[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 11 (Thursday, February 12, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H491-H492]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 URGING CAUTION ON ACTION TAKEN IN IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am not in the leadership; I do 
not speak for the leadership. But I do hope that I speak for a lot of 
people in America and other Members of Congress who may feel 
differently. I equally condemn the horrors going on in the country of 
Iraq. I have no desire at all to defend Hussein. I rise, though, to 
just urge some caution on what we do.

                              {time}  1715

  I have a problem with the procedure, which we are pursuing, that we 
are condoning, encouraging and literally paying for a program which 
permits the President to go and bomb another nation. There was a time 
in our history when bombing another country, when that country had not 
attacked us, was an act of war. But today we do this rather casually.
  Morally, the only justifiable war is a war of defense, a war when our 
national security is threatened. A legal war in this country is one 
that is declared by the Congress acting for the people.
  We have not declared a war. If we had a declared war even once since 
World War II, possibly we would have fought for victory. Instead, we 
get involved too carelessly and we do not fight to victory, and maybe 
that is why we are standing here today debating the consequence of the 
Persian Gulf war because we really did not achieve victory and the war 
continues.
  It is argued that the legislation passed in 1990 gives legitimacy for 
the President to pursue this adventure, but this really contradicts 
everything intended by the founders of this country that we could 
literally pass legislation which was not a declaration of war and to 
allow it to exist in perpetuity. And here it is 7 or 8 years later, and 
we are going to use legislation passed by Congress. Very few of us were 
even in that Congress at that time that are in the current Congress, 
but they want to use that.
  Also a contradiction to our established form of government is the 
fact that that legislation was passed more or less to rubber-stamp a 
U.N. resolution. So I think those are terms that are not justifiable 
under our system of law, and I call my colleagues' attention to this 
because this is very serious.
  I do not care more about military than those who would bomb; they 
have just as much concern as I have. But I am concerned about the rule 
of law, and obviously, I am concerned about consequences that are 
unforeseen, and there could be many.
  I am worried that we do not have allied support, and everybody 
recognizes that now. There are very few neighbors of Saddam Hussein who 
are very anxious for us to do this. So that should cause some 
reservation.
  Also the military strategy here is questionable. It is actually what 
are we going to try to achieve? Are we going to try to literally 
destroy all the weapons, or are we going to try to destroy him? Are we 
just going to bomb people where maybe innocent people will be killed? 
The long-term military strategy has not been spelled out, and I have a 
concern for that.
  Also we are not doing real well on the P.R. front because just today 
on the Reuters wire line there was a report that came out of a 
television program in Britain, which is rather frightening. Although I 
have criticized our policy of the 1980s, because during the 1980s we 
were obviously allies of Saddam Hussein, but the reports on British

[[Page H492]]

television now say that both the American Government, both the U.S. 
Government and the British Government participated and they have the 
documents, U.S. documents, that document, that say that we did 
participate in sales of biological weapons to Saddam Hussein, which 
points out an inconsistency. And I guess all governments have the right 
to change their minds, but I still think that should caution us in what 
we do.
  Nothing is going to happen to the world. Saddam Hussein has not 
threatened his neighbors since the Persian Gulf war, and surely before 
we get back in 10 days this is unnecessary.
  The other side of the aisle suggests that we have a full debate and a 
resolution in 10 days after we come back. That certainly makes a lot of 
sense to me. I think at this point to condone and endorse and encourage 
the President to do something at this late hour when there is 
essentially no one here in the Chamber, I do not think this is a good 
way to casually step into something that could be rather dangerous. The 
resolutions that have been talked about ironically are quite similar to 
the resolution passed in the 1960s that got us further involved in 
Vietnam.
  So, in all sincerity, I come here asking all Members to be cautious 
and for the President not to move too hastily.

                          ____________________