[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 184 (Thursday, December 17, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H9677-H9679]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           PROTECTING AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.

[[Page H9678]]

  

  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, as we think about the history of 
America, one of our finest hours as a country came on the shores of 
France on D-day--June 6, 1944.
  We are all familiar with the general details of that battle--the 
missed zone drops of the paratroopers the night before, the slaughter 
that met the first assault on Omaha Beach, and the heroics of our 
rangers at Pointe du Hoc. But, Mr. Speaker, among the lesser known 
facts, the troops that hit Utah Beach, under the command of General 
Theodore Roosevelt, actually landed in the wrong place; and while 
landing with his men and realizing his error, General Roosevelt 
responded by saying, ``The war starts here.''
  Mr. Speaker, after American forces landed on that day, fought across 
Europe with key allies, and, ultimately, defeated the Nazis, the United 
States was cast into the role of the world's lone superpower. Now, not 
perfectly, but at great sacrifice to our country, we then began to 
create the space for international order. We forged the conditions for 
international commerce, including helping other countries develop their 
economies and create governing systems rooted in high, universal 
ideals.
  Mr. Speaker, as we know, times have changed. We no longer live in a 
unipolar world, and in the wake of last month's horrifying attacks in 
Paris, America's longstanding ties with the French have gained a new 
significance. The Islamic State, called ISIL, targeted a stadium, 
cafes, and a theater--an act of nihilistic destruction against innocent 
civilians who were just beginning to enjoy their weekend.
  Beyond just destroying large swaths of the Middle East and many of 
its inhabitants, precipitating the greatest refugee crisis since World 
War II, again, this so-called Islamic State has now killed French 
secularists and Catholics, they have attacked the Russian Orthodox by 
blowing up a civilian airliner, and they have killed Shiite Muslims in 
Beirut.
  But now, Mr. Speaker, it has happened to us. In San Bernardino, a 
couple embraced this twisted religious death cult, deciding to kill 
innocent people in order to satisfy a bizarre, apocalyptic vision.
  Mr. Speaker, foreign policy is complicated, especially in the Middle 
East, but this new level of terrorism has brought three critical issues 
into focus.
  First, the international community has a responsibility to fight 
ISIL. The world constantly pushes America to the forefront of needed 
military action, but the entire community of responsible nations, 
including certain Sunni Arab countries, must engage in this conflict.
  It is not the United States' responsibility alone. We can lead--we 
will lead--but it must be in solid concert with responsible world 
powers. France has now properly responded with its own air campaign, 
backed by our intelligence. This resolve could compel more Europeans to 
rethink their vulnerability and take decisive action themselves. The 
United Kingdom has now expanded its effort as well.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, it is time to face a gruesome reality--that the 
targeted and systematic violence against Christians, Yazidis, and other 
religious minorities in the Middle East is genocide. ``Genocide'' is a 
powerful word, but the world must recognize this grim reality and work 
to support the most vulnerable minorities in the Middle East. No 
responsible approach to this tragic situation unfolding in Iraq and in 
Syria can ignore their plight and the plight of other innocent people.
  In an attempt, Mr. Speaker, to elevate the world's consciousness 
about this difficulty, I have introduced H. Con. Res. 75, a resolution 
of the House of Representatives, calling the slaughter of Christians 
and other ethno-religious minorities by its proper name--genocide. 
Similar measures are being introduced in parliaments throughout the 
world.
  Christians and other vulnerable minorities in the Middle East and 
elsewhere must be accorded tolerance and religious liberty--one of the 
cornerstones of our own society. Thankfully, the resolution now has 160 
bipartisan cosponsors, and it is gaining swift and broad support 
throughout Congress. Hopefully, we will bring this legislation to a 
vote for next year, and it will serve to elevate the consciousness of 
the world as to this horrific problem and will, perhaps, provide a 
gateway for constructive policy considerations.
  Christianity in the Middle East is shattered. Christians, Yezidis, 
and others are a vibrant but an endangered spectrum of minorities, and 
they need our help now. In the face of ISIL's onslaught, we must help 
them by forming an ecumenical alliance. We cannot afford to wait. These 
ancient faith traditions have every right to maintain their ancient 
homelands and, in turn, contribute to a stabilizing diversity of voices 
in both culture and new forms of governance.
  Third, the related issue of refugees and migration points to the 
collapse of the nation-state order. Now, granting asylum is a 
responsible, humanitarian impulse, but simply accommodating more asylum 
to the tragedy is a reaction and not a viable, long-term policy 
proposition and one that has to be reconciled with both national 
security and capacity concerns.
  Attacking the injustice that leads to refugee flight must be a top 
priority, followed by new political structures that allow people to 
remain where they are in safety or to return to their ancient 
homelands. This is a precondition for long-term stability in the Middle 
East. An immediate step could be the enforcement of safe zones, 
especially for the vulnerable minorities in Iraq and Syria.
  In the country of Syria, there is an old Roman road named Straight 
Street. It runs through the middle of the capital of Damascus. Mr. 
Speaker, you might remember the road from the Biblical story. After 
Saint Paul was blinded and knocked from his horse, God told him to 
visit the house of Judas and seek out a Christian named Saul. Tradition 
holds that the house of Judas still stands on Straight Street even 
today.

  Syria is an ancient country made up of peoples with mixed cultural 
traditions. Four years ago, as we all know, a civil war broke out. The 
halting and gruesome conflict, which has killed hundreds of thousands 
and has displaced millions, is now entering a new phase with new 
complexities.
  The dictatorial leader of Syria, Bashar Assad, faces a shifting 
patchwork of enemies, including ISIL. He has clung to power in the 
coastal regions of that country, where he continues his dynasty's 
bloody rule. Ironically, he is a trained ophthalmologist who practiced 
for years in London, only to assume power after the death of his elder 
brother. It is hard to understand Assad's motive, except, perhaps, to 
protect his own religious minority tradition, called the Alawites.
  A couple of years ago, I predicted that Assad would not survive long, 
but as some uprisings descended into a winter of irrational religious 
extremism, causing more destabilization and helping to create the 
conditions for terror groups like ISIL to metastasize, Assad has 
tenaciously maintained control over much of western Syria. In his 
battle for control, his murderous regime has contested armed opposition 
groups, some of them also murderous, and it has all worsened the 
conflict. Yet, Mr. Speaker, here is a very conflicted reality: The 
preservation of some stability in certain Syrian zones has offered 
safety to other religious and ethnic minorities.
  Two years ago, the House of Representatives confronted a choice. The 
President called for military action against Assad after Assad's use of 
chemical weapons. I voted against the President's proposed 
intervention, as did a vast majority of my colleagues. We felt that the 
United States did not need to enter into another military entanglement 
in the Middle East, and many people expressed justifiable fears that, 
if Assad were overthrown, something even worse might replace his 
government.
  Events since then have given that fear additional credibility. Had 
the United States succeeded in toppling Assad, ISIL might have seized 
even more of that country, perhaps threatening Lebanon and gaining 
proximity to Israel's borders.
  Now enter Russia into the equation. During the debate over whether to 
strike Assad, Russia brokered a deal to help facilitate the acquisition 
and destruction of the government's chemical weapons, voiding the 
immediate possibility of a military confrontation between Washington 
and Damascus. Now,

[[Page H9679]]

2 years later, Russia has, once again, taken an active role in the 
Syrian civil war, enhancing and building military bases in Assad's 
territory and launching air strikes against Syrian opposition groups, 
including ISIL.
  Several factors are influencing Putin's latest gambit to empower 
Assad.
  First, Putin wants to revive a Russian sense of nationalism--an 
almost metaphysical understanding of a Russian realm of influence. Look 
back at his recent speech at the U.N. He rejects a unipolar world 
wherein the United States sets the rules for commerce and governance 
and values. Furthermore, he is suspicious of liberal democracy, 
preferring, instead, his idea of stability even if it is achieved at 
the hands of strongmen.
  Second, Russia has a longstanding diplomatic, security, and economic 
arrangement with the Syrian Government, enabling him to expand his 
country's military presence there while also bolstering his political 
standing at home.
  Third, Syria also has a rich Orthodox Christian heritage that 
survives as a minority faith in Assad's controlled territory. Putin 
sees his venture as protecting that familial alliance. Foreign policy 
analysis has largely overlooked this consideration as an important 
dimension of Putin's motives.
  Russia claims to be fighting the terrorists. If true, their 
intervention could emerge as a point of convergence for the United 
States, Russia, and civilized interests; but that remains somewhat 
hypothetical at this moment, and there are significant signs of 
conflict escalation.

                              {time}  1500

  Russia could help avert humanitarian disaster by focusing more 
intently on attacking ISIL. Currently, Putin is also choosing to fight 
other Syrian opposition forces with the possibility of furthering the 
protracted civil war.
  The best scenario would be for Russia's involvement to create the 
space for a transition period for a new, more stable governing 
structure to replace Assad in the West. ISIL could be further pushed 
into the eastern desert, and a true international coalition could 
emerge to defeat this threat to civilization. Advancing this scenario 
is a key policy marker in what should be the overarching geopolitical 
strategy of the United States.
  Of the many possible futures for the Middle East, one must certainly 
be avoided: Islamic militants sweeping across places like Straight 
Street in Syria, continuing to destroy ancient monuments in Palmyra and 
Nimrod, killing all the way from Mosul to the Mediterranean, 
threatening to raise its black banner of death from Damascus to D.C.
  The prevention of peril in the 21st century requires a new 
cooperative strategic arrangement to fight dark ideology, twisted 
theology, and barbarism across the globe. ISIL represents ninth century 
barbarism, but with 21st-century weaponry. ISIL is battling the very 
essence of civilization. Beyond the bloodshed itself, ISIL attacks the 
underlying philosophical proposition of the West that all persons have 
inherent dignity, which is the source of our rights.
  Mr. Speaker, we stand at a solemn crossroads. The world must fight 
back on two fronts against ISIL and for the time-honored philosophical 
principles and values that sustain an orderly existence in the 
flourishing of any truly good society.
  So depends the beauty of Paris. So depends the protection of 
communities like San Bernardino. So depends the security of the world 
and the protection of innocent people everywhere.
  Mr. Speaker, I had an extraordinary privilege this summer on the 71st 
anniversary of D-day. This is a picture, a photo, of Utah Beach, one of 
the beaches where our troops first stormed through, where General 
Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., came through with his men and declared, 
``We'll start the war from right here.''
  General Roosevelt went on 1 month later to die in battle of a heart 
attack. He was ill. He disguised his illness because he wanted to be in 
leadership with his troops.
  He is buried at the Omaha Beach Cemetery, which contains nearly 
10,000 American troops who gave their lives. He is buried next to his 
little brother, Quentin Roosevelt, who was an aviator, a flier, in 
World War I. Here you have two sons of a President of the United States 
who gave their lives in the two great wars of last century.
  On this spot, Mr. Speaker, there is a new monument. That is a Higgins 
boat troop carrier with a replica of soldiers storming onto the beach. 
I am very proud of the fact that this monument is a replica of one that 
is in Columbus, Nebraska, a small town in my congressional district. It 
was built by the people of Columbus, shipped here, and placed for the 
71st anniversary celebration of D-day.
  A great sacrifice financially and time-wise, many people in the 
community of Columbus came together to build this extraordinary 
monument as a gift to France, but primarily as a perpetual memory of 
those who fought and died.
  Both Quentin Roosevelt, General Roosevelt, and so many other young 
men and women gave their lives for a set of interlocking ideals, the 
beauty of liberty and the protection of human dignity, which, Mr. 
Speaker, unfortunately, in our fallen world, must sometimes be 
preserved by a willingness to confront darkness, by a willingness to 
confront that which is irrational.
  It is this same struggle, the same struggle that took place here, 
that we must engage in today. Unlike this struggle, it requires a 
different global effort, but it is the same struggle for the 
tranquility of order, for the security of the world, and for the 
protection of America.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________