Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank Mr. Tanner for his leadership.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the ranking member on the Committee on Education and Labor.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), a member of the Armed Services Committee. (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) 7 minutes.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gary G. Miller).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to my colleague from Florida (Mr. Buchanan).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to Mr. Fossella, who represents the families of multiple victims of the 9/11 attacks on our Nation. (Mr. FOSSELLA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to the gentlelady from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gerlach), with whom I had the opportunity to visit his Pennsylvania troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), a member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the ranking member of a subcommittee.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am so honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Middle East and South Asia. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to my Florida colleague, Mr. Stearns, a senior member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, a prominent feature of this debate has been two sharply contrasting visions of the future. One vision sees no hope for us in Iraq and counsels that we withdraw, just give up. By contrast, the other mission focuses on success. We understand what accepting defeat means for Iraq. We understand what accepting defeat means for Iraq, the region and our Nation's security interest. We support modifications and strategy to address the enemy's changing tactics, and we are committed to destroying the enemy before the enemy can destroy us. This success policy is rooted in the fabric of the American character, in our belief in the ability of our troops to achieve success in Iraq and Afghanistan and on all the fronts on this global war against Islamic militant jihadists. The resolution at the center of this debate, Madam Speaker, lacks hope. It accepts defeat. It opposes reinforcements for our troops on the battlefield, reinforcements that strengthens their capacity to confront the enemy and succeed in their mission. General Petraeus said that he cannot accomplish his mission without the deployment of additional U.S. forces. This resolution, however, announces that Congress will deny the commander in Iraq the means he says he needs to win. This resolution seeks to transform this House into 435 generals. What is the next step in the strategy, Madam Speaker, after the crippling of our war effort? We know from statements and bills that have been introduced that plans will mandate the nature and the timing of a withdrawal by placing limitations on the funding of our efforts. A vote for this resolution then is a vote to proceed toward defunding of our troops. Some believe that the impact of these decisions is confined to Iraq, but Iraq is only one front in the global war against radical Islamic jihadists. This is a war without boundaries. This is a war that poses the greatest challenge to our generation. I will quote al-Zawahiri in his own words. He describes this fight in this way: `` . . . Afghanistan and Iraq are the two most important fields for confronting the contemporary Crusader war. Therefore, the Muslim nation should support the mujahidin in these two countries with all its power.'' Those are al-Zawahiri's own words. He talks about the war in Iraq as being central. He added that Iraq ``is the gateway to the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate.'' Iran's leader has echoed similar views. He stated, we will soon experience a world without the United States; and he goes on to state, we must prepare ourselves to rule the world. The enemy understands what is at stake. We must, also. Once the retreat has started, where will it stop? Afghanistan? The Persian Gulf? The entire Middle East? Once we have abandoned our allies in Iraq, why should anyone in the world believe when we say that we draw a line in the sand and say that we will never abandon them. Lawrence Haas, a former communications director for Vice President Gore, stated recently, `` . . . our enemies anticipate that Iraq will be the latest chapter in the book of American defeatism. Our withdrawal will embolden them to push ahead, confident that we lack the stomach for confrontation, that our commitments mean nothing, that they can win simply by outlasting us.'' A withdrawal in this generational fight will ensure that what is to come will be even worse. While urging a withdrawal, some state that they support the troops. But as leaders of the American Legion and the Veterans for Foreign Wars have stated, you cannot separate the warrior from the war. My stepson, Douglas Lehtinen, and his wife, Lindsay, proudly served as Marine pilots in Iraq. Lindsay will soon leave for a tour in Afghanistan. Far from seeing their mission as hopeless, far from urging withdrawal, they and their fellow service men and women are committed to victory. They are so confident in that success that they are willing to risk their lives to secure it. They would tell you that victory can never be ensured but that we can make defeat inevitable by giving our consent. The hopelessness from which this resolution springs is alien to our American spirit and it runs contrary to our history. What Thomas Paine said over two centuries ago stands still today: These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country. But he that stands by it now deserve the love and the thanks of every man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered. Yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. If you like the status quo in Iraq, Madam Speaker, then you vote ``yes'' on this resolution. If you favor a mission of success in defeating the Islamic militant jihadists who are our enemies, then please vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to consume the remaining 2 minutes. And I would like to say to all Members that although the debate tonight may have seemed uncivil at times, this is the wonderful process that we have here in democracy in this wonderful country, my adopted homeland. And my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) and I disagree on so many issues, and yet we understand that this is indeed the greatest country in the world. We want peace and stability to all oppressed people throughout the world. I happen to believe that the mission of the United States of America and the mission of the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform is a noble one. It is noble to stand up for freedom and for democracy; it is noble to fight against the radical Islamic Jihadists, who I believe do want to destroy our country, who want to destroy our allies like Israel, and want to destroy our way of life. I believe that the mission is just and I think that those who say we cannot stay the course, then how could they be against the decision of the President to send reinforcements? Because the decision of the President says that staying the course is not the right motion for the United States to make. We want to change the course. We want a new way forward. And the way forward is to send reinforcements to those brave men and women who are wearing proudly our Nation's uniform, who are standing in harm's way, and we want to give them everything that they need to succeed in their mission. I have been to Iraq as have many Members and I have come to understand what their mission has been and they say, ``Don't just say we support our troops. Say you support our mission. Don't leave us out there in the field.'' And as I said in my previous remarks, Mr. Speaker, this is going to be an escalation and we will soon be cutting off funding for our troops and leave them in harm's way. That is a dangerous path.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, during the debate on Iraq yesterday, we heard many times from some of our Democratic colleagues that they had no intention of defunding our troops in Iraq. Some even expressed outrage and indignation when some of our Republican Members made mention of their plans for defunding the troops. However, defunding plans clearly demonstrate their policy is to withdraw from the global war against Islamic militant extremists by surrendering to the enemy in Iraq. We are faced with two options in Iraq, Mr. Speaker, to move forward or to retreat. Some of my Democrat colleagues appear to be united in opposing any effort to adopt a more vigorous strategy in Iraq and, instead, are ready to retreat. This resolution is but the first step in that direction. Despite denials, the evidence is that the effort to cut the funding of our troops in Iraq and, in turn, for all of our efforts there are well underway. Several bills have already been introduced by Democrat Members to compel a withdrawal. Let me read the titles and the provisions. H.R. 508, to require the United States military disengagement from Iraq, which mandates a withdrawal of U.S. forces within 6 months of the enactment of this act and which cuts off funding for any deployment or continued deployment of forces in Iraq. Let me emphasize that again. It cuts off funding for any deployment, not just an increase, not just sending reinforcements, but for any deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq, including those already there, and it even limits the number of embassy personnel. Also, H.R. 438, to prohibit an escalation in the number of members of the United States Armed Forces in Iraq, which states that funds appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of Defense under any provision of law may not be obligated or expended to increase the number of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Iraq. H.R. 746, to provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of United States military forces and Department of Defense contractors from Iraq, which mandates the beginning of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq within 30 days of the enactment of this act and complete the withdrawal no later than 180 days later. It also prohibits funds to increase the number of Armed Forces serving in Iraq or to extend the deployment of those already there. Or H.J. Res. 18, to redeploy U.S. forces from Iraq, which states that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq by the direction of Congress is hereby terminated, and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practical date. When we offered a proposal to prohibit the cutting off of funds for our troops, that is what we wanted to do on our side of the aisle, a proposal to prohibit cutting off of funding of our troops in harm's way, the Democratic leadership blocked it from coming to the floor. Why? Well, based on the bills that I just mentioned, the only explanation I would think is that they fear that their caucus would indeed vote to cut off funding for our troops and leave them to face the enemy without the necessary resources. So, within this context, they offer this nonbinding resolution which the Democrat leadership claims to support the troops. But how can such a claim be credible? Because in the second paragraph of the resolution, it opposes sending the reinforcements that our troops in Iraq need to confront the enemy. Our commanders in the field say they need the reinforcements in order to address the security situation in Iraq. My stepson Douglas Lehtinen and my daughter-in-law, Lindsay, served in Iraq as Marine officers. Lindsay will soon serve in just a few weeks in Afghanistan. They understand the difference between saying we support our troops but we don't support your mission. It is the mission that matters. Some of our colleagues seek to deny our troops that level of support, that level of backup which could be the difference for Dougie, for Lindsay, for so many others between death and survival. This resolution seeks to substitute the assessment of the military commanders with the views of lawmakers. We claim to know more than the commanders. Rather than focusing on the strategic policy issue, the Democratic leadership has drafted a resolution that undermines tactical military matters and seeks to override the decisions of our military commanders and the position articulated by General Petraeus. They do not want to discuss the grave consequences of withdrawal and surrender. They do not want to discuss the nature of the enemy, the Islamist militant extremists who seek to destroy us, who like vultures descend on us to prey on our weakness. Some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle seek to focus on the abstract rather than on the reality. They believe that security will come from withdrawal and surrender. On the contrary, retreat guarantees that the Islamic militants will intensify their efforts against us. All we need to do is focus on bin Laden's own words. In his 1996 Declaration of Jihad and other statements that he made, he repeatedly pointed to America's weakness being its low threshold for pain. As evidence, bin Laden pointed to the U.S. withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 because of casualties from the attacks of al Qaeda and its allies. Bin Laden said of our retreat from Mogadishu, ``The extent of your impotence and weakness became very clear.'' Bin Laden and the global Islamic militant network continued to test our resolve throughout the 1990s and today. They launched multiple attacks against U.S. targets with little response on our part. Then came the deplorable attacks on 9/11. But they won't stop there, Mr. Speaker. They won't stop in Iraq, they won't stop in Afghanistan. They have made it abundantly clear that they will not stop until they dominate the world. Just listen to the words of bin Laden. He said, ``The jihad in Palestine,'' referring to the attacks against Israel, ``and in Iraq is a personal duty incumbent upon the residents of the two countries alone. But if they are unable to carry it out, this duty is incumbent upon the residents of the adjacent countries, and so on and so forth, until the circle includes all the Muslim countries.'' And to focus on what al Qaeda leader al-Zawahiri said in December of last year just a few months ago, ``Iraq, Allah permitting, is the gateway to the liberation of Palestine and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.'' Or those of Iran's Ahmadinejad when he said in January of this year, ``We must prepare ourselves to rule the world.'' This follows statements made in October of 2005 when Ahmadinejad said, ``Undoubtedly, I say that we will soon experience a world without the United States and will breathe in the brilliant time of Islamic sovereignty over today's world.'' It is echoed by other Iranian leaders who have threatened the U.S. and moderate Arab governments who say that, ``Anyone who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nations. They will burn in their fury,'' and who have expressed their commitment to bringing America to its knees. The Islamist militant extremist network have proven time and time again that this is not mere rhetoric. U.S. allies in the Middle East understand this reality. They understand the critical role that Iraq plays in the global war against Islamic militant extremists. For example, Jordan's King Abdullah, a courageous leader who continues to demonstrate his country's and his people's commitment to peace, to security, and to democratic reform, summarized the situation we are facing in the following way. He said, ``My concern is political, revolving around Iran, around Iran's political involvement inside Iraq, its relation with Syria and Hezbollah, and the strengthening of this political strategic alliance. This would create a scenario where you have these four: Iran, Iraq, influenced by Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah, who have a strategic objective that would create a major conflict. Our argument to the United States,'' he continues, ``is that a capable, independent, secure Iraq is the best way of containing Iran. The Iranians realize that the way to have success against the West is by them succeeding in Iraq. So Iraq is the battleground of the West against Iran.'' These are the words of our ally King Abdullah of Jordan. Yet some of our colleagues choose to believe that one can reason with our enemies. Since this resolution provides no concrete alternative, some have expressed support for new diplomatic initiatives. However, I must ask my colleagues: With whom? Do they propose engaging with rogue regimes such as Iran and Syria? These rogue regimes are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Some of our colleagues may say that diplomatic engagement is the key to our success. But I ask them, how are we to engage our allies in the region to help foster security and reconciliation in Iraq if by our withdrawal and surrender we leave them to fend for themselves against enemies in the region who have been strengthened by our retreat? How is diplomacy to be effective in such an abstract context? We cannot expect to achieve success if we are operating from a position of weakness. The so-called diplomatic alternative offered by some is no alternative at all. The resolution before us and the bills that have been introduced is a compelling argument, they believe, for a withdrawal from Iraq, but it adds to a policy of surrender. Some may try to hide that fact by constantly repeating the empty words that they support the troops. But supporting our troops cannot be reconciled by refusing them the reinforcements that they need or with the retreat in the face of the enemy. The hopelessness with which these measures spring is alien to our American spirit. That spirit has sustained us through many dark times, Mr. Speaker, throughout our history. This hopeful spirit springs directly from the hearts of the American people who have never given up faith in their belief, in their country, in their sons and daughters in uniform facing our enemies overseas. Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of our revolution over two centuries ago when our country faced almost impossible odds and many counseled for retreat, Thomas Payne summoned forth the words that apply directly to the debate in this Chamber when he said, ``These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands by it now deserves the love and the thanks of every man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered, yet we have this consolation with us: That the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.'' Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues therefore to reject this resolution.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), a member of our Foreign Affairs Committee, for 10 minutes.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a graduate of West Point. (Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, if I could ask how the allocation of time is being handled, because our next speaker I would like to recognize for 11 minutes. But we have been told that we need to wait to even out the distribution of time.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I am going to reserve the balance of our time to have it for the further allocation of the remainder of the evening.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, my next speaker will be allocated 11 minutes of time, so if this is the proper time to have him be recognized for 11 minutes without interruption, I would like to recognize Mr. Franks, a member of the Armed Services Committee for 11 minutes.