[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 33 (Wednesday, March 20, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1077-H1078]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Speaker, there has been a lot of discussion within 
the Bush administration about where to take the military campaign 
against terrorism next. The President has already sent military 
advisers to the Philippines and the Republic of Georgia. His axis of 
evil comments lumped Iran, Iraq, and North Korea together as potential 
targets for future U.S. military action. He also indicated he wants to 
get the United States more deeply involved in Colombia's civil war by 
helping the government fight guerrilla armies rather than targeting the 
drug trafficking done by all parties in the war in Colombia.
  Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution grants 
Congress the exclusive authority to declare war. As commander-in-chief, 
the President conducts or would conduct day-to-day operations of our 
U.S. military. The Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973 
grants Congress the prerogative to decide whether or not to send U.S. 
troops into hostility.
  The use of force resolution approved by Congress specifically 
safeguarded Congress' war powers by noting nothing in the resolution 
supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
  While Congress overwhelmingly authorized the President to use 
military force to respond to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the 
Congressional authorization was limited in scope. Specifically, the 
joint resolution stated 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 attack that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such 
organizations or persons in order to prevent any future acts of 
international terrorism against the United States by such nations, 
organizations or persons.
  Thus far, the United States intelligence agencies with their secret 
$32 billion a year budget could not predict the attacks and cannot 
uncover any links between Iraq and the attackers. Now, many in the 
administration are latching on to a magazine article written by Seymour 
Hirsch in the New Yorker who does not get $32 billion a year from the 
taxpayers, who has uncovered purported links between some Kurds and the 
al Qaeda as a potential excuse to attack Iraq.
  In December, I sent a letter along with a number of other Members of 
Congress to the President pointing out the limitations on the use of 
force authorization and reminding him that he would have to come, as 
his father did, to the United States Congress for authorization if he 
desired and felt there was a case to be made to attack Iraq. I have as 
yet to have a substantive response to that letter.
  We at this point, I believe, have sort of a budding imperial 
presidency, the likes of which we have not seen since Richard Nixon.
  There are other areas that are very troubling with this presidency. 
The nuclear posture review. According to a leaked version of the 
classified nuclear posture review, the Bush administration is 
contemplating using nuclear weapons as offensive weapons rather than 
merely to deter an attack against the United States. They now say they 
would target seven countries, Russia, China, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Iran 
and North Korea. This, in fact, includes countries who are not known to 
have nuclear weapons, an extraordinary change in U.S. policy. They want 
to develop small, more friendly nuclear weapons that could be used, 
they believe, in limited instances.
  Of course, this would blur the line between conventional nuclear 
arms, would undermine the nonproliferation treaty which 187 countries 
have signed, including the United States of America, and that is a very 
disturbing trend. As Ronald Reagan once said, a nuclear war cannot be 
won and must never be fought.
  We have the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the most successful treaty 
on arms limitations in the history of the world, which the President 
wishes to unilaterally abrogate, calling it a relic of the Cold War. 
The Constitution is more than 200 years old. I would hope that the 
President would not find that to be a relic. It is still very relevant 
today, as is the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. If it is scrapped as 
the President wishes, if he can legally do that, that is in question, 
it is likely that China, Russia and other countries would engage in a 
new crash program to expand nuclear weapons against our potential 
defenses which, of course, as we all know, the Star Wars fantasy does 
not work in any place, but it is a great place in which to dump two or 
three or $400 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money.
  Finally, in the defense budget we have seen an extraordinary proposal 
that we should have a 1-year increase

[[Page H1078]]

that far exceeds any increases at the height of the Cold War, the 
Vietnam War, anything since World War II, to build Cold War weapons 
against enemies that no longer exist. Hopefully this Congress will act 
soon to rein in this administration, reexert its authority and bring 
some sanity to these policies.

{time}  2030

                          ____________________