[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H10418-H10426]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REGARDING MONITORING OF WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT IN IRAQ
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint
resolution (H.J. Res. 75) regarding the monitoring of weapons
development in Iraq, as required by United Nations Security Council
Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991), as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.J. Res. 75
Whereas the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein engaged the
Islamic Republic of Iran, a nation of more than 55,000,000
Muslims, in a 10-year war, during which Saddam Hussein used
chemical weapons against Iran and his own people;
Whereas Saddam Hussein has pursued a policy of ethnic
cleansing against the Kurdish people, killing 5,000 Kurdish
civilians with a chemical attack on March 16, 1988, and an
estimated 50,000 to 182,000 in the forced relocation of
Kurdish civilians in 1988;
Whereas on August 2, 1990, Iraq without provocation invaded
the State of Kuwait, a nation of more than 1,500,000 Muslims;
Whereas on November 29, 1990, the United Nations Security
Council adopted United Nations Security Council Resolution
678, which authorized nations cooperating with the State of
Kuwait to use all necessary means to force Iraq to withdraw
from Kuwait and to restore international peace and security
to the area;
Whereas on January 17, 1991, the regime of Saddam Hussein
without provocation fired 7 Scud missiles into the State of
Israel, a nation of approximately 1,000,000 Muslims and
5,000,000 Jews;
Whereas on January 17, 1991, Iraq fired Scud missiles into
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a nation of more than 20,000,000
Muslims;
Whereas on January 29, 1991, Iraq attacked the city of
Khafji in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;
Whereas the regime of Saddam Hussein is a threat to its
neighbors and has demonstrated its willingness to use weapons
of mass destruction;
Whereas on February 24, 1991, a broad international
coalition of 38 Muslim and non-Muslim nations, including the
United States, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, the State of Kuwait, the Arab Republic of
Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Syrian Arab
Republic, began a coalition ground operation to liberate
Kuwait;
Whereas on April 6, 1991, Iraq accepted the provisions of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3,
1991) bringing a formal cease-fire into effect;
Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution
687, Iraq unconditionally accepted the destruction, removal,
or rendering harmless of ``all chemical and biological
weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems
and components and all research, development, support and
manufacturing facilities related thereto'', and ``all
ballistic missiles with a range greater than
[[Page H10419]]
one hundred and fifty kilometers, and related major parts and
repair and production facilities'';
Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution
687, Iraq unconditionally agreed not to acquire or develop
any nuclear weapons, nuclear-weapons-usable material,
nuclear-related subsystems or components, or nuclear-related
research, development, support, or manufacturing facilities;
Whereas Security Council Resolution 687 calls for the
creation of a United Nations special commission to ``carry
out immediate on-site inspection of Iraq's biological,
chemical, and missile capabilities'' and to assist and
cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in
carrying out the ``destruction, removal or rendering
harmless'' of all nuclear-related items and in developing a
plan for the ongoing monitoring and verification of Iraq's
compliance;
Whereas, in accordance with Security Council Resolution
687, the process of destruction, removal, or rendering
harmless of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was to have
been completed within 45 days of approval by the United
Nations Security Council of the weapons inspectors' plan for
doing so;
Whereas Iraq has now been in breach of this requirement for
more than a decade;
Whereas the regime of Saddam Hussein consistently impeded
the work of United Nations weapons inspectors in Iraq between
1991 and 1998 by denying them access to crucial sites and
documents and by obstructing their work in numerous other
ways;
Whereas on October 31, 1998, Iraq banned the United Nations
weapons inspectors despite its agreement and obligation to
comply with Security Council Resolution 687;
Whereas on December 15, 1998, the chief United Nations
weapons inspector reported that Iraq was withholding
cooperation;
Whereas Congress declared in Public Law 105-235 (112 Stat.
1538) that ``the Government of Iraq is in material and
unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and
therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action,
in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the
United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';
Whereas Security Council Resolution 687 was adopted under
chapter VII of the United Nations Charter and violations of
such resolution that threaten international peace and
security may be dealt with through military action pursuant
to Security Council Resolution 678;
Whereas the United States has reported that a high risk
exists that Iraq has continued to develop weapons of mass
destruction since the expulsion of United Nations weapons
inspectors, in violation of Security Council Resolution 687
and subsequent resolutions;
Whereas such development is a threat to the United States
and its friends and allies in the Middle East;
Whereas Congress declared in Public Law 105-338 (112 Stat.
3178) 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'';
Whereas the attacks of September 11, 2001, illustrate the
global reach of terrorists;
Whereas numerous terrorist groups are seeking to acquire
weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas Iraq is a sponsor of terrorism and has trained
members of several terrorist organizations;
Whereas the regime of Saddam Hussein plotted to assassinate
former President George Bush during his visit to the State of
Kuwait in 1993;
Whereas the President has stated that ``any nation that
continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by
the United States as a hostile regime'' and has committed to
``pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to
terrorism''; and
Whereas on November 26, 2001, President Bush warned that
any nation that develops weapons of mass destruction in order
to ``terrorize'' others ``will be held accountable'': Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That--
(1) the United States and the United Nations Security
Council should insist on a complete program of inspection and
monitoring to prevent the development of weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq;
(2) Iraq should allow United Nations weapons inspectors
``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and
all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of
transportation which they wish to inspect'', as required by
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 707 (August 15,
1991) and 1284 (December 17, 1999);
(3) the United States should ensure that the United Nations
does not accept any inspection and monitoring regime that
fails to guarantee weapons inspectors immediate,
unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all areas,
facilities, equipment, records, and means of transportation
which they wish to inspect;
(4) Iraq, as a result of its refusal to comply with the
terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687
(April 3, 1991) and subsequent relevant resolutions, remains
in material and unacceptable breach of its international
obligations; and
(5) Iraq's refusal to allow United Nations weapons
inspectors immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access
to facilities and documents covered by United Nations
Security Council Resolution 687 and other relevant
resolutions presents a mounting threat to the United States,
its friends and allies, and international peace and security.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Pursuant to the
rule, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) each will control 20 minutes.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I ask permission to have the time in
opposition if neither gentleman is opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from California opposed to
the motion?
Mr. LANTOS. I am not opposed to the resolution, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the gentleman from Texas
will control the time in opposition.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to divide my 20
minutes with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Hyde).
General Leave
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to
include extraneous material on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am pleased to call up House Joint Resolution 75, expressing our
strong concern about Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with the
weapons inspection requirements established by the United Nations at
the end of the Persian Gulf War.
This resolution was introduced December 4 by our former colleague on
the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Graham); and I was proud to join him as an original
cosponsor of the measure. I also want to express my appreciation for
the strong support given to this resolution by our distinguished
ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos),
and also by the chairman and ranking Democratic member of our
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).
The resolution draws attention to the growing threat to international
peace and security posed by Saddam Hussein's refusal to comply with the
terms of the cease-fire agreement ending the Persian Gulf War. Those
terms were incorporated by the U.N. Security Council into Resolution
687 of 1991, and into subsequent resolutions addressing the situation
in Iraq. Those terms required him to afford U.N. weapons inspectors
unfettered access to sites in Iraq where weapons of mass destruction
might be under development, as well as to other relevant locations and
information in Iraq.
From 1991 until 1998, Saddam Hussein went through the motions of
complying with these inspection requirements, while doing everything he
could to prevent the weapons inspectors from discovering the truth
about the history of his weapons programs. Since 1998, Saddam has
stopped complying altogether. In other words, since 1998, Saddam's
ability to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program, his biological
weapons program, his chemical weapons program, and his long-range
missile program has not been constrained by international inspectors.
There is every reason to believe he has taken advantage of the absence
of inspectors to revive these weapons programs.
The events of September 11 demonstrate the severity of this threat,
and indeed to all civilized countries as well as the United States. The
terrorists who attacked our country September 11 wanted to kill as many
Americans as possible. They sought to use aircraft as weapons of mass
destruction. There can be no doubt if
[[Page H10420]]
they had had access to real weapons of mass destruction, they would
have used them to kill as many of our fellow citizens as possible.
Saddam Hussein has a track record of developing such weapons and of
using them not only against his enemies but against his own people. So
he certainly would have no qualms about using them against us.
Just 2 weeks ago, our committee received testimony from two of our
Nation's leading experts on biological weapons. These experts, Dr.
Richard Spertzel and Dr. Ken Alibek, agreed that there was most likely
state involvement in the anthrax attacks that our Nation has
experienced, and that the most likely state to have been involved was
Iraq. So we are confronting a very serious threat, something that is
literally a matter of life and death. This resolution expresses our
very strong desire to see something done about it.
This resolution does not seek to give the President legal authority
to use force against Iraq. There is a debate about whether he already
has such authority, and I happen to believe he does; but this
resolution does not speak to that question. All it says is that Iraq is
violating its obligations under international law and that this
violation presents a mounting threat to our Nation, to our allies, and
to international peace and security. These statements are demonstrably
true, and the truly dangerous course would be to remain silent in the
face of these facts.
For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I first want to pay tribute to our colleague, the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Graham), for introducing this resolution; and I
want to thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
International Relations, my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Hyde), for his invaluable work in refining the resolution and in
bringing it so promptly to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.J. Res. 75, and I urge all of my
colleagues to do so. Our Nation faces a critical terrorist threat that
goes well beyond that posed by the Taliban and al Qaeda. The threat is
from Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a nation that is both a supporter and a
generator of international terrorism and a proliferator of weapons of
mass destruction.
Increasingly, Mr. Speaker, the media is full of speculation as to
whether Iraq is the next U.S. target in the war against terrorism. The
resolution before us today speaks to that issue. Iraq has had more than
a decade to comply with United Nations resolutions requiring it to end
its weapons of mass destruction programs. Rather than comply, it has
made a fool of the international community.
A vote for this resolution, Mr. Speaker, tells Saddam Hussein this:
you must comply with the terms of your surrender, once and for all, and
soon, or you will face the consequences.
In the past half century, no government has so consistently and
flagrantly flouted the will of the international community as has
Saddam Hussein's Iraq. No national leader has so regularly demonstrated
that he is a threat to the lives of his citizens and his neighbors.
Without provocation, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran in 1980, swallowed
up all of Kuwait in 1990, the first time, Mr. Speaker, since Hitler
that one nation tried to wipe another off the map. He rained missiles
on Saudi Arabia and Israel in 1991. He is the only current national
leader to have employed weapons of mass destruction, using chemical
weapons to attack Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and to murder some
5,000 Kurdish citizens of Iraq itself.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, the cease-fire
resolution that ended the Gulf War in 1991, required Saddam Hussein to
transfer his weapons of mass destruction and all related capabilities
to the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq, widely known as
UNSCOM, and to the International Atomic Energy Agency for purposes of
destruction. This was to have been done by the middle of 1991, Mr.
Speaker. Now, more than a decade later, Saddam Hussein continues to
defy contemptuously the requirements of the international community.
During the past 10 years, Saddam first obstructed and lied to the
inspectors, then he effectively expelled them, and now he will not let
them return.
Of course, Saddam Hussein has ignored virtually every United Nations
Security Council demand, including those dealing with missing Kuwaitis
taken prisoner by Iraq and property looted from Kuwait during Iraq's
brutal 1990-1991 occupation. Meanwhile, the state-controlled Iraqi
media continued to threaten Kuwait with another invasion.
Saddam Hussein's resort to terror is legendary, including an
attempted assassination of our former President, George Bush. Most
recently, we have been reminded of his terrorist activities by the
capture of a 15-man Iraqi-trained terrorist cell in the West Bank. In
view of Saddam Hussein's total disregard of the value of human life and
of his demonstrated willingness to use weapons of mass destruction and
terrorism to achieve his aims, nobody in Iraq, the Middle East, or the
West, including the United States, is safe from his evil designs.
{time} 1215
The world, Mr. Speaker, can no longer live with a Saddam Hussein who
is developing weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons.
An Iraqi defector who spent 20 years working on Saddam's nuclear
program put it well. Khidhir Hamza wrote in the December 10 Wall Street
Journal, ``Saddam's express goal is to continue building up his
chemical and biological stockpiles and to ultimately wield a nuclear
weapon. Each day we wait we allow him to go further toward that goal.''
Mr. Speaker, September 11 has demonstrated that we must take resolute
action to prevent disasters before they occur. If our preferred
recourse for now is to assure that UN's weapons inspectors return to
Iraq, let this much be clear: The only acceptable inspection regime is
one that assures, in the words of the UN Security Council resolution
707, ``immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access'' to all
weapons of mass destruction facilities and documents.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker. Saddam Hussein must provide immediate,
unconditional and unrestricted access to all facilities where weapons
of mass destruction may be hidden or produced and to all documents
relating to these programs. An inspection regime that enhances Saddam's
legitimacy, while allowing him secretively to continue his weapons of
mass destruction programs, is totally unacceptable.
The resolution before us today says, in effect, that Saddam Hussein
has one last chance to do what he was obligated to do over a decade
ago. I believe, Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein poses an imminent danger to
our Nation, to our friends and to our allies, and there is little time
to lose before we will have no choice but to take much stronger
measures. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting H.J.
Res. 75.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to start off by thanking
the chairman for having made some changes in this bill. The bill is not
nearly as bad as it was at the beginning. However, I obviously cannot
support it. But changing the tone was helpful in talking about Saddam
Hussein versus Iraq, ``Iraq'' suggesting the people of Iraq, who are
hardly enemies of the American people. Saddam Hussein is a different
subject. Also changing the word ``aggression'' to ``a mounting
threat.'' Aggression means that we have to immediately retaliate, I
would suppose. Even ``a mounting threat'' is a bit threatening to me,
but at least it is better and moving in the direction of less
confrontation with a nation 6,000 miles from our shore that I hardly
see as a threat to our national security.
One of the reasons why I take an approach on foreign policy where we
are less involved overseas is mainly because I feel that the number one
obligation for us in Congress and for the people of this country is to
preserve liberty and defend it from outside threats. The authors of
this resolution, I am sure, have the same goals, but,
[[Page H10421]]
over the years, I think those goals have been undermined. We as a
Nation are now probably weaker rather than stronger and we are more
threatened because of what we do overseas.
For instance, just this week, we had Stinger Missiles fired at our
airplanes. Fortunately, they did not hit our airplanes. But we paid for
those Stinger Missiles. And this week there was an attack in India by
allies, supposedly, in Pakistan, who are receiving billions of dollars
from us at the current time. This vacillation, shifting, on and off,
friends one time, enemies the next time, this perpetual war seems to me
not to be in the best interests of the United States.
Take, for instance, one of the whereas's in this resolution.
``Whereas the Iraq attacked the Islamic Republic of Iran.'' We keep
hearing this all the time. It was horrible. But they were our allies at
the time. We were financing them, giving them money, helping them with
technology.
So I see this as a perfect example of us always flip-flopping. Not
only do we frequently have those weapons that we sell and give to
support a so-called friend turn against us, we so often have the
opponents in the wars around the world fighting each other with our
weapons.
My idea of national defense is minding our own business, being
strong, and making sure our borders are secure. After 9/11, we had to
go to Germany and ask them for help for AWACS airplanes to patrol our
shores. I understand our ports are not necessarily secure, and yet we
have Coast Guard cutters down in Colombia and in the Mediterranean Sea.
I think if we learn anything it is that we ought to work harder to
protect our country and not make us so vulnerable, yet we continue
along this way.
We criticize the possibility or suggest the possibility of what might
be happening in Iraq, and, out of frustration, this amendment came up
because there has been no evidence that Iraq is connected. Not that
Saddam Hussein can be construed as any type of a good guy, but there
has been no connection, so there had to be some new reason given to go
into Iraq.
I tend to agree with the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) that
if there was evidence, we probably have, under the authority we have
given the President, to go in to Iraq. But that is not what we are
talking about. We are talking about the perpetuation, the continuation
of the Persian Gulf War, which at the time was designed as a fight for
our oil. I think that is what this is all about.
Its been suggested that the anthrax came from Iraq. The mounting
evidence today, sadly, suggests that it may well be coming from our
CIA. Here we are almost ready to go to war against Iraq at the
suggestion that our carelessness and our development of anthrax here in
this country may have been a contributing factor to this anthrax being
spread in this country.
It is suggested that it will be easy to overtake Iraq because we have
had this tremendous success in Afghanistan, and we will have this
uprising and the Kurds will be a reliable ally in this uprising. The
plain truth is, the Kurds will not be the salvation of our securing
Iraq. As a matter of fact, most of our allies, the Turks, although they
may be bought and allow us to use their bases, they are very nervous
about this plan to invade Iraq.
The whole idea that Iraq is the one that we have to be addressing,
when you look at the problems throughout the world, when you look at
what is happening in Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia has not cooperated, and
yet we have troops on their soil antagonizing the people over there,
and at the same time, people are saying that all we have to do is
invade Iraq, get rid of Saddam Hussein, and everything is going to be
okay.
Another ``whereas,'' mentioning UN Resolution 678 it was declared
that under Resolution 687, we have authority to go back in today. That
is not true. As a matter of fact, 687 gave us the authority to get
Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait. That does not mean that we can
perpetuate war forever under that resolution.
As a matter of fact, if you want to go into Iraq and follow the rules
and you are pretending you are following the rules, you ought to do a
couple of things. If you believe in the United Nations, you have to go
back to the United Nations, if you believe in the rule of law. Also you
have to answer the question, why does this resolution need to be
enforced versus other resolutions that have never been enforced? Why is
it assumed that the United States has to enforce UN resolutions? When
did it come to the point where the UN dictates foreign policy to us?
So, there are a lot of questions to answer about this desire to
immediately go into Iraq. I think it actually poses a threat to our
security, more than it helps us. So I am suggesting that we go more
cautiously.
I am glad this resolution has been toned down a little bit, but it
does represent those individuals who think that we should be at war
with Iraq today, and I disagree with that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and I
each be given an additional 5 minutes, as we have other colleagues who
wish to speak on this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). Is there
objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in whole-hearted support this joint resolution
highlighting Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow weapons inspections and
the threat that this refusal poses to international peace and security.
I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) and the
ranking minority member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos),
for bringing this measure to the floor at this time. I particularly
want to thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) for his
sponsorship of this very important measure.
There have been no substantive UN inspections in Iraq for more than 3
years, and there are numerous reports of Iraqi attempts to reconstitute
its weapons of mass destruction. Having openly admitted to having
produced anthrax and other biological agents, Iraq could transfer that
capability to terrorist organizations it harbors, including the
notorious Abu Nidal Organization and the Abu Abbas group. We must not
risk Iraqi biological agents falling into the hands of such barbarians.
Iraq's weapons and biological programs must be stopped once and for
all. Some in our Nation and in the Arab world contend, why go after
Saddam now? He has been relatively quiet recently. That faulty
rationale reminds us that following the bin Laden bombings of our two
embassies in Africa, we heard similar arguments, that these threats are
far away and that bin Laden cannot succeed if he were to attack the
United States. That threat was minimized by the prior administration,
regrettably resulting in the September 11 barbaric attacks on our
Nation.
We must not repeat those risks when it comes to Saddam Hussein. He
already invaded Kuwait, used chemical weapons against the Kurds and
Iranians, fired ballistic missiles at our troops, at the Saudis and the
Israelis. It is questionable if Saddam would be deterred by any U.S.
military power. It is a risk we must not take.
Hopefully, this resolution is an important first step in our renewed
campaign against Saddam Hussein. Not only does he need to be stripped
of his weapons of mass destruction, but he should be ousted from power.
He has shown no regard for international law nor for the Iraqi people,
who, along with his neighbors, would welcome and be gratified to be rid
of him. He has turned what should have been a rich, progressive nation
into a bellicose, bully and pariah, working with an indigenous
opposition.
We gave the Afghan people a brighter future. Working with the Iraqi
opposition, we should give the Iraqi people no less. Accordingly, I
urge my colleagues to fully support this important resolution.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to my
friend,
[[Page H10422]]
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), a distinguished member of
Committee on International Relations.
(Mr. CROWLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this
resolution. More than 10 years have passed since the United States and
coalition forces defeated Iraq, but the potential threat posed by
Saddam Hussein remains today.
This is a man who has used chemical weapons against his own people.
This is a man who invaded Kuwait and lobbed SKUD missiles into Israel
and Saudi Arabia. This is a man who must be dealt with once and for
all.
{time} 1230
Between 1991 and 1998, Saddam Hussein played a game of hide and seek
with his weapons of mass destruction. He would impede the progress of
U.N. inspectors as it suited his needs, never fully adhering to U.N.
Resolution 687 before expelling UNSCOM in 1998.
As the famous proverb goes, ``When the cat is away, the mice will
certainly play.''
The Iraqi regime has spent the last 3 years developing and perfecting
its chemical, biological, and nuclear program, while the international
community has stood idly by. Inaction and indifference may have been
the prevailing sentiments; but on the morning of September 12, we woke
up to an entirely new and different world with a new and different
attitude. We awoke to a world that values dialogue over destruction and
peace over terror.
Mr. Hussein: no more delays. No more deliberations. No more
deceptions. Your time is up. If you insist that you have nothing to
hide, then allow the inspectors back into Iraq to do their job
immediately. Failure to do so will answer all of the questions that we
have.
The security of this region depends on it. The security of the world
depends on it. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support the
resolution.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
It has been said that there have been no inspections in Iraq; and yet
the International Atomic Energy Agency was in Iraq this very year and
this was the report: I am pleased to confirm that between 20 and 23
January 2001, a 4-person IAEA team carried out a physical inventory
verification of the declared nuclear material remaining in Iraq under
IAEA seal. For its part, Iraq provided the necessary cooperation for
the inspection team to perform its activities effectively and
efficiently.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott).
(Mr. McDERMOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, neither the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Paul) nor I think Saddam Hussein is a nice man or good for the world.
However, we rise in opposition to this resolution because of the way it
is being done, the time in which it is being done, and what is implied
by this resolution, but not clearly stated.
No one disputes Iraq's behavior. We encouraged the Kurds to rise
against them, and then we abandoned them. We encouraged the Shia down
in Bosnia to rise against them, and then we abandoned them. But we have
not in this place forgotten what Saddam Hussein is about.
The question is, Why is there sudden rush to do this 48 hours before
the Congress adjourns for a month, giving the President apparent
unlimited ability to act?
Now, after September 11, with the exception of one person on this
floor, we authorized the President to do what needed to be done with
respect to the acts of 9-11. Things have gone reasonably well. They are
not through yet. We do not know where Osama bin Laden is. We do not
know whether we are precipitating further problems by al Qaeda going
into Pakistan. We now have India on the borders, armed. We have all
kinds of questions being raised about that area that have been
precipitated by our actions. I think, certainly, we knew that some of
that would happen, but we were willing to take that risk.
Now we come out here to pass a resolution. This resolution says: the
President of the United States should insist on monitoring weapons
development in Iraq. Nobody out here disagrees with that.
Iraq should allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq as required by
Security Council Resolution 687. No once disagrees with that.
Iraq remains a material and unacceptable breach of international
obligations. No one disagrees with that.
And now we come to it. The refusal of Iraq to admit U.N. weapons
inspectors into any facility covered by the provisions of Security
Council Resolution 687 should be considered an act of aggression, an
act of aggression against the United States and its allies.
This is the resolution that is laying on the table out here as the
one that is being passed on this floor. I know someone is going to
stand up and say, we have changed it. When we are doing it at 100 miles
an hour, it is no wonder that Members who care cannot figure out what
is going on.
So I would say to everybody here who is going to come down here and
vote on this, just ask ourselves, are we back in 1964 in the House of
Representatives when they brought the Gulf of Tonkin out here? They
brought the Gulf of Tonkin into the Senate; and they were about to vote
on it, and only two Members of that body voted against it, Earnest
Gruening of Alaska and Mr. Morris from Oregon. A third member raised a
question. His name was Nelson, Gaylord Nelson from Wisconsin, and he
said, I want to put in an amendment here that says that this does not
authorize the putting of troops on the ground in Vietnam.
Now, Bill Fulbright went down to the White House and said to Lyndon
Johnson, Lyndon, old Gaylord is going to put an amendment on here that
we cannot put troops on the ground. And Lyndon Johnson said, well, you
just go up there and tell old Gaylord I have no intention of putting
any troops on the ground. Mr. Speaker, 500-and-some-odd thousand later,
55,000 deaths, and Lyndon Johnson did not have any intention of putting
anybody on the ground. We can understand why Gaylord voted no.
I do not know what the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and
his colleagues mean by this: a refusal by Iraq to admit the United
States weapons inspectors be considered an act of aggression against
the United States. Is that a declaration of war? Well, if it is a
declaration of war, then maybe the Geneva Convention should now be
called in.
The President of the United States, when we gave him this carte
blanche in Afghanistan to do whatever he thought necessary, now we have
military tribunals, secret tribunals. We have people all over this
country being held without charge, in secrecy, with no access to
attorneys, because the President deems that is what we are going to do.
Now, I do not want to go home having given the President carte
blanche to do whatever he wants for the month of December and January
in Iraq.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. (Mr. Hastings of Washington.) The
gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
McDermott) an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McDERMOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I was just going to suggest that my dear
friend from Washington is in vain against a resolution that does not
exist. We have taken the word ``aggression'' out. We took it out a long
time ago. I do not know how it crept into the gentleman's copy, but I
hope his other notes are more accurate.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from
Illinois should know that this was picked up in the Speaker's lobby on
the table where it is his responsibility to put the bills that are
being considered on the floor. If this is not what it is, then he is
going too fast, and that is the whole point of what the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul) and I are saying.
We may not disagree. We may agree ultimately we need to go to Iraq,
but not at 100 miles an hour without anybody understanding. Because
this is
[[Page H10423]]
what the gentleman put out there for me to read, and I learned to read
in about the first grade, and I am reading what was here. If that is
not what was supposed to be out there, I certainly would like to see
people explain why this was put in on December 12, passed out of
committee on the December 12, and is here, and we cannot get the right
version printed to be in the House.
My colleagues do not care about the process, and the United States
Congress is losing its power by this kind of action. When my colleagues
walk away and allow people to put stuff out here without anybody
reading it, they do not know. We may soon have a package of stimulus
out here that repeals some parts of the campaign finance law. We are
all watching carefully to see if we can catch it; but when we do it at
100 miles an hour, I have to vote against it.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support, strong support of
this resolution.
Ten years ago, the United States of America and our allies blew it.
We had the opportunity to eliminate a major threat to world peace and
world stability and a major dictator and tyrant to the people of Iraq,
and we did not do the job. We did not finish the job.
Now is the time for us to finish that job. By not finishing the job
before, we permitted, for example, the Kuwaitis to suffer with hundreds
of their people still being held prisoners of war, MIAs, prisoners of
war, the equivalent of 50,000 Americans would be held today without us
knowing what Saddam Hussein has done to the Kuwaitis and still does to
them. Saddam Hussein still has a vicious dictatorship; and Saddam
Hussein is at war with the United States, most importantly.
I am very happy that the gentleman from Texas does not want us to be
at war with Iraq. But the fact is, Saddam Hussein is at war with us, no
matter where we would like to be. And if we permit Saddam Hussein to
have nuclear and chemical and biological weapons, weapons of mass
destruction, he will kill millions of Americans. Make no mistake about
it. He has a blood feud with us.
We are not talking about a war with Iraq; we are talking about a war
with Saddam Hussein. We should liberate Iraq in the same way that we
have liberated Afghanistan, now that we have the chance and the
opportunity to do so.
How did we liberate Afghanistan? We simply supported the people; we
helped the people liberate themselves from the Taliban tyranny. The
people in Iraq hate Saddam Hussein much more than the people of
Afghanistan hated the Taliban. By helping them liberate themselves, we
are protecting our own population from a holocaust, we are protecting
the world for peace, and we are doing what is right.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman was to find out that China
was much more involved in the Taliban and the terrorist attacks on 9-11
than anything Saddam Hussein has done, would the gentleman be willing
to do to China what the gentleman is willing to do to Iraq?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, let me put it this
way. The answer is yes, but I would not right away. Like the President
says, we must do things sequentially, and we must be absolutely
committed to the job. If we do things sequentially, the next order of
business is taking care of the threat in Iraq. And if China is, yes,
helping terrorists murder thousands of Americans, yes, we should help
the Chinese people overthrow their dictatorship as well.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, would
the gentleman do the same thing to Pakistan and Syria and Saudi Arabia
and Egypt?
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I agree with the
President of the United States that this is a sequential battle against
terrorism. If those countries are engaged in supporting terrorists who
kill thousands of Americans or continue a belligerency that threatens
millions of our lives, yes, one at a time, we have to take care of
them. If we do not, millions of our people will pay the price. Who
could have ever guessed that by not taking care of Afghanistan,
thousands of our people would be dead?
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lantos), my old friend, for his generosity. I can assure him I will not
abuse it. I am also happy to join the former chairman of the House
Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), in
this discussion.
I want to just throw this out because I may not be correct; but is
this measure, H.J. Resolution 75, a way of us expanding the war to
Iraq? I assume the answer is yes.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, this measure is the exact opposite of what
the gentleman has just suggested. It demands of Saddam Hussein what he
agreed to 10 years ago: full and complete access to places where
weapons of mass destruction are produced. It gives him one chance, one
final chance to do what he agreed to do when he surrendered 10 years
ago.
{time} 1245
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for his comment.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher), who is more an expert on foreign affairs matters than I,
said ``Now is the time to finish the job.'' I guess that is not very
ambiguous, is it? And then he went on to explain something that could
be troublesome: we are not at war with Iraq, but we are at war with
Saddam Hussein.
Well, that introduces a new concept. I am only on the Committee on
the Judiciary. Our impressions have always been that nations declare
war on another, we do not declare war on terrorists or a head of a
country, or anything else.
I see the gentleman from California in the aisle there.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's quote was a little bit
mistaken. I said that we are not at war with Iraq, but Saddam Hussein
is at war with us.
Mr. CONYERS. Okay. That is much better, because that means, then,
that we do not have to declare war on China's leaders, either. They are
at war with us, not the people? Did I get that right? I continue to
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. That was only based on if the assessment of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) was correct and they are supporting
terrorists and planning to kill thousands of Americans. Then, yes, they
are at war with us.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could we not tailor this document a little
more narrowly than bringing China into this? The gentleman did not do
it. All right.
Let me go to the next part. I asked my good friend, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Lantos), about the hearings. I was told that there
were no hearings, no witnesses; but there was a markup last Wednesday.
Is that right? I have to get something right down here in the well
before I return my time. Okay. That much is right.
Mr. Speaker, is there some reason that we did not have witnesses?
Silence. All right. Then the only other thing that I could add, Mr.
Speaker, is that there has been a change. There was original language
that considered that Iraq's refusal to admit U.N. weapons inspectors
pursuant to Security Resolution 687 should be considered an act of
aggression against the United
[[Page H10424]]
States and its allies, and that language has been struck.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, we did have hearings, I would say to the
gentleman from Michigan, on December 4. We had two of the inspectors
who were over and were shut out by Saddam Hussein, and a lady expert on
arms control from the Clinton administration. So we had hearings.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Okay, so none of my premises have been right so far. It is like the
Detroit Lions who broke their record last week. Maybe I can do
something here.
Okay. Now, am I right that we have substituted new language for this
statement? I have them now. The original language was that Iraq's
refusal to admit U.N. weapons inspectors pursuant to Security
Resolution 687 ``. . . should be considered an act of aggression
against the United States and its allies,'' and that language has been
removed; and we have inserted new language. Does anyone challenge that
in the body? Okay. All right. I got that in.
And the new language says that 687 and 707 and other relevant
resolutions ``present a mounting threat to the United States, its
allies, and international peace and security.'' Does anyone have
anything to help me understand that better?
So, essentially, instead of an act of aggression, we have put in ``a
mounting threat,'' and I notice there seems to be general agreement on
that. So we have had hearings and we have had a markup. We modified the
language for people who may be nervous about where this might be going.
But I must confess, as I return to my seat, I am not sure if we
should be expanding the war to Iraq.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the emphasis in this H.J. resolution is that resolutions
have been passed, and one in particular, a U.N. resolution against
Iraq, must be enforced. I made the point earlier that there are many
resolutions that are not enforced, so this one is special and has to be
enforced; and the assumption is that it is the responsibility of the
United States to do the enforcing.
Everybody knows that I am not too keen on the United Nations, but I
am not too keen on the idea that we can use the United Nations as we
please. Sometimes we follow the rules, and sometimes we do not. I think
if we are participating, the argument should be that we should follow
the rules.
There is no U.N. authority for us to use force against Saddam Hussein
without a new U.N. resolution. It would be very difficult to legally
mount another invasion of Iraq right now without a U.N. resolution. It
would not go along with UN rules.
The other question I have about the rule of law and trying to follow
the rules of the United Nations would be: Where have we gotten the
authority to enforce the no-fly zones? The no-fly zones are really a
contention in the Middle East, and have been a contention for a long
time, because that, in combination with the embargoes and the sanctions
against the Iraqi people is what the Arabs believe to be so detrimental
to the children who have died in Iraq.
Whether Members agree with that or not, or they want to put all the
blame on Saddam Hussein, is beside the point. Millions if not billions
of Muslims and Iraqis happen to wonder about that policy: Where did we
get the authority to continue bombing for now going on 12 years?
This legislation says that we know exactly what is going on in Iraq.
I pointed out that the International Atomic Energy Agency has been in
Iraq this year and found out that there is no evidence of nuclear
weapons being built.
But there is one gentleman who has been in Iraq many times under the
U.N., as a U.N. inspector, Scott Ritter. He has been there 30 times.
Probably even the best junketeer in Congress I will bet has not been
over there 30 times, but he has been there 30 times inspecting.
He was on a television interview the other day, and had an opinion as
to what is going on in Iraq. I do not think Members can jump up and say
Scott Ritter is not a true American, that he is not a true
internationalist, that he does not know what he is talking about. But
this is what he said on television when they asked about whether or not
he thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq was a threat to our national
security.
He said, ``In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing. His
military was devastated in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm, and Iraq has
not had the ability to reconstitute itself in terms of weapons of mass
destruction. We know that we achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of
disarmament. Diplomatically, politically, Saddam is a little bit of a
threat. In terms of a real national security threat to the United
States, no, none.''
Because he is a little bit of a political and a diplomatic threat, we
are making these plans to pursue war or in reality continue the war
because the Persian Gulf war has not really ended.
So once again, I ask my colleagues who are going to be voting on this
shortly to think about it. If it is unnecessary and does not have any
effect, why bring it to the floor? There would be no purpose. If
Hussein is aligned with the terrorists, the President already has
authority to do something about it. So what really is the reason for
this, especially when it was first announced that this would be an act
of aggression, which is really what they feel in their hearts, in their
minds, what they want this to be? It has been toned down a little bit.
But this resolution is a support for expanding the war and continuing
what has been going on for 12 years.
Quite frankly, I think there is a better diplomatic way to handle
things. I think it is a shame that our Secretary of State has not been
given more authority to have his way on this issue, rather than being
overruled by those and encouraged by many Members here in the Congress
who want to prepare for war against Iraq, because of this fantastic
success in Afghanistan, a country, probably the poorest country in the
world that did not even have an airplane; and now, because of this
tremendous success, we are ready to take on the next country.
But one thing that we have to realize is that there is a great
chance, and there is some evidence, and I may get a chance to quote
this later, that China may well have been involved. Now, the gentleman
from California said, OK, so let us go after China. Everyone knows we
are not going to go after China in the same manner we are planning to
go after Iraq.
We are going into Iraq for other reasons, other than reasons of
national security. That is my firm belief. It has a lot to do with the
announcement when our government propagandized to go to war in the
Persian Gulf War and it was to go to defend our oil. I still believe
that is a major motivation that directs our foreign policy in the
Middle East.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard the same arguments made, or I have read
about them in the twenties and the thirties, that our borders are all
we need to worry about, and do not worry what happens in Europe.
During the twenties and thirties, that is what we did, we pulled a
blanket over our heads, and a man named Hitler rearmed, and over across
the Pacific Tojo rearmed, and the result of our indifference to what
was going on was that millions of people died, millions of people died.
The gentleman from Texas says that the only business we have is to
secure our borders. I suggest our borders do not end with California or
New Jersey or New York, but what happens in Europe, what happens in
Asia. In today's world, never mind when we walked away from the League
of Nations, in today's world our borders are everywhere.
Why do we have to do it? Because we are the strongest country in the
world, and if it does not get done by the United States, it will not be
done.
Now, the gentleman disparages our concern for oil. Imagine, and it
does not take a leap of imagination, if Saddam Hussein controlled the
Persian Gulf, what that would do to the economies of the world. Talk
about lines at gas stations; it is very important. No.
Now, about these inspections. The International Atomic Energy
Commission conducts these inspections, and
[[Page H10425]]
they are a joke. They are an embarrassing joke, because they only look
at the premises that are declared by Saddam Hussein. The U.N. was
kicked out because they conducted real inspections. They were
intrusive, and they found things over there that embarrassed the
International Atomic Energy Commission.
I just suggest to the Members that this is very important; that it is
a challenge and a threat to civilization to have a monster like Saddam
Hussein who used chemical warfare on his own people to have access to
the facilities to create nuclear weapons and weapons of mass
destruction.
{time} 1300
We are not calling for war, we are calling for enforcement of the
U.N. resolutions that were agreed to by Saddam.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I have one more speaker. Who gets to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has the right to close. The gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Paul) has 30 seconds remaining on his time.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) be granted an additional 5 minutes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. PAUL. I object, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) has 30 seconds remaining on his
time. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) has the right to close.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Speaker, very quickly, borders are important because that is what
our Constitution gives us the authority to defend. Our Constitution
does not give us the authority to defend Europe or anybody else. Also
we have a moral authority to defend ourselves and not to pretend that
we are the policemen of the world. What would Americans say if China
were in the Gulf of Mexico and said it was their oil and had troops
stationed in Texas. That is the equivalent of us having our Navy in the
Persian Gulf and saying it is our oil and placing troops in Saudi
Arabia.
Using gas on our own people? I understand a few people died at Waco,
and it happened that illegal war gasses were used during that
operation.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose House Joint Resolution 75 because it
solves none of our problems and only creates new ones. Though the
legislation before us today does wisely excise the most objectionable
part of the original text of H.J. Res. 75--the resolution clause
stating that by not obeying a U.N. resolution Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein has been committing an ``act of aggression'' against the United
States--what remains in the legislation only serves to divert our
attention from what should be our number one priority at this time:
finding bringing to justice those who attacked the United Stats on
September 11, 2001.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. The Iraqi people would no
doubt be better off without him and his despotic rule. But the call in
some quarters for the United States to intervene to change Iraq's
government is a voice that offers little in the way of a real solution
to our problems in the Middle East--many of which were caused by our
interventionism in the first place. Secretary of State Colin Powell
underscored recently this lack of planning on Iraq, saying, ``I never
saw a plan that was going to take [Saddam] out. It was just some ideas
coming from various quarters about, `let's go bomb.' ''
Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 64, passed on September 14 just
after the terrorist attack, states that, ``The president is authorized
to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed
or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or
harbored such organizations or persons.'' From all that we know at
present, Iraq appears to have had no such role. Indeed, we have seen
``evidence'' of Iraqi involvement in the attacks on the United States
proven false over the past couple of weeks. Just this week, for
example, the ``smoking gun'' of Iraqi involvement in the attack seems
to have been debunked: The New York Times reported that ``the Prague
meeting (allegedly between al-Qaeda terrorist Mohamad Atta and an Iraqi
intelligence agent) has emerged as an object lesson in the limits of
intelligence reports rather than the cornerstone of the case against
Iraq.'' The Times goes on to suggest that the ``Mohamad Atta'' who was
in the Czech Republic this summer seems to have been Pakistani national
who happened to have the same name. It appears that this meeting never
took place, or at least not in the way it has been reported. This
conclusion has also been drawn by the Czech media and is reviewed in a
report on Radio Free Europe's Newsline. Even those asserting Iraqi
involvement in the anthrax scare in the United Stats--a theory
forwarded most aggressively by Iraqi defector Khidir Hamza and former
CIA director James Woolsey--have, with the revelation that the anthrax
is domestic, had their arguments silenced by the facts.
Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can
only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from
our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly
seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn't matter whether
Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United
States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have
made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been
to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN chief Arms Inspector
Scott Ritter--who lead some 30 inspection missions to Iraq--come to
different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News
Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O'Reilly about how much of a
threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief
Inspector Ritter said, ``In terms of military threat, absolutely
nothing . . . Diplomatically, politically, Saddam's a little bit of a
threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States,
no, none.'' Mr. Speaker, shouldn't we even stop for a moment to
consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further
down the road toward military confrontation?
The rationale for this legislation is suspect, not the least because
it employs a revisionist view of recent Middle East history. This
legislation brings up, as part of its indictment against Iraq, that
Iraq attacked Iran some 20 years ago. What the legislation fails to
mention is that at that time Iraq was an ally of the United States, and
counted on technical and military support from the United States in its
war on Iran. Similarly, the legislation mentions Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait more than 10 years ago. But at that time U.S. foreign policy was
sending Saddam Hussein mixed messages, as Iraq's dispute with Kuwait
simmered. At the time, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie was reported in
the New York times as giving very ambiguous signals to Saddam Hussein
regarding Kuwait, allegedly telling Hussein that the United States had
no interest in Arab-Arab disputes.
We must also consider the damage a military invasion of Iraq will do
to our alliance in this fight against terrorism. An attack on Iraq
could destroy that international coalition against terrorism. Most of
our European allies--critical in maintaining this coalition--have
explicitly stated their opposition to any attack on Iraq. German
Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned recently that Europe was
``completely united'' in opposition to any attack on Iraq. Russian
President Valdimir Putin cautioned recently against American military
action in Iraq. Mr. Putin urged the next step to be centered around
cutting off the financial resources of terrorists worldwide. As for
Iraq, the Russian president said. ``. . . so far I have no
confirmation, no evidence that Iraq is financing the terrorists that we
are fighting against.'' Relations with our European allies would suffer
should we continue down this path toward military conflict with Iraq.
Likewise, U.S. relations with the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia could
collapse should the United States initiate an attack on Iraq. Not only
would our Saudi allies deny us the use of their territory to launch the
attack, but a certain backlash from all gulf and Arab states could well
produce even an oil embargo against the United States. Egypt, a key
ally in our fight against terrorism, has also warned against any attack
on Iraq. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said recently of the
coalition that, ``If we want to keep consensus . . . we should not
resort, after Afghanistan, to military means.''
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand this push to seek out another
country to bomb next. Media and various politicians and pundits seem to
delight in predicting from week to week which country should be next on
our bombing list. Is military action now the foreign policy of first
resort for the United States? When it comes to other countries and
warring disputes, the United States counsels dialogue without
exception. We urge the Catholics and Protestants to talk to each other,
we urge the Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other. Even at
the height of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union had missiles pointed
at us from 90 miles away in Cuba, we solved the dispute through
dialogue and diplomacy. Why is it, in this post Cold War era, that the
United States seems to turn first to the military to solve its foreign
policy problems? Is diplomacy dead?
[[Page H10426]]
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation, even in its watered-
down form, moves us closer to conflict with Iraq. This is not in our
interest at this time. It also, ironically enough, could serve to
further Osama bin Laden's twisted plans for a clash of civilizations
between Islam and the West. Invading Iraq, with the massive loss of
life on both sides, would only forward bin Laden's hateful plan. I
think we need to look at our priorities here. We are still seeking
those most responsible for the attacks on the United States. Now hardly
seems the time to go out in search of new battles.
Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), to the author of this very
contentious resolution,
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, a couple of statements.
Saddam Hussein kicked out the U.N. inspection team in 1998 in breach
of the cease-fire agreement. If you think we are moving too fast, vote
no. Last time I checked, it is December 2001. So if we are going too
fast to make you feel comfortable, vote no.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) says that Saddam Hussein is a
minor threat to this country. If you believe that, vote no. But you
ought to go visit the CIA, and you ought to talk to our intelligence
communities. He is building missiles beyond the agreement, cease-fire
agreement, for a purpose, to kill people.
I admire the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) so much because
he suffered from the politics of appeasement. This is not 1964. This is
the late 30's. This is Neville Chamberlain coming back. Peace in our
time. What a joke. There will be no peace in our time as long as we
have the politics of appeasement and let a guy like Saddam Hussein get
away with building mobile biological weapons systems, larger missiles,
procuring materials that could only be used in nuclear weapons. For us
to sit back would be a national travesty, a world travesty. Never again
shall we do this.
The hour is at hand. Immediate action must be taken by this Congress
to support our President. We should have U.N. weapons inspectors on the
ground now. And if he says no, that is a mounting threat to this
country because he is procuring, as I speak, weapons of mass
destruction.
No more head-in-the-sand politics. Act now or pay later, America. Let
us act now to get rid of the tyrant who has abused and killed his own
people, who is procuring weapons of mass destruction, substantial
evidence to that fact. A failure to do so, we will pay dearly later.
Have we learned anything from September 11? I think we have, and I
have every confidence in this body that they will reject the notion
that we are moving too fast and that Saddam Hussein is a minor threat.
This resolution makes common sense. It makes legal sense. It is the
morally right thing to do. America is a great country, and as the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) said, we have to act greatly when we
are threatened.
This is not about any other nation. It is about us. We are the target
of Saddam Hussein. Us and Israel and his Arab neighbors. Anybody who
does not want to do business they way he does. We are a threat. Let us
stand up to this dictator. No more of the politics of appeasement. Let
us vote as a united body.
The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos) have shown us we can work together for the
common good. They are an example for all of us to follow. Please vote.
Act now or we will pay later.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the joint resolution, H.J. Res. 75, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________