as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, I feel that it does a great injustice to the hundreds of people in the intelligence community who are not recognized for their service in Iraq?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. At this point in time, I would like to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and also a member of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Does this resolution include any provisions expressing support for the members of the United States intelligence community serving inside of Iraq?

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen) for 5 minutes.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear of the purpose of today. We face a real test of what this House of Representatives stands for and who we, as Representatives, really are. Do any of us really believe that the resolution in front of us today is a serious piece of legislation? Does it properly recognize all of America's military and other national security professionals who defend us day and night? What of the hundreds of folks in the Intelligence Community that are ignored in this resolution, who each and every day are working hand in hand with our Armed Forces trying to achieve success in Iraq? Does this resolution discuss or force a debate on the really tough issues of who it is that hates America and others so much that they are willing to kill innocent men, women and children? Again, this resolution comes up short. What is the threat, and how should America respond? That is the debate that we should be having on this floor. This resolution is all about staying the course. It says, Support our troops and don't engage in new tactics; just keep going down the same path. That is not good enough. There are people who hate us enough to want to kill. I speak of militant Islam's hate for America, a hate that extends to others, including Muslims. And these militant Islamists kill, they kill violently and indiscriminately, but this resolution is silent on the threat that we face as a Nation, and it is silent on how we should respond. Who are these radical Islamists, and what should America's response to this threat be? We face this on a global basis. What is America's response to jihadism? How will America win this war against this calculating enemy? And how will America lead the world once again in the face of such a ruthless threat? The resolution that we are debating today simply asks, Do you support America's fighting men and women, and do you support or oppose a tactic in a battle that is only one front in the war with these military jihadists who are bent on the destruction of the infidel America and others around the world. Let me say to my colleagues that I don't believe I am wrong in saying that this debate is really about whether or not America is a great Nation that leads in the face of difficulty. Nor do I believe that I am wrong to question what actually happens when this debate and vote are over. Have we really helped the American people understand the threat? What message do we send to our troops in harm's way? And what is it that the American public needs to understand so that it can better understand the challenges that we face? My own answer, Mr. Speaker, was that we need to understand the consequences of failure. We need to fully understand the nature of the threat that is posed now, and moreover in the future, if we fail in the larger war against militant Islam. Mr. Speaker, let me outline some things about this very real threat to our very existence that needs to be known by the American public and, indeed, this body. This is not a global war on terror. I have never liked that term, I don't know why we keep using it. This is a global war with jihadists. We are not at war with a tactic, we are at war with a group of militant Islamists who hate us and who hate much of the rest of the world. What is a jihadist, other than someone or some group so full of hate that they are willing to kill? I have a passion for understanding this threat. And thanks to a great deal of superb research done by many experts on the subject, in particular the author Mary Habeck, we have been enlightened as to who these individuals are, and perhaps also get an insight into the question of why do they hate, and why do they hate so much that they are willing to kill. I can tell you that these militant Islamist jihadists are a fringe element of Islam who have very specific ideas about how to revive Islam, return Muslims to world power, and how to deal with their enemies. They are committed to a violent overthrow of the existing international system, and to its replacement by an all-encompassing Islamist state, the Caliphate. Mr. Speaker, in studying this threat, this militant Islamic jihadist threat, we must also understand why Iraq is such an important element of their war against the West. This is where the letter from al Qaeda's number two leader, Zawahari, to the late al Zarqawi outlining the Islamic Caliphate that would stretch from Indonesia across the Middle East and Africa is instructive. In that letter, Zawahari outlines a four-stage plan to create this religious empire. Stage one. ``Expel the Americans from Iraq.'' Expel them in defeat. I fear that this debate may be the first step in that process. Stage two is to create an Islamic religious government in the old Mesopotamia, that is, Iraq, developing it and supporting it ``until it achieves the level of a Caliphate,'' until it fills the void stemming from the departure of the Americans. Step three is to extend the jihad way to secular countries neighboring Iraq. The jihadists will attack heretic Muslims, as they define them. And stage four is the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity. Let's be clear about this. This jihad is about them. It is about their god, their religion, before it becomes anything about anyone or anything else. That's right, it is about them before it is about us. The militant jihadists believe that Islam worked well for over a thousand years, spreading a true gospel, a unified society that followed the Shari'a, a law handed down by God. They believe that the modern world has forsaken that pure religious life, and they believe that only in a Caliphate governed by the Shari'a is the way to return to that pure life. This is the world that they now want to recreate and force on the rest of the world. That is why they are fighting and that is why they are killing. They see today's world as one where unbelievers, the United States, Japan and others, dominate politically, culturally, militarily and economically. This directly assaults their religious beliefs, as in effect, much if not all of the world is controlled by unbelievers, unbelievers who must be destroyed, including secular Muslim states in the region. To illustrate, let me quote from Osama bin Laden's Fatwa. Listen to what these people tell themselves and each other: ``There is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the Holy Land, no other priority, except Belief, could be considered before it. There is no precondition for this duty, and the enemy should be fought with one's best abilities. If it is not possible to push back the enemy except by the collective movement of the Muslim people, then there is a duty on the Muslims to ignore the minor differences among themselves. Even the military personnel who are not practicing Islam are not exempted from the duty of jihad against the enemy.'' It should be clearly understood that a central tenet of jihadists' beliefs is the belief that God is one; he has no equals, he has no partners. This is important. If one believes that God is one and all that matters of rule giving or law making belongs to him, no human being, no government could make laws or alter the Shari'a laws of God. This would be, for all intents, setting oneself up to be the equal of God. Herein lies the problem that these militant Islamists have with the West and secular Muslim countries. This belief is applied equally to infidels and Muslim heretics. The bottom line is that any government or order of law other than Shari'a is illegitimate. This belief, in their minds, justifies the killing of heretical Muslims and non-Muslims alike. This is not recent thinking. A prominent early 20th century Egyptian Muslim ideologue named Hasan al Banna professed this point about Muslims and nonMuslim heretics. He stated, quote, we will not stop at this point, but we will pursue this evil force to its own land, invade its western heartland, and struggle to overcome it until all the world shouts the name of the Prophet and the teachings of Islam are spread throughout the world. All religion will be exclusively for Allah. He went on to say that this violence would not be to avenge wrong suffered, nor to kill the unbelievers, but to save mankind from its many problems. Are we starting to get a picture of who the enemy may be? It is also important that jihadists' interpretation of Islam is they will reject any system of laws not based on Shari'a. Democracy. Why do they hate us? Democracy, he claimed, is the ultimate expression of idolatry, giving reason for the hatred of Western values. This is about them, it is not about us. Al Banna is not the only studied ideologue. Another name, Sayyid Qutb, wrote, ``Islam has a mandate to order the whole of human life, and that the Western idea of separation between religion and the rest of life is, quote, a hideous schizophrenia that would lead to the downfall of white civilization and therefore its replacement by Islam.'' Qutb maintained that political and religious ideology of the jihadist is derived directly from the Koranic argument that God, unique and without partner, is the only being of sovereignty. Therefore, the only role for national leaders is to implement God's laws. This gives the jihadists their belief that attacking secular or Muslim heretic societies is justified. Qutb basically justified all-out warfare on all of these societies. Where does that leave us today? It leaves us with a discussion that should be much deeper than the resolution that is in front of us. The resolution in front of us is a shallow political document. Let me return to Osama bin Laden's Fatwa against the West. Let me use his own words. In calling on all Muslims, he says, ``The explosions at Riyadh and Al-Khobar is a warning of this volcanic eruption emerging.'' To further his murderous goals, bin Laden then went on to outline the terrorist approach to his holy war to by saying, ``It must be obvious to you that due to the imbalance of power between our Armed Forces and the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted, i.e., using fast-moving light forces that work under complete secrecy; in other words, to initiate a guerrilla warfare where the sons of the nation, and not the military forces, take part in it. And as you know, it is wise, in the present circumstances, for the armed military forces not to be engaged in conventional fighting with the forces of the crusader enemy, unless a big advantage is likely to be achieved and great losses induced on the enemy side. That will help to expel the defeated enemy from the country.'' He goes on, ``Therefore, efforts should be concentrated on destroying, fighting and killing the enemy until, by the grace of Allah, it is completely defeated. The time will come, by the permission of Allah, when you will perform your decisive role so that the word of Allah will be supreme and the word of the infidels will be the inferior. You will hit with iron fists against the aggressors.'' The modern words of bin Laden alone do not adequately explain the current militant Islamic threat to the United States and its friends around the world. Again in their own words, this quote from a senior al Qaeda leader, quote, Islam became to be the only hope in jihad under the banner of Islam to become a solution for all of the enemies of America and of those weakened nations, even to the leftist and peace groups in the Christian world. Whoever follows the writings of some of the Western authors will find that some of them started to declare, through their writings, about the American tyranny, that there is no hope to face America other than through the armed Muslims. To the extent that in one of the demonstrations that included hundreds of thousands against globalization and war in Italy, the demonstrations carried a picture of bin Laden placing Che Guevara's hat on it, drawing him to be a Che Guevara look-alike. They wrote under his picture, ``anti-American.'' Through this action they expressed that the symbol of today's Islamic jihad is the only solution to face America. Mr. Speaker, here is the true threat to America and the West: this militant Islamic jihad, a jihad that spans the globe, including attacks in Bali; in Spain; the United Kingdom; in the Philippines; in Kashmir; in Kenya; in Jordan; Israel; Nigeria; and, yes, in the United States and Iraq. What is not being discussed is this global problem, this threat to peace and stability everywhere in the world. Why, I ask, is the focus so keenly on Iraq as the problem, the only problem for us to debate? Iraq is not the problem. It is but one front in this larger war. The American people are not being well served by our leaders and the media that are solely focused on the conflict in Iraq. This is but a single front in a much larger war. Mr. Speaker, let me close with these final thoughts about the militant Islamic threat we face not only in the front in Iraq but, indeed, around the world, including here in America. There is a fundamental clash of civilizations at work here. There is a fundamental belief by the jihadis that Islam must expand to fill the entire world or else falsehood in its many guises will do so. This belief includes their facts that democracy, liberalism, human rights, personal freedoms, international law, international institutions are illegal, illegitimate, and sinful. Democracy, and in particular the United States democracy, is the focus of their wrath because it is considered the center of liberalism. This is not an enemy with whom we can negotiate. We must contain them and defeat them. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us does not address this threat, a real threat to our very existence. We are at war, and I fear we don't even know that we are under attack. This myopic resolution does not recognize or address that threat. I urge my colleagues and the House to vote ``no'' on this resolution. Moment of Silence Observed in Memory of the Honorable Charlie Norwood

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 6 minutes to my colleague from Alabama, who recognizes the danger of believing that we can negotiate with al Qaeda and bin Laden, Mr. Everett.

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I yield at this time 5 minutes to my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. HOEKSTRA. Madam Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to my colleague from California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Intelligence Committee