[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 153 (Thursday, December 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H11722-H11736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT FOR MEN AND WOMEN OF OUR ARMED FORCES
CURRENTLY CARRYING OUT MISSIONS IN AND AROUND PERSIAN GULF REGION
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 612)
expressing unequivocal support for the men and women of our Armed
Forces who are currently carrying out missions in and around the
Persian Gulf region, and ask unanimous consent for its immediate
consideration in the House, with the previous question ordered to its
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question except 2 hours of debate, equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on
National Security or their designees.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 612
Whereas the President of the United States has ordered
military action against Iraq in response to its refusal to
comply with international obligations under United Nations
Security Council resolutions;
Whereas up to 24,000 men and women of the United States
Armed Forces are presently involved in operations in and
around the Persian Gulf region with the active participation
of British Armed Forces and the support of allies in the
region;
Whereas additional United States Armed Forces are being
deployed to the region;
Whereas Congress and the American people have the greatest
pride in the men and women of the United States Armed Forces
and strongly support them in their efforts. Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives That:
(a) the Congress unequivocally supports the men and women
of our Armed Forces who are carrying out their missions with
prefessionalism, dedication, patriotism, and courage;
(b) the Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of
the United States to support efforts to remove the regime
headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote
the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) and the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Skelton) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence).
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire, is either gentleman
opposed to the resolution?
The SPEAKER. The unanimous consent request did not allocate time on
the basis of opposition.
The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) is recognized.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich), the Speaker.
Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from
South Carolina, for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise because I think this resolution offers us a very
important opportunity to talk with ourselves and to talk with the
world.
The United States represents two enormous burdens that we have to
live out: first, that we are the center of freedom, and that we are
engaged in the process of self-government; and second, that we must
carry the burden of leading the world, and that is an operational day-
to-day which never suspends: It does not suspend for elections, it does
not suspend for Christmas, it does not suspend under any circumstance.
We have an obligation to prove to ourselves and to the world that we
can simultaneously govern ourselves in freedom under the rule of law,
and provide leadership wherever it is needed around the world.
Let me expand on that for just a moment, because it is a topic I have
thought a great deal about since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The United States has to lead. There is no alternative. There is no
other country capable of organizing against an Iraqi dictator who wants
to get weapons of mass destruction. There is no other country capable
of sustaining freedom against a North Korean dictatorship actively
seeking to get nuclear weapons. There is no other country that can lead
the world's financial system when it is under stress. There is no other
country capable of bringing together on a global basis people trying to
solve problems.
Yes, it would be nice to run and hide. Yes, it would be nice to find
some grand isolation in which we could cower behind the walls of the
Atlantic and Pacific Ocean if this were 150 years ago.
But today, in the age of the Internet, in the age of worldwide
instantaneous financial communications, in the age of weapons of mass
destruction delivered by missiles and by terrorists, for the United
States to fail to lead is in fact to guarantee chaos and to guarantee
pain across the planet, and ultimately, pain here in the United States.
So let me be very clear. I believe the United States has to lead, and
I believe, as a practical matter, both under our Constitution and in
the nature of how human beings function, the daily leadership has to be
an executive function, and the President of the United States has to
provide that leadership every day, 365 days a year.
Now, we have a second and in many ways even more important burden,
because it is the heart of who we are as a people. We are a Nation
under law. We are a Nation of systems. As Ronald Reagan said in 1981,
this magic of the transfer of power as a Democratic president yielded
to a Republican, and then in 1993, as a Republican, George Bush,
yielded to a Democrat, President Clinton, there is a magic to the
capacity of the American people to subordinate themselves to the rule
of law, and that means we are going to have open debates. It means
newspapers are going to have lurid headlines. It means we are going to
have television shows that are confusing.
If you are a dictator, it is easy to look at the turmoil and chaos
and confusion of a free people and say to yourself, this is the week to
hit America, because now they must be divided. So we have a chance
today to say to the world, no matter what our constitutional process,
whether it is an election eve or it is the eve of a constitutional
vote, no matter what our debates at home, we are, as a Nation, prepared
to lead the world.
So I support what was done this week. I was briefed on it in advance.
I can assure my colleagues that as Speaker of the House, I felt, and I
think that the next speaker, Mr. Livingston, can also report that he
felt we were being legitimately consulted. We were not just informed
but we had conversations of substance, and this has been an ongoing
process.
But let me say two things on the domestic side about my qualified
support, because I believe the President has two obligations beyond
this week's activities. First, we need to have a clear and decisive
commitment to replacing the dictatorship in Iraq, because it has
consistently now, from 1990 through
[[Page H11723]]
1998, proven that even with 8 years of sanctions, even with 8 years of
economic hardship for the Iraqi people, who do not deserve it, they
should not be made to suffer because their dictator is irrational, they
should not be made to pay the price because their dictator holds them
in slavery with an armed Republican Guard and secret police, but for 8
years we have adopted a policy which has punished the people of Iraq
while the dictatorship has continued.
The President owes it to this Nation in January and owes it to this
Congress in January to provide us with a systematic, thorough, and
methodical campaign plan by which the most powerful Nation in the world
replaces a dictator who has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that he
is desperate to get weapons of mass destruction, and no student of
Saddam can doubt that he will either give them to terrorists or use
them directly.
So just as in the 1930s there was a magic moment when it would have
been easy to have destroyed Adolph Hitler and the democracies didn't
take it, this is our last warning, because sooner or later, our allies
in the Security Council will falter, and sooner or later Saddam will
get weapons of mass destruction, and then the genie will be out of the
bottle.
Second, I would say, in addition to a strategy for replacing the
dictatorship, this President owes it to the men and women in uniform
and to the men and women in our intelligence services to come back to
this Congress in the beginning of next year and renegotiate the amount
of funding we need for those two.
We cannot lead the planet on the current defense budget, and we
cannot get the information to lead the planet on the current
intelligence budget. I know that will be unpopular in some quarters,
but you cannot lead the world on the cheap. If you are not going to be
for isolation, then you need to rely on the distinguished professionals
to tell you the truth about what it is going to cost to recruit and
build the systems we need.
{time} 1015
So I rise today to say to Saddam Hussein and any other dictator who
has any doubt the United States can both govern itself and lead the
world simultaneously, and I say to our allies across the planet, we
have been, since 1941, the bulwark on which your freedom was based, we
have been the arsenal on which your freedom has been assured, and we
have been the power on which your security has been procured. We will
retain those capabilities. And no matter what the temporary arguments,
no matter what the temporary issues, no one anywhere on this planet
should doubt the will of the American people to support freedom and the
will of the American people to provide leadership and our capacity to
subordinate our personalities and subordinate issues to ensure that we
as a Nation are strong on this planet.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the President and
our troops in this latest phase of the Iraqi crisis. I urge all Members
to join me in voting for this resolution.
It is extremely important that we be here today to support these
actions and to support these young men and women who are in the Middle
East doing their best to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief in
putting an end to this Iraqi threat to the American interests and to
the Iraqi neighbors.
I urge all Members to join in this effort today. We, the
representatives of the American people, need to express our full
support of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, last November the 14, the President called off an attack
against Iraq at the very last minute while aircraft were in the air
because Iraq promised to allow the United Nations Special Commission to
do its job. The President's decision at that time was a tough call.
Many individuals, including some of his closest security advisors,
disagreed with the choice that he made. I, however, believed that he
made the right decision and publicly supported his decision.
I supported the decision because it allowed the United States to show
the world that we would give Iraq one last chance. As George Robertson,
the British Minister of Defense, said at the time, ``Even in the Wild
West, when someone put up their hands, did you not shoot them?''
Almost 8 years ago, President George Bush ordered American military
forces into action against Iraq. At that time I supported the decision.
There was bipartisan support for the action that he took. Yesterday, 8
years later, President Clinton ordered American military forces into
action against Iraq. I find myself once again in support of the
decision of our President. We gave ample warning one month ago that if
Saddam did not comply with the promises he made to the United Nations,
that the consequences would be severe. In effect, our national
credibility was on the line. Had the President not ordered the attack,
many would have bitterly criticized him for not having followed through
with the tough words he uttered just one month ago. Others in the
world, in North Korea and Yugoslavia and elsewhere, would have come to
the conclusion that the United States, though militarily strong, was
lacking in will.
As we proceed with this action, we should have a sustained bombing
campaign that targets Saddam Hussein's centers of power, especially the
revolutionary guard and his security services. We should also hit known
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons sites. This effort will help
contain Iraq, maybe even spark a coup, but will surely retard his
effort to rebuild his ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.
I also hope it will help encourage the internal opposition. There are
no good options, but to have done nothing now would have been the worst
of all options.
Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support the President in his decision.
I wholeheartedly support those in uniform who are carrying out those
orders today, the difficult orders. I respect their determination and
their professionalism. They are the cream of the crop. And our
heartfelt and best wishes go with them.
This resolution will help let them know that we, the representatives
of the people of America, are in their corner today and in the days
ahead.
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This resolution, which I have sponsored, along with my colleague the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), expresses the strong support of
the Congress for the courageous, patriotic and dedicated service of our
men and women in uniform serving in the Persian Gulf who are currently
conducting military strikes against Iraq.
Once again, our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have
demonstrated that they comprise the finest fighting force in the world
today. For years they have selflessly defended America's national
security interests in the Persian Gulf at great personal sacrifice. All
Americans can be proud of our troops and the way they have performed.
They are a credit to our Nation and an inspiration to us all.
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the situation with regard to Iraq
has come to this point. For the past 8 years, since the end of the Gulf
War, Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, has repeatedly
defied the will of the international community and ignored all
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council designed to ensure
that Iraq could not reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction
capability. Saddam Hussein has relentlessly pursued the acquisition of
nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the ballistic missiles
that can deliver them. He has invaded his neighbors, launched ballistic
missiles against Saudi Arabia and Israel, and used chemical weapons
against his own people. To prevent international weapons inspectors
from further uncovering his prohibited weapons activities, he has
obstructed inspections, refused to turn over documents and thumbed his
nose at the world. In short, he has worked methodically to undermine
the international effort to prevent him from rearming.
The challenge to United States security posed by Saddam Hussein's
actions in Iraq is stark. Simply put, the United States cannot allow
Saddam Hussein to frustrate the efforts of the international community
and to reconstitute his weapons capability. Doing so
[[Page H11724]]
would again allow him to threaten his neighbors, United States' friends
and allies in the region, and our own interests.
Unfortunately, I am concerned that our military action against Iraq
attacks only the symptoms of the problem rather than the problem
itself. The root cause of our problems with Iraq is Saddam Hussein
himself. The time is long overdue to implement a broader and more
aggressive strategy that has as its ultimate goal the replacement of
Saddam Hussein's dictatorial regime. The Iraqi people have suffered
long enough.
Whatever one's view is on the timing of this latest military strike
against Iraq, we are all unified in support of our servicemen and
women. We are proud of each and every one of them.
I urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution and urge all
Americans to pray for the safety of our sons and daughters, husband and
wives and those of our allies who are currently in harm's way in the
Gulf. It is important for them to know that the American people and the
people's representatives in Congress are behind them 100 percent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I must comment and say that I
wholeheartedly agree with the comments of the chairman, the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spence), regarding the outstanding young men
and women that we have in uniform today. I would like the Record to
show that I feel as strongly and I support those words of support for
them.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Reyes).
Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
I rise this morning in support of President Clinton and our military
troops dispersed in the Persian Gulf.
Yesterday the United States military began strikes to subdue the
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons capability of Iraq. For some
time now Saddam Hussein has flaunted the will of the United Nations by
impeding the activities of weapons inspectors. Strikes against him, in
my opinion, and against his regime have been greatly needed and greatly
overdue.
I believe, however, that President Clinton has demonstrated great
restraint and patience and has waited the appropriate time to initiate
these strikes. Had the United States moved towards strikes at another
time, we would have been perceived as a bully and would have been
condemned by much of the world.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that in this time of crisis, we must put aside
partisan quarrels and show unified support for our troops. We should
send our thoughts and prayers to the men and women in uniform who are
carrying out this attack. We should also keep in our prayers the
families of these fine men and women. It will be especially difficult
for them because this is the holiday season.
In the Middle East today, along with thousands of military personnel,
are more than 1100 soldiers from Fort Bliss, Texas. These men and women
are manning Patriot missile systems. I am proud to say that these
soldiers are led by the first woman ever to command an air defense
battalion. The Patriot systems are in place to defend our troops
against possible Scud missile launches from Iraq.
We know from our experience in the Gulf War that Saddam is willing to
use Scud missiles against our troops. The presence of these Patriots
demonstrates how significant our military leaders believe that the
threat of ballistic missiles is. Every month we learn of more tests of
ballistic missiles that are faster and reach further distances. The
countries testing these systems are not our friends and would likely
actually use these ballistic missile systems armed with chemical,
biological or even nuclear warheads against others, including the
United States.
The strikes to Iraq are significant to slow the development of such
weapons by that government. But countries like Iraq, Iran, North Korea
and Libya will continue to seek the technology to deliver weapons of
mass destruction. As such, we must continue to develop as quickly as
possible defensive systems like the Army's THAAD missile system, the
theater high altitude area defense system. We must ensure that we are
capable of meeting the ever growing threat of ballistic missile to our
troops and to our allies.
{time} 1030
Today we must stand together and support our President and our
troops. Once again, our thoughts should be with our men and women in
uniform. God bless each one of them and God bless America.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Hefley).
Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution
and commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spence) for bringing
it to the floor today.
While the American people and the Congress may have some question
about the timing of this attack, one thing remains unquestionable, our
support for the troops. Once the planes are in the air and the ships
are at full steam and the troops are on the ground, we categorically
and wholeheartedly believe in the mission and we believe in the wisdom
of our military leaders.
The provocations are many and the time for action is long overdue.
Saddam Hussein is a psychopathic bully in the international playground.
As we all know, the only way to deal with a bully is swiftly, directly,
and harshly. It is unfortunate that over 24,000 brave men and women
have to be apart from their families during the holiday season, but the
extraordinary task they are performing will allow the United States and
its allies to reaffirm that we will not stand idly by while this threat
to safety, liberty and freedom exists.
I proudly salute our servicemen and women all over the globe, and our
thoughts and prayers are with you and your families and our support
will not waiver.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my
absolute support for the steps that our President has taken to degrade
Iraq's ability to terrorize her neighbors and destabilize the Persian
Gulf.
The international community has given Saddam Hussein more than enough
opportunities to comply with United Nations resolutions. Unfortunately,
he has chosen to ignore the United Nations and has repeatedly blocked
the ability of U.N. weapons inspectors to access strategic sites.
Saddam Hussein clearly has something to hide.
I am appalled that Members of Congress in both bodies could be so
crass and thoughtless as to suggest that President Clinton initiated
this attack to avoid impending legislation addressing his office. To
question the integrity of this decision is insidious, damaging, and can
be destabilizing to the presidency and dangerous and demoralizing to
our troops.
Those, the leaders of our armed forces, need our support. They do not
need doubts as regards their motives. I, for one, am proud of our
President, our military leaders, and our men and women on the ground,
the air, and the sea who are leading the strike force and showing the
world once again that America is not afraid to do the right thing.
I was with the President in the Middle East and witnessed his
courageous actions in pursuing peace in that region. I was on Air Force
One with the President, the Secretary of State, the National Security
Advisor, and Republican and Democratic Members of Congress. The
President and Secretary of State briefed us just before landing here at
Andrews regarding the circumstances of Iraq's deliberate misconduct.
Confluence of events notwithstanding, the President, with
professionalism, dedication, patriotism, wisdom and courage, took the
appropriate steps. We stand with the President and our troops and may
God bless them and all of us.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of our Committee on International
Relations.
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H11725]]
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the leadership of the House in
bringing this bipartisan resolution to us in support of our military
initiative in Iraq in response to Saddam Hussein's defiance of U.N.
Secretary Council's resolutions pertaining to his cooperation with the
U.N. inspectors. I commend, too, the remarks of the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) in support of this resolution supporting our
Nation's military action against Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, in rising in support of this legislation before us
today, I am pleased that we understand scoring congressional
unequivocal support for the men and women of our armed forces who are
now engaged in our Nation's operations against Iraq. We must, as this
measure points out, take appropriate action to remove the regime headed
by Saddam Hussein and to promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace that regime.
Mr. Speaker, we must not permit Saddam Hussein to defy the U.N.
Security Council. It is the U.N. Security Council that empowered UNSCOM
inspectors that are now being denied access to the sites that need to
be inspected in Iraq. We cannot permit any suspicious sites to go
unchecked when someone such as Saddam Hussein is determined to develop
weapons of mass destruction capable of being unleashed on neighboring
nations in the Gulf region.
While there has been some debate on whether earlier actions by Saddam
should have triggered earlier U.S. military initiatives, the fact
remains that we are now involved and we must direct our energies toward
making certain that our military efforts are going to be successful and
as effective as possible. But we must also make certain that ours is a
comprehensive policy that seeks to end Saddam's ability to taunt and
endanger the international community.
We must also reach out to those groups within Iraq who are willing to
rise up against Saddam Hussein. And I refer my colleagues to the
recently enacted Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which spells out how we
can best accomplish that purpose.
My colleagues, Saddam has demonstrated no compunction in reaching out
against his own people and nations in the region in reprehensible ways
long strongly condemned by the international community. Accordingly, I
urge strong support for this measure which underscores the need that
military action which can stop Saddam Hussein be effective and
continued. We also support and will keep in our prayers the safety and
early return of those young men and women who are now securing and
fighting for our nation so gallantly at this time of crisis.
Hopefully, then, our response is part of a comprehensive strategy
that not only targets Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, but
has, as its ultimate objective, the eventual removal from power of
Saddam and his regime, a goal that the President himself has iterated.
To that end, the Administration should employ an integrated strategy
in which military action is not an end in itself, but part of a larger
plan that includes support for the efforts of democratic opponents of
Saddam to remove him from power.
Such an approach should include air strikes, not only against
facilities related to weapons of mass destruction, but also against
elements that Saddam uses to suppress organized democratic opposition,
such as military command and control centers, heavy weapons, and
installations of the Republican Guard and the Special Security
Organization.
The President should also declare no-drive zones in northern and
southern Iraq--in addition to the existing no-fly zones--from which
Iraqi armor and artillery would be totally excluded by U.S. air power.
Moreover, the President should utilize the authority under the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998, Public Law 105-338, to provide military
assistance and training to Iraqi democratic opposition groups fighting
to overthrow the Saddam Hussein regime.
In short, U.S. military power needs to be used in a way that will
complement and reinforce the efforts of Iraqi democratic opposition
groups to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power.
Such a strategy is more likely to succeed than air strikes alone.
While there is no guarantee that such a strategy will succeed in
overthrowing Saddam, this approach is more likely to lead to that
result than other strategies that presuppose Saddam's continued grip on
power.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), our whip on the Democratic side.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I rise today in support of this
resolution and in support of our men and women who are engaged in
combat as we speak. As I look at this issue that is facing us this
morning, I look at it from two perspectives, Mr. Speaker. Number one,
the need to deal with Saddam and the production, the sale, the use, the
delivery of weapons of mass destruction, the destabilizing influence of
these nuclear and biological and chemical agents and the pain and the
suffering that they have caused and could cause our community.
The other issue that we will not hear very much about on this floor
today or perhaps in the dialogue that we will have over this issue in
the coming days and months is the policy that we have with respect to
sanctions in Iraq, which I think that policy is wrong. And I will tell
my colleagues why I think it is wrong and why it has not worked.
It has been 8 years, Mr. Speaker. We do not read about the fact that
there have been over a half a million children in Iraq who have died
prematurely as a result of this policy. According to preliminary
numbers in a study conducted by Richard Garfield, Columbia University,
an epidemiologist and a specialist on health effects of the embargo,
the death rate of Iraqi children age 5 and under has spiraled up nearly
tripling since the sanctions were imposed in 1990. At that time, child
deaths in Iraq were on par with much of the Western world.
And it is not just children under 5, it is what has happened to the
total society. They do not have medicine, anesthesia for operations.
They do not have insulin for diabetics. They do not have heart medicine
for those with heart problems, and it has caused enormous pain and
suffering.
So what we are confronted with today are two real issues here, one
affecting the security of our people and the region in which we are now
engaged in a very serious way, threatening way, destabilizing way, and
the other with a real humanitarian need to address the concerns of the
Iraqi people who are suffering unimaginable pain as a result of the
policies of Saddam Hussein but also as a result of the policies of
these sanctions which have not worked.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Buyer), the chairman of our Subcommittee on Military
Personnel.
(Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Spence) for yielding time to me, and to the Speaker-elect, the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Livingston), let me extend a great
compliment to him yesterday. While there were many people who were
questioning the President's motives, questioning the President's
decision-making process, the gentleman was very thorough, he was very
methodical in his decisions approaching the Nation's business, and I
extend a compliment to him for having done that. Because I think he
made the right decision.
We were facing the impeachment vote and then we have this response to
Saddam Hussein. I think many of us here were here last night and we
listened to the briefing by the Secretary of Defense and the Director
of the CIA and in particular the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
What is difficult here is that the President, as the Commander in
Chief, he is always entitled to the benefit of the doubt in his
decision-making process as he comes to judgment. His policies and his
judgment are always of question. But how he makes the decision, he is
given the benefit of the doubt. The benefit gets removed in this case
because of the diminished credibility and the self-inflicted wounds
that the President has caused himself.
Turn and give the benefit of the doubt to the Secretary of the
Defense, to our military intelligence and to the present circumstances.
I support this measured and tempered response to the recalcitrance of
Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender, He is
[[Page H11726]]
a habitual offender, and he needs to be put back in his place. He is a
Third World tyrant who is a prisoner in the border of his own nation.
He loves to be elevated and thumb the nose not only to the world but
elevated to the superpower status where he attempts to stick the eyes
of America.
Now, this is measured. There will be a cease to this. Do not over
blow or over play what this is. This is not an equivalency of the House
coming to its debate of the use of force during the Gulf War. Do not
over play your hand to the House.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Sanders).
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, when our troops are in harm's way, we all support them
and we all pray that they will come home safely and as promptly as
possible. Having said that, let me express my serious concerns about
the current military action ordered by the President.
I am concerned that this action took place with no discussion in the
United States Congress despite the fact that the Constitution makes it
very clear that it is this body which declares war. I am concerned that
while we are ostensibly supporting a United Nations resolution, the
U.N. did not vote for this attack, does not support this attack, and
that country after country throughout the world are condemning this
attack.
This is important because if the United States is to have credibility
in the future in terms of condemning aggression, how do we go forward
with countries saying, hey, we felt aggrieved, we wanted to do it, that
is what you did, you did not come to the United Nations.
This article of war, this act of aggression, is not supported by the
Vatican. Let me quote from the Vatican. ``The Holy See agrees fully
with the Secretary General of the U.N. that today is a sad day for the
United Nations and for the world. The Holy See hopes that this
aggression will end as soon as possible and that international order is
restored.''
{time} 1045
Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who should be
overthrown, and his ability to make weapons of destruction must be
eliminated. I have serious doubts, however, whether the action that we
are taking today will take us one step forward in that direction, and I
fear that innocent civilians, that women and children in that country,
will be killed.
Mr. Speaker, when American troops are in harm's way we all support
them and pray that they will come home safely and promptly. There can
be no disagreement over that.
Having said that, let me express my serious concerns about the
current military action ordered by the President.
I am concerned that this action took place with no discussion in the
U.S. Congress, despite the fact that war making responsibility rests
with the Congress under the Constitution.
I am concerned that while we are ostensibly supporting a United
Nations resolution, the United Nations did not vote for this attack.
Not only was there no vote by the U.N., it appears quite clearly that
the Security Council does not support this action. And this is an issue
of grave concern. How will the United States, in the future, be able to
condemn aggression anywhere in the world when, for all intent and
purposes, this country has acted unilaterally and without the force of
law? If Russia, China, North Korea, Great Britain or any country on
Earth commits unilateral military aggression that we disapprove of, how
will we be able, in good faith, to condemn them? They will simply
respond that they are doing precisely what the United States did
against Iraq.
While I opposed the Gulf War in 1991, the United Nations and the
world community supported it. That is not the case now, Today, our
attack is opposed by countries throughout the world, including France,
Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Sweden, and others.
On Thursday, Arab-League Secretary-General Esmat Abdel-Meguid
denounced the U.S. led attack on Iraq as aggression against an Arab
country that would not solve Baghdad's dispute with the United Nations
over arms inspections. It is also opposed by The Vatican. Let me quote
from The Vatican, ``The Holy See agrees fully with the Secretary
General of the United Nations that `today is a sad day for the United
Nations and for the world.' The Holy See hopes that this aggression
will end as soon as possible and that international order is
restored.''
Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein is a brutal and illegitimate dictator who
should be removed from office, and his capability to make weapons of
mass destruction must be eliminated. In order to do that, we must
develop a political strategy and support the democratic forces in Iraq
who are prepared to overthrow him. I have serious doubts whether this
military action today will take us one step forward in that direction.
For years now, the women, children and innocent civilians of Iraq,
whose only ``crime'' is that they live under the tyranny of Saddam
Hussein, have been punished terribly. They lack medicine, adequate
food, clean water, and other basic necessities of life. We should not
add to their suffering with attacks like this.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Bateman) chairman of the Subcommittee on Military
Readiness.
(Mr. BATEMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to tell Members how
strongly I endorse and applaud the decision of our Commander in Chief
and his military advisers to take the action which was taken yesterday
and which continues today.
Yes, we all ought to recognize the fact that it was a sad day, sad
that it had to be taken. But it did have to be taken. I am not one of
those who object and point and accuse that there is something peculiar
or wrong in the timing of this decision, not in the context of what we
expected in terms of the ongoing debate on the subject of the
presidency and its tenure. I object to it on the basis that in the
first 2 weeks of November when Saddam Hussein had ceased the
opportunity for inspections, the Gulf cooperating states, Syria, Egypt
and an alignment of people or nations favorable to our having done so
agreed that he was at fault and that military action was justified. But
we did not undertake that action until 3 days or more after that had
happened with more forces deployed in the Middle East then than there
are now. Then at the last moment, as we could have predicted Saddam
Hussein would have done, he says, ``Okay, I'll cooperate'' and in mid
flight the planes were called back. That never should have happened. We
should have gone forward when we had the circumstances and the window
of opportunity to have done it then. If I thought it should have been
done earlier, I certainly am in no position to complain that it is
being done now.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Edwards).
Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak from my perspective
as cochairman of the bipartisan House Army Caucus and as the
representative of Fort Hood in Texas, the largest Army installation in
the world. In 1991 when President Bush sent U.S. forces into Kuwait and
Iraq, our Nation stood united in support of our troops. Even
congressional Democrats and Republicans who preferred economic
sanctions rather than war against Iraq at that time put aside their
personal and partisan differences once our armed forces were in harm's
way. I can tell everyone here that it meant everything to the morale of
our troops in Iraq in 1991, including 25,000 of my own constituents,
that Congress and the American people stood together in support of
them. That is why I am glad to be here to support this resolution
today.
However, Mr. Speaker, a resolution supporting our troops must be
backed up by our words on this floor and off this floor, by our words
and our deeds. I am saddened that last night a number of Republican
Members of this House precipitously and without fact charged that the
timing of this action was totally political. One representative was
even quoted as saying, without any proof whatsoever, that the President
was willing to risk the lives of American service men and women to
protect his own political standing. Mr. Speaker, that type of
unsubstantiated personal attack against our President at a time when
brave American pilots and armed forces are in harm's way is wrong. It
is irresponsible. It does harm to the morale of our forces in the
Persian Gulf.
This morning former Secretary Henry Kissinger, a Republican, said
that political attacks on our Iraqi missions such as some of those made
last night by Members of Congress would demoralize our troops in the
Persian
[[Page H11727]]
Gulf. The truth is the timing of this attack was unanimously supported
by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, and an attack on the
integrity of this operation is in effect an attack on the integrity of
our Joint Chiefs. Secretary of Defense William Cohen, a Republican who
served with dignity and integrity in this House and in the Senate said
this yesterday, and I quote: ``I am prepared to place 30 years of
public service on the line to say the only factor that was important in
this decision is what is in the American people's interest. There were
no other factors.''
Mr. Speaker, today is a time to put partisanship and these kind of
attacks behind us. I urge some of my colleagues to reconsider their
ill-advised comments of last night. Today we must have two goals: One
is to say together, the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats do
indeed support our troops. Finally let us send a clear message to
Saddam Hussein, do not underestimate the ability of the American
Congress and people to come together when our national security
interests are at risk.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Livingston). The Chair must remind all
Members that although it is permissible to debate and speak critically
of the President or the administration on matters of policy or
politics, remarks in debate must not descend to personality by
arraigning the President's personal conduct or by charging other
Members with having done so off the floor and by detailing those
arraignments.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Fowler).
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the
resolution before us today. While questions have been raised about the
unique circumstances under which this attack has occurred, I believe
that all Members of this House, Republicans and Democrats alike, need
to pull together today in support of the young men and women that are
now in harm's way in support of our Nation's vital interests. I hope we
will wreak havoc on Saddam's ability to develop weapons of mass
destruction, to threaten his neighbors and to repress his own people.
But beyond that, I hope that these strikes are only part of a broader
strategy by this administration to dismantle this Iraqi regime.
I also want to express my thanks to the government of the United
Kingdom which again stands shoulder to shoulder with us in opposition
to Saddam's defiance to international law. I know that all Americans
join me today in praying that our men and women in uniform in the Gulf,
including some 2,000 troops from my northeast Florida area, complete
this endeavor safely and return home to their families soon.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Skaggs).
Mr. SKAGGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, of course we want to support American troops as they
carry out this dangerous and important mission. But let us not lose
sight of the sad fact that President Clinton has acted in violation of
the Constitution in ordering these attacks without authority of
Congress. And let us not forget as well that the decision to go to war
is vested in Congress and not in the Commander in Chief and that we too
share the blame for this violation of the Constitution because we have
time and again defaulted in our responsibility and obligation to insist
on our proper constitutional role.
The President, to the extent that he relies on a strict reading of
the Constitution for other purposes, would be well advised to adhere to
a strict reading of the war powers clause as well. But instead this
administration engages in a contrived bit of legal sophistry to conjure
up a pretext of legality where none exists.
Shame on him. And shame on us for letting other Presidents and this
one take away one of the most important powers vested in Congress,
which the American people have a right to expect us, here, to exercise
in their behalf.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Goss), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
(Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the
committee for yielding me this time. There is certainly no question
that every Member whether Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative,
moderate, independent, whatever, however we describe ourselves, every
Member of this House today stands in unequivocal support of our troops
in the Persian Gulf at this time of danger and risk for them. We wish
them Godspeed, we wish them good luck, we wish them safe return, we
wish them swift return. We express our gratitude to them and to their
families for their sacrifice in support of a peaceful world we all want
and the security of our Nation that all Americans deserve and demand
and expect, especially when these heavy duties come during the holiday
season.
Mr. Speaker, the President has outlined a policy of containment with
respect to this military action. Degrading Saddam Hussein's program of
deadly weapons and fear is a good interim step but it is not the end
game. I implore the administration not to be satisfied with an interim
result of containment but rather to work toward dismantling Saddam
Hussein's destructive regime. Otherwise, we will be doing this again.
We have no quarrel with the people of Iraq. We all know that. They
have suffered too long at the hands of a war criminal leader who is
ruthless and uses chemistry for genocide in his own country. We want
the Iraqis to have a peaceful chance to live in this world community
and that cannot happen as long as Saddam Hussein is the ruler of Iraq.
We must stand firm. Saddam Hussein must go. He is a war criminal. We
should bring him to justice. If we are going to risk the lives of
American troops, that is the purpose that the risk should take place.
God bless all of them who are doing this heavy, dangerous work now.
Amen.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I support our troops like every American.
Saddam Hussein deserves this. He earned it. He had it coming. But I do
not support this process. What has happened to the backbone of the
Congress of the United States? We have allowed the executive branch to
usurp nearly all of our authority. If these were political actions, we
would send the police. If these were peacekeeping missions, we would
send the Peace Corps. Ladies and gentlemen, what we are doing is
placing troops on foreign soil in harm's way that could precipitate a
major problem and the truth of the matter is we are allowing one person
to do this.
We all support our troops after the fact. I say it is time to throw
out the War Powers Act. Throw it out. Get back to the Constitution. My
God, no one man in America should be able to declare war, and that is
where we are.
What is even more problematic today is there are many skeptics out
there. Everybody is afraid to say what they feel down here. From
patriots to ``Wag the Dog'' skeptics, people are questioning motives. I
blame Congress for this. If we get back to the Constitution, do it the
right way, we would never allow doubt and politics to raise their ugly
head when our troops are in foreign lands under attack.
God almighty, what has happened to us? Yes, maybe the constitutional
process is clumsy, maybe it lacks surprises but you know what? Doing it
the right way will not only save lives, it will ensure our great
republic and our freedom.
I support our troops but I oppose with every fiber in me this
process. The war declaration powers in Congress are clear. Wise up,
Congress, before we place America at great risk.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
(Mr. DUNCAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to place a statement in the Record in
support of this resolution but in strong agreement with the previous
speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have always tried to support our men and women in the
military, and I support this Resolution.
[[Page H11728]]
I supported the original Gulf War, but I must say that I think the
situation is very different today.
Eight years ago, Saddam Hussein had what some described then as the
largest, most-powerful military in the Middle East.
He was moving into Kuwait, and most analysts felt that if he was not
stopped, he would try to take over the entire Middle East.
Today, after major losses in the Gulf War and 8 years of sanctions,
Iraq essentially is a defenseless nation in comparison to the U.S.
We have not been told of any overt military action by Iraq, or even
of any threatened action, against us on anyone else.
Several nations, including us and some of our strongest allies, have
weapons of mass destruction and chemical and biological weapons. We
cannot bomb every nation that has such weapons.
We have always prided ourselves as being a peace-loving nation.
War should be our most reluctant action. We should go to war only as
a last resort--only if there is no reasonable alternative.
And we should go to war only if there is a serious threat to our
national security or there is a vital U.S. interest at stake.
In this instance, as in the bombing a few weeks ago of Sudan and
Afghanistan, we have been far too eager to go to war.
We are now bombing innocent men, women, and children who have done
nothing to us and have not even threatened us, simply because they are
ruled by a mad dictator.
Saddam Hussein is without doubt a horrible tyrant and I would agree
with anything bad that is said about him.
But this bombing now is the wrong thing to do, and it is the wrong
time to do it. In the long run, it will do far more harm than good.
This Resolution, however, expresses support for our troops in combat
and supports the removal of Saddam Hussein. Both of these are things
that all Americans can support even if they have questions about the
policy and its timing.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
{time} 1100
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from South Carolina (Mr.
Spratt) for yielding this time to me, and I, too, rise in strong
support of our men and women in uniform who find themselves today in
harm's way, indeed of all those who wear the uniform of the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note in response to the
criticism from my friend from Texas that came earlier that there are
many who confuse dissent with lack of resolve. Indeed the tyrant whom
we now confront, Saddam Hussein, was heard to brag to the international
press that he remained in power while George Bush was deposed. Mr.
Speaker, the tyrant does not understand our constitutional republic,
and, Mr. Speaker, in that spirit today I rise to celebrate the ability
of every Member of this House and of every American citizen to come to
this floor and freely express his or her opinion. That is for one of
the freedoms we fight, that is one of the freedoms that must be
preserved, that is part of the constitutional process we confront.
Mr. Speaker, let us all remember that and embrace it.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Furse).
Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, this resolution has two parts. Of course we
support the troops, of course we do. But the second part of this
resolution confirms that we should remove a ruler. I cannot believe it
is in our best interests to decide who rules in what country.
Democracies are not created by attacks from outside.
Mr. Speaker, I know mine might be a minority voice today, but I want
us to take a moment, just a moment to mourn, to mourn the thousands of
children who will die today and tomorrow. Iraqi children, yes, but they
are loved by their parents as we love ours. Those children will die
because they are victims of a world problem. No, they are children,
they will die.
Mr. Speaker, war is very seldom an answer. But war is always, always
a tragedy.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Solomon), the chairman of our Committee on Rules.
(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I will not take the 2 minutes, but let me
just say that any Member can stand and perhaps be critical of the
timing of the attack, but what can not be questioned is the fact that
the attack should come. It should have come 90 days ago, 60 days ago,
30 days ago, 2 weeks ago. The truth of the matter is that the attack is
needed.
Let me just say that I have stood on this floor and lectured Members
for many years about the need for a strong military. This is just one
more example of why we have to maintain a strong national defense that
will be able to protect the strategic interests of Americans across
this world. And in doing so, when we depend on an all voluntary
military, it is absolutely imperative that we give these young men and
women the best possible weaponry that we possibly can as long as we
have to ask them to go in harm's way.
Mr. Speaker, I would just appeal to my colleagues on my way out of
here in a couple of weeks that they continue to maintain a level of
defense so that the military can continue to attract and recruit the
kind of young men and women from a cross-section of America that we
have now. They are the finest young men and women that have ever served
in the military, going all the way back to my days in 1950 in the
United States Marine Corps.
So I praise this body for what they have done, and I certainly
support this resolution. I hope it passes unanimously.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and urge its
unanimous adoption by the House.
I would have preferred supporting a resolution of this kind 30 days
ago, 90 days ago, last February, or at any number of other times over
the past several years. On each and every such time, military strikes
against Iraq would have been entirely justified.
Since 1992, Saddam Hussein has established a pattern of noncompliance
with the international inspection regime, a pattern of outright
defiance that is so unrelenting and unmistakable that military action
was called for long before now.
Personally, I believe the last straw came this past September, when
Major Scott Ritter described the collapse of the inspection regime in
such telling detail that we shouldn't have waited another day. The fury
and abuse that were heaped on him by the higher-ups served only to
confirm the truth of his warnings.
But, we play the cards we are dealt, and later is better than never.
Mr. Speaker, American forces have been committed to action. Troops
are in the field. Our pilots are in the skies over Iraq. Now is the
time to pull together and give them the unwavering support they
deserve. Every one of them is a volunteer--never forget that--and they
deserve everything we can give them.
America stands united behind them. Congress stands united behind
them. Let there be no doubt in anyone's mind about that.
And as other of our colleagues have said here today, let this present
action against Iraq be the first strike in a comprehensive effort to
deal with the source of the problem once and for all--not just with the
symptoms.
Let us also seize this situation as an urgent reminder that we need
to maintain a strong military. General Norman Schwarzkopf has put it so
well; ``It is better to sweat in peace than to bleed in war.''
One of the clearest lessons of history is this: Peace is only secure
when the good are strong enough to deter the bad. It is just that
basic.
And that is why Congress must continue to be vigilant in making sure
that our military is the best-trained, best-equipped, best-motivated
fighting force in the world. We must continue to make sure that the
incentives we use in recruiting an All-Volunteer Force are the best
that America can possibly offer.
Mr. Speaker, standing behind the troops is a full-time obligation.
They deserve our support in peace, as well as war. Let's send them that
message today and every day.
I urge unanimous support for this resolution.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. McHale).
Mr. McHALE. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a Member of Congress and perhaps
more importantly as a veteran of the Gulf War to strongly support the
resolution now before the House. Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that we
of this Chamber have a profound obligation to those who fought and died
in the Gulf War to resolutely compel Iraq's compliance with the terms
of peace negotiated at the end of that conflict.
Mr. Speaker, I remember almost 8 years ago I stood in the chow line,
I believe in northern Saudi Arabia, perhaps in Kuwait, behind a young
Marine who had written on his helmet cover:
``It's not about oil.''
[[Page H11729]]
The wisdom of that young Marine was true then, it remains true today.
It was not about oil during the Gulf War. The action taken by the
President yesterday was also about more strategic and significant
concerns.
Mr. Speaker, this is about denying access to one of the world's
tyrants to weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and
biological capabilities. The action taken by the President yesterday
was fully justified.
Our tactical bombardment must now lead to a strategic objective, the
removal of Saddam Hussein from power. For the past 8 years that tyrant
has exercised brutal authority in a manner not only adverse to the
interests of the United States but detrimental to the peace of the
world. I welcome the President's action and urge him to take all
necessary steps sufficient to strip Iraq of offensive military
capabilities, most especially weapons of mass destruction.
Now I would say to my colleagues:
Regardless of how we may vote on other issues within the next few
days, now is the time for nonpartisan national unity in support of our
President and our forces overseas.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul).
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, as a 5 yr Air Force veteran I rise in strong
support of the troops: we all do. Everybody supports the troops. But
this resolution is a lot more than supporting the troops. Even by the
very nature of our debate today, most of the debate has been about the
military action. I see this as nothing more than a rubber stamp on a
war that has already been started, and it has not been started in the
proper way.
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that only
Congress has the authority to declare war. It is precisely because of
the way we go to war these days that we are continuing to fight the
Persian Gulf War. We did not win the Persian Gulf War because we did
not declare war since there was no justification to because there was
no national security interests involved.
Saddam Hussein is not threatening our national security. This is a
concocted scheme to pursue bombing for oil interests and other reasons,
but it has nothing to do with national security.
This resolution is an endorsement for war. We are rubber stamping
this action.
We should follow the rule of law. The rule of law says that
resolutions, to begin war, should come to the House of Representatives
and pass by the Senate. But we have been too careless and too casual
for many, many decades, and this is the reason we do not win wars any
more.
We are in essentially perpetual war. We have granted too much
authority to our President to wage war. Even under the most unusual of
circumstances we permit him to wage war. This is wrong. We, as a House,
must assume our responsibilities.
I cannot support this resolution because it is a rubber stamp, it is
an endorsement for an illegal war. We should argue the case for peace.
We should argue the case for national sovereignty. We should not allow
our President to use U.N. resolutions to wage war.
First and foremost, the notion that the United States can dictate the
political leadership of a foreign policy is immoral. What right have we
to determine these things for any nation other than our own? The
answer, clearly, is ``none,'' we have no such right.
There is an idea known as sovereignty, and that idea is integral to
nationhood. Among other things, sovereignty dictates that a people be
responsible for their own leadership, without the interference of other
nations. Is it any wonder that the same American leaders who would
invade other sovereign nations spend so much time surrendering the
sovereignty of the United States? I think not. Simply, their efforts
are designed to undermine the entire notion of sovereignty.
One evident outcome of the anti-sovereignty philosophy is our
dependence on institutions such as the United Nations. It is an affront
to our nation's sovereignty and our constitution that the President
presently launches war on Iraq under the aegis of a UN resolution but
without the Constitutionally required authorization by the United
States Congress.
As Americans we are rightly offended by the notion that the Chinese
Government has influenced our domestic elections. However, we are not
free from hypocrisy. For recently this Congress passed legislation
appropriating money for the sole and express purpose of changing the
government of a sovereign nation.
Next, we ought to consider the morality of the means which must be
employed to change the government of Iraq. Yesterday I sat on a panel
with Harry Summers, a man of considerable military knowledge. Summers
stated that it would take ground troops to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, he unequivocally stated that military history shows that no
war has ever been won simply via air strikes. This statement is not
only factually accurate, it is also a stark reminder of what the price
of this policy will be. Namely, the price of successfully changing the
government of Iraq is the blood of many thousands of innocent human
beings. And, lest we fool ourselves, many of these people will be
American troops, brave young men and women who patriotically agreed to
defend the United States but have now been placed like pawns in a chess
game, perhaps to remove the leader of Iraq, or perhaps to stave off the
removal of the US President. At any rate, these brave young Americans
ought not be sacrificed for either of these improper political
purposes.
Finally, even by the amoral measure of ``realpolitik'' the policy of
Saddam's removal is unwarranted. The reason that the US has hesitated
to actually complete successful enactment of its stated policy is
because the result of such enactment is fraught with uncertainty. Iraq
is a country made up of many different factions. And many of its
neighbors are interested in increasing their influence and control over
areas which are now within Iraqi territory. Hence, if Saddam ever were
to be removed by force of US efforts, we would face a very real risk to
regional stability. Stability being the key concern of those who
practice ``realpolitik'' this points to the fact that by the measures
established by the ``pragmatists'' the stated policy of Saddam's
removal is wrongful. Let me be clear, while I reject the notion of
divorcing politics from moral considerations, I do believe we should
understand that our current policy is not only devoid of morals, but is
also doomed to failure from any practical viewpoint.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Sisisky).
(Mr. SISISKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SISISKY. Mr. Speaker, I support the President's decision to
attack Iraq. The cat and mouse game with inspection has gone on far too
long. It is clear that Saddam Hussein does not intend to comply with
the agreement made at the end of the Gulf War. Our best evidence is
that Saddam has continued to focus resources on weapons of mass
destruction. The problem is that chemical and biological weapons are
relatively unsophisticated. It is relatively easy to produce them and
hide the production facilities.
In addition, evidence indicates Saddam continues to produce an array
of conventional weapons, but the possibility of chemical, biological
and even nuclear weapons and delivery system production is clearly the
most troubling issue. Our certainty about what is happening in these
areas is clouded by Iraq's mistreatment of inspection teams, and this
is what has precipitated this crisis.
I was with the President and the congressional delegation, both
Democrats and Republicans, to the Middle East. We came back Tuesday
night. There was a paradox here. In the West Bank and in Gaza, instead
of seeing American flags being burned we saw American flags being
waived, and we saw the Palestine Committee raise their hands and knock
out a covenant in their charter that says Israel will be destroyed. The
President of the United States really was the King of Peace in the
Middle East, and then on the way back the paradox is that unfortunately
he had to order an attack on Iraq.
Mr. Speaker, we are the luckiest people in the world by having young
men and women ready and willing to serve. I would add that they deserve
our undying support.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Burr).
Mr. BURR of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of
the resolution.
The men and women of the United States Armed Forces have once again
been called on to defend our country's interests abroad. We can no
longer stand idly by while Saddam Hussein flaunts the will of the world
and
[[Page H11730]]
thumbs his nose at the inspectors. This action was not only necessary,
Mr. Speaker, it was long overdue. Our military personnel currently
serving their Nation in the Persian Gulf should know that this Congress
and this country is fully behind their new mission.
One of those sailors is a former intern from my staff, and today I
would like to tell her that we are thinking about her. The relatives
and friends of our officers and our enlisted men and women should know
that their mission is a just one and is clearly in our national
security interests. While the prospects of their absence over the
holiday season is discouraging, they should take heart from the
knowledge that their service today preserves the future for tomorrow's
generation.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution,
and of our men and women in the Armed Services and of our Commander in
Chief, the President who has made a courageous and correct decision.
This action has been undertaken for strategic reasons and pursuant to
tactical judgments of our military and civilian leaders in the
Pentagon. The President has taken appropriate action to confront and
weaken one of the world's most dangerous tyrants who has savaged his
own people and threatened Iraq's neighbors and the world with weapons
of mass destruction.
Mr. Speaker, too often we have historically learned the lesson of
failing to act in the face of eminent dangers. Saddam Hussein, through
his policies of dissembling and lack of cooperation and following the
promises he made following his loss in a war that he precipitated, has
made the Middle East a more dangerous region and the world a more
dangerous place.
{time} 1115
The world is a safer place because of the courage and willingness of
our brave men and women in our armed forces, willing to go in harm's
way to protect, not only this country, but the interest of
international stability.
I hope that all of my colleagues will stand with the President, stand
with our brave young men and women in the armed services, and stand,
yes, indeed, with our allies in confronting this, one of the world's
most dangerous tyrants.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San
Diego, California (Mr. Duncan Hunter), the chairman of our Subcommittee
on Military Procurement.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Speaker, the President has decided to take this
action that should have been taken any time over the last several
years. We have gathered today to commend the troops and to pledge our
loyalty to them. We know they have a very difficult task. I hope that
they finish the job. It is going to be a very, very difficult job in
rooting out and destroying these sites where Saddam Hussein is building
weapons of mass destruction.
But we are going to have an obligation to them. I hope that all my
colleagues who are coming to the floor to pledge undying loyalty to the
troops will join us on the Committee on National Security in moving to
increase the defense number to close the 13 percent pay gap that right
now exists between the civilian sector and the uniform sector, to buy
that $1.6 billion worth of ammunition that the Army is presently short
of, to buy the $193 million worth of ammunition that the Marine Corps
is short right now, and to increase the defense budget by at least
$28.5 billion a year. Because that is what the Joint Chiefs of Staff
tell us we are going to have to spend if we want to fill all those
unfunded requirements that they have been giving this President over
the last several years and that he has not been responding to.
So let us reciprocate to these troops in the next several weeks. We
will have a chance to demonstrate our commitment to them. I hope
everyone will join with me and other members of the Committee on
National Security in seeing to it that we, in fact, do reciprocate and
do rebuild our national defense.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, the President is doing the right thing at the right
time, for the right reasons. I hope that we give him the support
necessary so that this campaign continues until we achieve our
objectives. The President's action have the support of the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs, the Republican Secretary of Defense, and the British
Prime Minister, none of whom would risk the lives of American and
British troops for the President's political purposes.
We needed to act now, while the reports of the inspectors still
provide limited but fresh intelligence; now, before Saddam can complete
hiding his weapons; now, before the commencement of the holy month of
Ramadan; now, before the reason for the bombing--Tuesday's U.N.
report--becomes old news rather than the final straw justifying
immediate action; now, before the world concludes that America has lost
its nerve.
Some critics say that the President should have bombed Iraq on
November 14th. Mr. Speaker, if the President had done so, those same
partisan critics would have savaged him, claiming that he was merely
trying to distract us from the November Judiciary Committee Hearings.
And if the President had not commenced the bombing yesterday, those
same critics would be attacking him today for inaction.
Mr. Speaker--Never underestimate a desperate partisan whose lust for
the President's blood causes him to make statements which
unintentionally give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Those that have made such statements should apologize to our troops,
to the President, and to the nation.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Calvert).
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution
and in support of our troops overseas. We as a Nation and a Congress
must focus now on the servicemen and women who are risking their lives
and standing bravely in the days of adversity to ensure safety for all
Americans.
Iraq will continue to be a threat to the United States and the rest
of the world as long as Saddam Hussein is in power and has the ability
to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein has been
given too many chances to comply with United Nations inspections. We
cannot continue to play this dangerous game of cat and mouse.
I support the use of force in this region to ensure the safety of
America and global interests. In what should be a season of peace, my
thoughts and prayers are with our servicemen and women and their
families as they help make the world a safer place. God bless them.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for all of us to join
together, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as Americans, to
express our support and offer our prayers to the young men and women in
American uniform who are responsible for carrying out the current
military operation against Saddam Hussein.
Whatever our troubles and conflicts may be at home at this time, I
submit that they are rather unimportant compared to the sacrifice these
young men and women and their families are making at this time.
Last night, Secretary of Defense Cohen and Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff General Shelton came to this chamber and provided an
excellent briefing to us Members of Congress about the military
operations, their objective, and their timing. I am convinced now more
than ever that this was the right decision at the right time and for
the right reason.
I want to just take a moment to thank our British friends and allies
who have been partners in peace with us standing together against
tyranny to help ensure peace and stability, not only in the Persian
Gulf, but throughout the world.
This partnership has grown out of commonly held principles of
democracy, freedom, security and peace.
Let me conclude by offering my heartfelt thanks and prayers to the
military personnel and their families
[[Page H11731]]
for the sacrifice they make to their country. This is especially true
this time of year when everyone would prefer to be home during the
holidays and with their loved ones.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Chambliss).
(Mr. CHAMBLISS asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of my committee,
along with the ranking member, for bringing this resolution to the
floor today.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this resolution in the strongest
terms. I rise to support the two-part resolution which supports our
military men and women now engaged in the Gulf region. Once again, our
military has been called upon to beat back an over-aggressive Hussein
regime in Iraq, a regime that, against the will of the global
community, has perpetrated the development of weapons of mass
destruction.
We have been down this road before. Time and again, we have
threatened to use force against Hussein's indiscretions. Time and
again, we have failed to send an adequate message of our resolve. This
time, we must not fail to punctuate our interest in the region and our
commitment to peace in the Middle East.
I would like to highlight the participation of the many brave men and
women deployed from Robins Air Force Base in Warner Robins, Georgia.
One hundred forty representatives of the 5th Combat Communications
group and another 15 from the 78th Security Forces Squadron have been
deployed since our last buildup in the region. They will be joined by
150 members of the JOINTSTARS unit and a yet-to-be-determined number of
our aircraft.
May God go with them in this holiday season as they carry out their
duties on behalf of every American to bring peace in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record:
House of Representatives,
February 26, 1998.
The Honorable William J. Clinton,
The President of the United States, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: In September, 1996, I wrote you with my
thoughts and concerns about U.S. policy toward Iraq (see
attached), particularly with regard to the Iraqi government's
suppression of the Kurd rebels in the north. I write again to
express my concerns about this nation's policy toward Iraq
and to urge that you make the overthrow of the current Iraqi
government a central element of U.S. policy.
In late 1996, Saddam Hussein and his regime moved
aggressively to ensure that anti-Hussein elements in northern
Iraq would not pose a political challenge to his authority.
In that effort, 2,500 were arrested or murdered by the
government. At the same time, some 7,000 of the rebels were
evacuated by the U.S. to Guam, and all financial and arms
support that had been given to a group of exiled former Iraqi
military and political figures (the Iraqi National Accord)
was discontinued. The net effect of U.S. policy then was that
nearly 10,000 members of the anti-Hussein movement were
neutralized in Iraq and all financial backing dried up.
As an indication of how concerned Hussein is about an
internal revolution, intelligence indicates that when a U.S.
attack became imminent some weeks ago, Hussein immediately
moved to consolidate ground forces toward northern Iraq to
deal with a possible uprising. Hussein is clearly concerned
about the Kurds. Unfortunately, this nation has done little
to promote that threat from within Iraqi borders. In my view,
the anti-Hussein element represents the best opportunity for
internal change in Iraq. Hussein's regime, which operates as
a Republic in name only, is guilty of human rights
violations, political oppression and crimes against other
nations. This, together with a track record of developing
weapons of mass destruction make the restoration of a true
Republic in Iraq within the national security interests of
the U.S. government.
Rough parallels may be drawn to longstanding U.S. policy in
Central America where this nation's anti-Communist policy not
only prevented the spread of Communism in our hemisphere, but
also promoted democracy to the extent that only one non-
democratic government remains. Parallels may also be drawn to
our policy late in the Cold War toward the Soviet Union and
Poland.
Your administration's policy that has recently placed
little or no emphasis on internal Iraqi resistance has left
the U.S. with very few options in the frequent cases when
Hussein has sought to challenge the authority of the U.N.
resolutions. Without a credible resistance force to support,
the proposition of U.S. military strikes leaves the U.S. in
the perceived position of ``global bully.''
On the other hand, if the U.S. does not move to enforce
U.N. sanctions, we abandon a situation that is clearly in the
national security interests of this nation. Neither position
yields acceptable results.
In light of the recent agreement negotiated by the United
Nations, it seems that we may be averting our current course
of conflict with Iraq. This offers you an opportunity to
reassess your policy in the region. I have supported, and
continue to support, American troops in the Middle Eastern
theater as well as your authority as Commander-in-Chief. For
this reason, I strongly encourage you to adopt a long-term
policy that includes the following tenets: maintains as its
ultimate priority the elimination from power of the Hussein
regime, and the restoration of a true Iraqi republic, or even
democracy; fosters internal resistance to the Hussein regime
within Iraq to include financial, political, and physical
support; if necessary in the short term, limited tactical
airstrikes focusing on Iraq's ability to produce weapons of
mass destruction; and institution of a comprehensive,
nationwide no-fly/no-troop movement zone while the above
initiatives are pursued.
If the U.S. is truly the world leader you and I know it to
be, we must act within the accepted rule of law and lead by
example. I believe the above-described policy directive meets
such a standard. As always, I stand ready to work with you to
meet these very real global challenges.
Very truly yours,
Saxby Chambliss,
Member of Congress.
Enclosure.
House of Representatives,
September 5, 1996.
The Honorable William J. Clinton,
The President of the United States,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President: I write to express my sincere concern
over recent events in northern Iraq and to ask your
consideration of potential policy changes. As a Member of the
House Committee on National Security, let me make very clear
at the outset that I will firmly and unconditionally support
the troops of the United States when they are deployed
anywhere in the world. The lessons of history have taught us
that irrespective of the debate over policy priorities, our
troops must be absolutely certain that they act with the
support of our entire nation.
In addition, let me make it clear that I support your
authority as the Commander-in-Chief of our Armed Services.
Your recognition of strife in northern Iraq is well-founded,
and U.S. action in response is entirely warranted. However,
allow me to make several observations about subsequent
military action you have taken.
First, President Reagan's leadership in this nation's
defeat of communism has left us a very different world than
the one we faced for over 40 years. Today, we alone stand as
the world's superpower, yet we are surrounded by countless
areas of ethnic strife and political insurrection around the
globe. Iraq is only the latest example.
As a result, we have involved our military men and women in
more places and more often than ever before. It is critical
that while every situation has its individual circumstances,
we must maintain a predictable and identifiable set of
criteria that guides this nation's military intervention and
involvement around the world. In Iraq, I am concerned that
our strategic objectives have not clearly been delineated. As
a result, it is impossible to determine whether Iraqi
military movements satisfy the demands of the United States.
Second, I am more concerned about the lack of international
support for our current military operations in Iraq. While I
do not assume international support to be required for this
nation's military intervention abroad, I do believe it should
be obtained when and if time and circumstances permit. Our
efforts in Operation Desert Storm should serve as a blueprint
for dealing with hostile aggressors.
Consequently, I would like you to consider the following
courses of action:
Issue a short-term ultimatum to Saddam Hussein calling for
the removal of all soldiers and tanks from the lands around
and north of Irbil, Iraq--a ``no troop zone'' north of the 36
degree north parallel. In the event that the troops are not
removed, Iraq will face the destruction of military targets
selected from a predetermined list created by our
intelligence sources.
Extend the current ``no-reinforcement zone'' from the 32
degree north to the 33 degree north parallel in accordance
with the ``no-fly zone'' extended earlier this week.
In advance of the issuance of the ``no troop zone''
deadline, increased diplomatic efforts should be made to
garner the support of the western powers and at the very
least a sampling of the Arab world.
As I am certain you are aware, this regional instability in
Iraq has the potential for blossoming into a full-blown
regional conflict involving friend and foe, alike. Reports
today indicate the interest of Turkey and Iran to involve
their militaries in the region. Clearly, this is a situation
that must remain in the control of U.S. forces in the region.
I appreciate your time and consideration of these concerns.
I look forward to working
[[Page H11732]]
with you as we attempt to resolve this very difficult
situation in this very critical region of the world. If there
is anything I can do to assist in your efforts to achieve
success, please do not hesitate to call on me.
Very truly yours,
Saxby Chamblis.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost).
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution
and the steps our President has taken in ordering military strikes
against Iraq. Almost 8 years ago, on January 12, 1991, I, along with 86
other Democrats, supported President Bush in going to war against Iraq.
I strongly believed then that it was important to support the
President in a bipartisan spirit, and I strongly believe now that we
need to support our President in the same manner. We need to express
our full support of the President's decision and the American troops.
We cannot tolerate Saddam Hussein's actions any further. Iraq refuses
to live up to its promise to allow the United Nations to conduct on-
site inspections for weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has repeatedly
blocked Unscom from inspecting suspect sites. Saddam Hussein has
continued to thumb his nose at the United Nations and has no intention
in keeping his word, and the United States is right to strike.
This military action serves to protect the interests of the United
States and the interest of people throughout the Middle East. This was
a difficult decision for the President. The United States is never
eager to use force. But with the advice of the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of State and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the President
acted appropriately.
Our prayers go out to the men and women of the military. We need to
show our utmost support of the troops during this difficult time. Their
courageous acts will not be soon forgotten by the American people.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Cook).
Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina
(Chairman Spence) for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution. I believe
this military action is absolutely necessary. I believe that it should
have been undertaken well before now.
Like others, I am troubled by the timing of yesterday's bombing. I do
not think it is coincidental that the bombs began falling on Iraq only
a short hour before caucuses were convening here in Washington to
discuss the impeachment vote.
I understand those that believe the public, Congress, the judiciary,
and now even the military may have been manipulated. But while the
timing may be offensive, the action is absolutely necessary. We must
support it as a Congress and as a Nation.
This vote today sends a strong signal to the world and to our troops
that, while we will investigate our President when he flaunts the law,
we stand united behind him when he acts to protect our national
security.
Announcement By The Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members that it
is not in order to engage in personalities toward the President.
Although remarks in debate may include criticism of the President's
official actions or policies, it is a breach of order to question the
personal conduct of the President whether by actual accusation or by
mere insinuation.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution
supporting our troops in the Persian Gulf. But, Mr. Speaker, it should
not have taken a formal resolution to articulate our unwavering support
for our brave men and women and our military operation. It should have
been instinctive as it was for most persons.
For one day, we should have been patriots, not partisans. Politics
should have stopped at the water's edge. I pray that this resolution
undoes the damage done yesterday by the majority leader of the Senate
and others who questioned the judgment of the President, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, and our British allies who
outlined the urgency for this action against Iraq.
They risk handing Saddam Hussein his only hope, a divided America.
Our troops and this operation deserve our unqualified support.
{time} 1130
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Duke Cunningham), our Top Gun.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, one day I was fortunate enough to shoot down a MIG 21
over Vietnam, and all 5,000 men and women were up on the flight deck.
And as they crowded around the airplane, my plane captain, Willy White,
an African-American, broke through the crowds. He knocked over Admiral
Cooper. He jumped up on the left wing, just as I am trying to get the
ejection seat pin, and he reaches over and grabs me by the arm and he
says, Lieutenant Cunningham, Lieutenant Cunningham, we got our MIG
today, didn't we?
What was Willy telling me? That every single member of the armed
service is a part of a team, and they feel very, very much a part of
each of those victories and those losses. I saw plane captains cry when
their pilots didn't come back; cry, it is that tight.
We don't need any L.A. protesters, the Tom Haydens, the Jane Fondas,
and Americans protesting in foreign countries. What we need is to be
100 percent behind our troops. Regardless if we agree or disagree
politically, we need to get behind the President. We need to fly his
wing on this. We need to go in and take care of Saddam Hussein. That is
important. It is not important to you and I, it is important to those
men and women that are serving.
I would ask my colleagues, some on the other side of the aisle that
continue to want to cut defense, our kids are operating at 300 percent
above the op tempo level of Vietnam. Our procurement is down 70
percent. We are only keeping in 23 percent of our enlisted. Our
experience is gone. We have 1970s technologies in the F-14s, F-15s, and
F-18s.
We want to support our kids, not just in our speeches, but support
our kids in deed, and make this country the strongest country, with
peace through strength, not walk softly and carry a big stick of candy.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, a few feet from where I stand is a
portrait of George Washington. He reminds all of us that our Nation was
founded in a fight for freedom, and that the price for freedom is
eternal vigilance. Therefore, the President was right to take this
action, and to take it now.
Today in this hallowed hall, surrounded by reminders of that
heritage, our troops are in the Gulf risking their lives to preserve
freedom, to preserve our way of life, standing against a tyrant who has
invaded and bombed his neighbors, murdered his own citizens, threatened
world peace, and refused to comply with international law.
To our brave troops, I say, we stand with you. Our hearts, our
prayers, our thanks, our admiration is with you, and we will do all
that is necessary to support you.
But the one clear message from the Congress today to Saddam Hussein
should be, we are at one with our president, the Commander in Chief, in
support of this military action in order to protect the world from
Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, and no domestic issue will
deter or divide us in this resolve.
Yesterday's actions are the result of Iraq's refusal to grant access
to UNSCOM inspectors. The United States, the international community,
and the President have shown great restraint in the past in dealing
with Iraq.
The United States has always viewed the use of force as a final
option, but international aggressors like Saddam Hussein should not
misinterpret that as a sign of weakness in our resolve to demand that
Iraq comply with international law and destroy its weapons of mass
destruction.
The battles may change, the times may change, the ships may be called
by
[[Page H11733]]
different names, but the fight remains the same, the fight for liberty,
peace and security; the fight we began more than 200 years ago for
freedom.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Foley).
Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Let me take strong umbrage to a comment by the gentleman from
California, who suggested if we question the motives of the President,
somehow we are aiding and giving comfort to the enemy; followed by the
gentleman from Texas, who said on this floor that he was among 86 who
signed a resolution supporting President Bush. What does he say about
the rest of Congress at that time, they were unpatriotic?
Mr. Speaker, we are debating about the lives of men and women in the
field, and I ask that this House conduct themselves appropriately, and
discuss that very essential and vital task they have in front of them.
I want to strongly thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Speaker-elect
Livingston) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Chairman Floyd
Spence) for calling together Congress last night to hear our defense
leaders discuss the grave dangers our men and women would face and the
importance of this mission, because at a time like this, we must rally
ourselves for those same people.
I rise in support today of the resolution commending our troops in
the Persian Gulf. With everything else going on here and the world
over, too often as a Nation we neglect to note the sacrifices performed
by our men and women in uniform. As we are reminded last night with the
sobering images of antiaircraft fire in Baghdad, our brave service men
and women put their lives on the line to preserve peace and democracy
in this world.
Whatever any of us think of the effectiveness of our U.S. foreign
policy in the Persian Gulf, no one can question the performance of our
armed forces in carrying out their duty in the Gulf. Time and time
again our troops have mobilized in response to Saddam Hussein's
provocations, and each time their professionalism, dedication, and
courage have inspired fear in the enemy, awe in our allies, and pride
in our country.
Let us never forget, when we take to the floor of the House Chamber,
that it is our men and women in uniform who preserve our right to
debate what is best for our Nation. In expressing my gratitude to those
noble men and women, I also want to thank their families, many of whom
are in my district, and want them to know that our thoughts and prayers
are with them at this perilous time.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Rothman).
Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to affirm my unconditional
support for our troops involved in the mission against Saddam Hussein,
to affirm to the world and to Saddam Hussein that the American people
and America's elected representatives are united behind the work of our
Armed Forces.
We offer each member of our Armed Forces, over 20,000 strong in the
Gulf, this united support, and we want to tell them that the American
people stand shoulder to shoulder with them. Their mission, Operation
Desert Fox, is a continuation of President Bush's efforts to stop a
dangerous and evil madman who threatens his neighbors and all the world
with his continuing efforts to manufacture, stockpile, and use
political, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
The President's decisive action was the right move at the right time.
We have given Saddam Hussein enough chances. With or without allies, it
was time to act, to stand up for our national interests, and to stand
up for what is right. God bless our service men and women, and God
bless America.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I commend the
House leadership for suspending the scheduled business to set aside
this time for a bipartisan expression of support for our Armed Forces.
This is in the finest tradition of the United States Congress, and
sends a signal to the enemies of the United States that we are united
in the protection of our national interest.
I have advocated publicly the development of a clear long-term
strategy in our dealings with Iraq, but despite this wish on my part, I
certainly support the military strikes, and believe that they are
justified. I fully support the actions by our President at the
recommendation of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs.
But most importantly, today, I rise to support our troops that are
overseas. I understand that there are men and women from the Arkansas
National Guard and other areas of the service serving in the Persian
Gulf region. I want to express my support for them and recognize their
service to our country, as well as the men and women from all parts of
the country.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
(Mr. DeFAZIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DEFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me. I rise in support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, of course I support our troops and I will support this
resolution. But I have profound concerns about not only long term
United States policy toward Iraq, but about the lack of congressional
authorization for the President's use of force.
Congress, not the President, has the constitutional authority to
declare war or initiate broad, non-defensive hostilities against
foreign nations. Yet every Congress in modern times has failed to
protect its prerogatives. As a result, Presidents from Harry Truman to
Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton have run roughshod over weak-kneed
congressional leaders, and spent the Nation's wealth and the lives of
its young people in overseas entanglements. During my time in Congress,
I have consistently opposed Presidential war-making, whether it was
initiated by Republican Presidents or Democrats.
Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator and a war criminal who threatens
the long-term peace and stability of the Middle East. His continuing
efforts to build weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. The
United States needs to continue to work with its allies and the
international community to nullify this threat.
But after being briefed by the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last night, I am not aware of any
immediate threat that justifies this nearly unilateral action by U.S.
forces--an action that has not been authorized by the U.S. Congress and
an action that is opposed by a number of our allies. There was no
reason in this instance that the President could not have come to
Congress for its support in this action. There is no reason that we
could not have taken the time to garner more support from our allies.
Ultimately, it is up to Congress and its leaders to insist that this
and future Presidents seek and gain the approval of Congress when U.S.
Armed Forces are sent to war. Otherwise we can look forward to an
endless series of foreign entanglements and overseas wars.
So, while I support this resolution supporting our troops, I will
continue to oppose Presidential wars and question United States policy
toward Iraq.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, over the last couple of weeks
I have been dealing a lot with the Constitution of the United States,
which starts, ``We, the People of the United States, in order to form a
more perfect Union,'' and which has, as one of its responsibilities, to
ensure the common defense.
I am glad we are governed by a Constitution that lives and breathes,
so it is very important for me to come today to express the abundant
confidence that I have in the United States military, our men and
women, who now go to fight for freedom. Freedom is what they fight for,
for I am sure that as we stand together as a Nation, that we stand with
them in our prayers and our support as they conduct this vital
operation.
The United States and its international partners have long tried to
preserve a fragile peace, but at every corner in this long road the
international community has been met with defiance by the leader of
Iraq.
Saddam Hussein has refused to live up to the agreements which Iraq
agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The weapons inspectors have been
repeatedly denied access to several suspect sites. I would hope that we
as a body
[[Page H11734]]
would stay away from irresponsible remarks, and realize that we must
stand together.
Despite these exhaustive efforts to bring peace, Saddam Hussein's
regime, by its own conduct, has abused every opportunity for peace that
was granted by the international community. As our president and
Commander in Chief said last night, this situation presents a clear and
present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of
people everywhere. Hussein, if unchecked, would use these weapons
again. We must ensure that nuclear arms, poison gas, or biological
weapons.
I also say that we in this body, along with the Commander in Chief,
must have a definitive policy to protect the suffering women and
children, and to make sure that democracy comes to that region. So I
join this Congress in supporting our Commander in Chief, and staying
away from ugly words and bringing our Nation together. God bless our
troops and God bless America.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Packard).
(Mr. PACKARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, not thinking that there would be sufficient
time, I have already submitted my statement for the Record, but I would
like to simply say that it is refreshing to have a bipartisan across-
the-board support of this resolution that calls for us to support our
troops.
I also think it is wise that we use this opportunity to indicate how
important it is that we increase the defense budget to allow us to meet
these kinds of crises. We have pared away on the defense budget to
where it is almost impossible for us to meet these kinds of crises and
still do what is needed to strengthen our support for the troops with
equipment and with facilities.
I hope that every one of those that are supporting this resolution
will come to support an increase in the defense budget when the time
comes. I certainly have great love and respect for the servicemen that
are serving, I wish them well, and certainly pray to God that they will
be protected as they serve.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and the
underlying decision to strike military targets in Iraq. Since the end
of the gulf war, Saddam Hussein has done everything in his power to
continue to amass and produce weapons of mass destruction. He is a
threat to our country, and indeed, the world.
Ambassador Richard Butler has now concluded that UNSCOM can no longer
effectively conduct weapons inspections in Iraq because of the
obstacles Saddam has placed in its path. Clearly Saddam's defiance of
the international community knows no bounds. He has left us with no
choice but to use force.
To my colleagues who have questioned the President's motives in the
midst of this crisis, shame on them. Shame on them for breaking the
longstanding tradition that leaves party politics at our Nation's
shores. They have set yet another dangerous precedent.
{time} 1145
Shame on you for playing into the hands of Saddam, who clearly staged
his latest act of defiance to coincide with the impeachment process.
You have empowered our Nation's enemy.
Instead of playing petty partisan politics, I hope my friends across
the aisle heed the words of John McCain, a war hero and a leading
expert on national security: I believe it was essential to support the
President. Here, domestically, I think the American people have the
ability to divide the two issues because they are very separate.
Mr. Speaker, a majority of the American people not only support the
President's decision but also discount the reckless and irresponsible
accusations of an ulterior motive. I hope that we can do the same in
this Chamber.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).
(Mr. CLEMENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Speaker, as a veteran National Guardsman and member
of the Committee on International Relations, I stand in strong support
of this resolution to support our men and women in uniform.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution. As a
member of the House International Relations Committee, I commend the
President and his top military advisors for their decision to launch
Operation Desert Fox and I support the brave service men and women
charged with carrying out this important mission. Our thoughts and
prayers are with them all.
Yesterday, the U.S. military took strong, decisive, and necessary
action to degrade Saddam Hussein's capabilities to produce chemical,
biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction and the strikes
continue today. Yet again, Saddam Hussein rebuffed efforts by the
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to conduct thorough
inspections of possible weapons manufacturing sites. Enough is enough.
After Chief Inspector Richard Butler reported of continued acts of
Iraqi non-compliance with the UNSCOM team, the United States was left
with no choice but to take such strong actions.
The United States has done everything it can to diplomatically find
solutions to the situation in Iraq. Saddam has done everything he can
to thwart the efforts of UNSCOM, ignore diplomatic remedies and has
left no alternative but military force. His shell games and deception
of the UNSCOM inspectors must stop. I look forward to the day when
there is a new Iraqi government in place, rid of the horrors of
Saddam's dictatorship. We must do everything in our power to once and
for all totally eliminate Saddam's capabilities to threaten regional
and world peace.
No matter what party divisions, differences in opinion, or domestic
circumstances we face, now is the time we must unite. We must support
our troops, support the mission of Desert Fox and support our
President. May God bless our troops in the Persian Gulf and God bless
America.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).
Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in full support of the
resolution at hand. I not only support the troops in all of their
endeavors but I support the decision of the President to take this
action. There are those, some puzzling developments that I want to make
clear at least from my own satisfaction in the days to come.
One is this, the President and later the Secretary of Defense
emphasized the fact that this strike had to occur now because of the
advent of Ramadan, the holy period in the Iraqi and Middle Eastern
world. And that was understandable until the Secretary of Defense went
on further to say that plans were being implemented for further action
down the road to include continuous bombing, perhaps after the advent
of Ramadan.
If that is the case, then there might be a rationale more consistent
to wait until more intelligence had been gathered to find out where the
dispersements could occur of the Republican guard, et cetera. So these
questions are still unanswered. But this will not deter us from full
support of the resolution at hand.
However, the other pausing factor in my appraisal of this entire
situation is this, that if indeed we did not have to take the first
strike before the advent of Ramadan, because some of the plans called
for bombing after the advent of Ramadan, then perhaps we could have had
a full congressional approval of any forthcoming action so that the
President would be armed with a resolution from the Congress, as George
Bush was so armed before launching Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
In that regard, these are only remarks meant for the record so that
I, myself, can pursue them. I support this resolution.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
(Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, recognizing the need to halt Saddam
Hussein's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, concerned about
the harm to Iraq's children but eternally grateful to our young people,
to American troops, I rise in strong support of the resolution.
[[Page H11735]]
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am
keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons
is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been
engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology
which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery
of the weapons inspection process.
The responsibility of the United States in this conflict is to
eliminate weapons of mass destruction, to minimize the danger to our
troops and to diminish the suffering of the Iraqi people. The citizens
of Iraq have suffered the most for Saddam Hussein's activities; sadly,
those same citizens now stand to suffer more. I have supported efforts
to ease the humanitarian situation in Iraq and my thoughts and prayers
are with the innocent Iraqi civilians, as well as with the families of
U.S. troops participating in the current action.
I believe in negotiated solutions to international conflict. This is,
unfortunately, not going to be the case in this situation where Saddam
Hussein has been a repeat offender, ignoring the international
community's requirement that he come clean with his weapons program.
While I support the President, I hope and pray that this conflict can
be resolved quickly and that the international community can find a
lasting solution through diplomatic means.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
(Mr. ENGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution,
our troops and our President making the decision. I was one of the
Democrats 8 years ago to support President Bush. I urge my friends on
the other side of the aisle to support President Clinton in this
endeavor.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
(Mr. GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution
and our troops.
Mr. Speaker, it is important for this Congress and this country to
show unity and support for the service men and women who are risking
their lives to protect our freedom. I rise in strong support of the
resolution.
I am deeply disappointed in my colleagues who have chosen to question
the President's motives to launch this attack. Keep in mind that
Operation Desert Fox has the full support of this nation's entire
national security team, which includes a former Republican Senator. It
is also being coordinated with our international allies who are equally
concerned about Saddam Hussein's willingness to ignore the will of the
world. Finally, this military action was launched after the UN
inspectors reported Iraq had once again prevented them from doing their
jobs to make our country and our citizens safe.
This is not an attempt to avoid the impeachment debate. This is not
an attempt to delay the impeachment debate. This is the President of
the United States acting in the interests of the country he was elected
to lead.
When the lives of American service men and women are at stake we owe
it to them and their families to put our partisan differences aside.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci).
(Mr. BALDACCI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the President's
decision to strike Baghdad. It is in our country's best interest. We
have to ensure that these biological and chemical weapons no longer
pose a threat.
Mr. Speaker, the United States and the United Nations have shown a
great deal of restraint by choosing to first deal with Iraq through
many rounds of negotiations and diplomacy. However, Iraq's most recent
actions to prevent weapons inspectors from investigating its weapons of
mass destruction program have left the world community with no choice
but to respond with force.
While I regret that this is the situation, I support the President's
decision to strike Baghdad. It is in our country's best interest that
we do all that we can to ensure Saddam's biological and chemical
weapons no longer pose a threat to his neighbors and the world.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Turner).
(Mr. TURNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a member of the Committee on
National Security in support of this resolution and in support of the
President's decision to act swiftly and decisively in response to
Saddam Hussein's defiance of the United Nations resolution requiring
Saddam to grant permission to the inspection team for full and
unfettered access to suspected sites as well as to documentation
relating to the production of chemical and biological weapons.
Just one month ago, Saddam Hussein was given a second chance to
demonstrate his willingness to comply with the United Nations
resolution. In spite of Saddam's record of noncompliance, the President
agreed to withhold the use of force. However, the President stated
unequivocally that the trigger would remain cocked and if Saddam failed
to keep his word, there would be no further delay in our actions.
When Saddam refused to keep his word and the U.N. inspection team
leader, Mr. Butler, withdrew his inspectors and filed his report, the
United States had no option but to carry out military action. Our
credibility, our Nation's word and our credibility as a leader of world
peace was at stake.
May God be with our Nation and with our troops as they defend liberty
and freedom on this day.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time of my distinguished
colleague.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise today as always to support the American
military personnel. In fact, we may give the administration the benefit
of doubt on the timing. But I question his overall long-term foreign
policy in dealing with Iraq. The Clinton administration has carried out
for 6 years the most feeble policy against Iraq. Saddam Hussein has
done everything in his power to block full weapons inspections.
Do not take my word for it. On August 14 of this year, the Washington
Post reported, ``the Clinton administration has intervened secretly for
months, most recently on August 7, 1998, to dissuade the United Nations
weapons team from mounting surprise inspections in Iraq because it
wished to avoid a new crisis with the Baghdad government, this is
according to knowledgeable American and diplomatic accounts.''
Mr. President, I hope you will inform the American people why the
administration did all it could to block secret weapons inspections by
the United Nations team for months, if not for years. And now that Iraq
predictably continues to block weapons inspections, explain to us the
timing of this launch.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I support the American troops. But I question the
overall long-term policy of the administration in dealing with Saddam
Hussein.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the article from the Washington
Post of August 14, 1998.
U.S. Sought To Prevent Iraqi Arms Inspections; Surprise Visits Canceled
After Albright Argued That Timing Was Wrong
(By Barton Gellman)
The Clinton administration has intervened secretly for
months, most recently last Friday, to dissuade United Nations
weapons teams from mounting surprise inspections in Iraq
because it wished to avoid a new crisis with the Baghdad
government, according to knowledgeable American and
diplomatic accounts.
The American interventions included an Aug. 4 telephone
call between Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and
Richard Butler, executive chairman of the U.N. Special
Commission responsible for Iraq's disarmament, who spoke on a
secure line from the U.S. Embassy in Bahrain. As a team of
specialists stood poised in Baghdad, according to persons
acquainted with the call, Albright urged Butler to rescind
closely held orders for the team to mount ``challenge
inspections'' at two sites where intelligence leads suggested
they could uncover forbidden weapons components and documents
describing Iraqi efforts to conceal them.
After a second high-level caution from Washington last
Friday, Butler canceled the special inspection and ordered
his team to leave Baghdad. The disclosure was made yesterday
by officials who regarded the abandoned leads as the most
promising in years and objected to what they described as the
American role in squelching them.
U.S. efforts to forge a go-slow policy in Iraq have
coincided with the announcement by the Baghdad government
that it would halt nearly all cooperation with the U.N.
commission, known as UNSCOM, and the Vienna-based
International Atomic Energy Administration. The two panels
are responsible
[[Page H11736]]
for ridding Iraq of ballistic missiles and biological,
chemical and nuclear weapons.
The behind-the-scenes campaign of caution is at odds with
the Clinton administration's public position as the strongest
proponent of unconditional access for the inspectors to any
site in Iraq. Led by the United States, and backed by
American threats of war, the U.N. Security Council has
demanded repeatedly since 1991--most recently in Resolution
1154 on March 2--that Iraq give ``immediate, unconditional
and unrestricted'' cooperation to the inspection teams.
That last resolution, at U.S. insistence, promised ``the
severest consequences for Iraq'' for further defiance and
was voted under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter,
which is legal grounds for use of military force.
Last week, as Albright reportedly sought to rein in Butler,
the administration was retreating from the vows it made six
months ago to strike immediately and with significant
military force if Iraq failed to honor a Feb. 23 agreement
that resolved the last such crisis over inspections. At that
time, administration spokesmen described a ``snap back''
policy of automatic military retaliation if Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein violated his agreement with U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan.
Now the administration argues, as White House spokesman
P.J. Crowley said yesterday, that Iraq is proposing ``a cat-
and-mouse game'' and ``we're not going to play.'' He said the
United States would continue its ``encouragement'' of Iraq's
compliance with its obligations and would not allow economic
sanctions to be lifted until it does so.
Albright, in a one-sentence statement issued through a
spokesman, said last night: ``U.S. policy has been to fully
support UNSCOM in its inspections and I have never told
Ambassador Butler how to do his job.'' She said those
speaking for her declined to answer further questions about
her Aug. 4 ``private discussions'' with Butler and would not
address specifically whether she had advised him to cancel
the planned raids.
Butler, reached by telephone yesterday, said any suggestion
that he received orders from Albright would be ``a very
considerable distortion of what took place.'' He added, ``No
member of the [Security] Council, including the United
States, has purported to give me instructions. They all
recognize that their job is policy, my job is operations.''
Asked whether Albright urged him or advised him not to go
forward, Butler said any answer ``would be a very slippery
slope'' in which ``I'd have to tell you what the Russian
ambassador said, what the French ambassador said. Forgive me,
but I won't get into that.'' Asked to confirm he spoke to
Albright last week, he said, ``I'm becoming concerned now
about this line of inquiry.''
Beginning in June, according to knowledgeable officials,
the U.N. inspectors developed secret plans--withheld from
most members of their own staff--for surprise raids at two
sites where they believed they would find evidence of
forbidden chemical and biological weapons and the ballistic
missiles capable of deploying them. The officials declined to
describe the sites further, noting that they are still in
operation.
In a little-known practice that all parties are loath to
acknowledge, Butler dispatched senior lieutenants to London
and Washington in late June to provide highly classified
briefings on the intended inspection ``targets,'' the sources
said. Formally, Butler reports equally to all members of the
Security Council and does not give them advance operational
plans. But one official said he understands ``it's suicide to
go forward with an inspection like this'' without informing
his principal sponsors, the United States and Britain.
The two governments, according to knowledgeable officials,
acknowledged to Butler's deputies that UNSCOM had the right
to make its own decisions. But they worked in concert in the
weeks that followed to dissuade Butler from going forward
with the inspection plan.
After consultations in Washington, Derek Plumbly, director
of the British Foreign Office's Middle East Command, flew to
New York for a July 15 meeting with Butler. He told the
Australian diplomat in no uncertain terms that the time was
not ripe for a provocative challenge to Iraq, in part because
Baghdad was still cooperating, ostensibly, on a ``schedule of
work'' intended to resolve open questions, the sources said.
Shortly after that meeting, U.S. Ambassador Peter Burleigh,
the second-ranking delegate to the United Nations, called in
Butler for a consultation in which he raised a long list of
U.S. questions and concerns about the planned raids. Reading
from prepared guidance, he told Butler the decision was
UNSCOM's but left the inspection chief with the plain
understanding that the United States did not support his
plan, according to a knowledgeable account of the meeting.
Butler canceled the raids in July but laid contingency
plans to reschedule them this month after meetings on Aug. 3
and 4 in Baghdad with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. Aziz
announced late on the first day that Iraq would answer no
further questions about its forbidden weapons, asserting that
all the answers had long since been made.
Butler had brought a senior inspection team led by Scott
Ritter, who heads UNSCOM's efforts to penetrate Iraqi
counterintelligence efforts against the inspectors. Included
on Ritter's team, officials said, were language and computer
experts, experts on import and export records, and scientists
knowledgeable about missiles, chemical and biological
weapons.
On Aug. 4, Butler notified the U.S. government that he had
authorized Ritter's team to conduct the raids on Aug. 6. That
same day, he got word that Albright wished to speak with him
and traveled to the U.S. Embassy in Bahrain for a secure
discussion. Albright argued, according to knowledgeable
accounts, that it would be a big mistake to proceed
because the political stage had not been set in the
Security Council.
Butler agreed to a three-day delay, to Aug. 9, in hopes
that he could build broader support for UNSCOM during
informal consultations with the Security Council. But after
he briefed the council governments in New York, he got
another high-level American call on Friday urging him to have
the Ritter team stand down. The same day, he ordered them
home.
In a letter to the council Wednesday, Butler said Iraq's
new restrictions ``bring to a halt all of the disarmament
activities'' of his inspectors. On Tuesday, Mohamed Baradei,
director general of the IAEA, sent a similar letter to the
council saying he could no longer give confident assurance
that Iraq is not attempting to reconstitute its nuclear
weapons program.
Both men are awaiting further instruction from the Security
Council, which is scheduled to take up the matter Tuesday.
Yesterday in Baghdad, U.N. special envoy Prakash Shah said he
conveyed a message from Annan that ``Iraq should continue its
cooperation'' with the weapons inspectors. He announced no
results from what he described as a ``cordial'' meeting.
____________________