[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 18, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6359-H6366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE CASE FOR PEACE
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Putnam). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to address
the House of Representatives. I would first like to say that in this
next hour, I and several of my colleagues will discuss the issue which
is uppermost in the minds of the American people, the issue of war and
peace, the issue of whether our sons and daughters are going to be sent
to a distant land to fight in a war which the American people really
have not had a chance to talk about in their own communities. So
tonight we are going to make the case as to why the United States
should not go to war against Iraq. We are going to talk about the
various elements which are motivating this effort to go to war against
Iraq; and finally, we are going to talk about what people can do who
are concerned about what appears to be this effort that has almost
seemingly unstoppable momentum towards a war, because this still is the
government of the people. That is the beauty of this wonderful forum we
are in, the House of Representatives, and we are going to this evening
have an opportunity to show how a government of the people works, not
only here, but how it works back in the communities which we represent.
So as we begin our discussion, I want to recognize my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has been a fearless defender of
the rights of working people, a defender of the highest principles this
country stands for, and someone who is respected and admired across
this Nation. I want to thank the gentlewoman for participating in this
1-hour, and at this time I yield to her.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the able gentleman from Cleveland,
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), for bringing us together and exhibiting the
leadership role that he has, both within the Congress and outside in
our country, in attempting to deliver the messages to the American
people that they need to hear about decision-making here in Washington
on the important issues of war and peace, and how it affects them in
their families, in their communities, and, obviously, in our country.
I know there will be many other Members who will speak, and I want to
thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) for also appearing on
programs like ``Crossfire'' and trying to get out the message to the
American people, which largely is being blocked here in Washington
because of the way we are functioning as a Congress. Here it is the
middle of the week, we have had a few votes today, we could not say any
of them were very earthshaking, and now votes have been canceled next
Monday and Friday. We will not be here this Friday, we were not here
this Monday, and our floor time is extraordinarily limited. So it has
been very difficult to talk to the American people about this
continuing drumbeat toward war because essentially, our institutions
and our ability to function as a lawmaking body have been heavily
proscribed by the Republican leadership in this Chamber, and it has
been hard to get the word out.
[[Page H6360]]
I would say that no gentleman has worked harder than the gentleman
from Cleveland, Ohio, to talk to the American people and to present the
information that is very important. I know this will be an exchange
tonight, and we will go back and forth; but it is probably important to
put in some context what happened about one year ago, 9-11, 2001 when
17 individuals, international criminals from Saudi Arabia, 17 of 19
created carnage in our country in New York, over Pennsylvania, and here
in Washington, from the al Qaeda network, which is a Middle Eastern
terrorist network.
Their supposed leader, Osama bin Laden, made the statement at that
time that these crimes were being committed against the American people
because he wanted Western infidels out of Saudi Arabia. Iraq was not
even on the table. Iraq is not an issue. Our major confrontation has
been with al Qaeda; and, of course, they took refuge inside of
Afghanistan, and so all of us have troops from our districts currently
deployed, Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marines, in that region of the
world and here at home protecting the American people and defending our
freedom. But it is important to remind ourselves that the enemy we are
fighting is the terrorist network of al Qaeda. The President came down
here to the floor of Congress and said that.
I think it is also important to point out that al Qaeda is an Islamic
fundamentalist network. In other words, it is very religious. They have
a sacred rage that has turned their views highly political and highly
dangerous into the international realm, and they do not have a presence
in Iraq, because Iraq is a secular state.
{time} 1830
Al Qaeda has not been known to use Iraq as its base. So there is a
disconnect between the policies that we are pursuing in order to bring
to justice those who have done so much harm globally through al Qaeda,
and also there has been an ignorance of Saudi Arabia's role in
permitting the Saudis to operate inside Saudi Arabia and then promoting
madrassahs outside of Saudi Arabia as well, producing hate-filled young
boys who ultimately become terrorists in years hence in places like
Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Malaysia, indeed around the world.
So I wanted to just place on the record as we begin who the enemy is
in terms of September 11 and subsequently, and all of a sudden emerging
then through this summer we begin to hear about war with Iraq, and we
ask ourselves the questions and we have gone to all the security
briefings here on the Hill, what is the connection? What has Iraq done
in the last 4 months different than the prior 4 years? What is
anticipated over the next 4 months or 8 months or 1 year different than
what happened over the last 5 or 10 years? And no evidence. We have
been presented with no photographs, with no intelligence information to
give us any connection between what has happened relative to al Qaeda
and the enemy we are fighting and Iraq, and yet there is this
tremendous drumbeat toward going to war with Iraq.
The President said at the United Nations last week, and I am very
thankful that President Bush went to the United Nations because we
still have been engaged as one of 189 nations in the world, the
international community, he said that Iraq presented a grave and
gathering threat. Not an imminent threat, a grave and gathering threat
to the world. So those words I listened to very carefully. I asked
myself what is really going on here?
I also want to place on the record tonight an article that was in the
Washington Post on Sunday entitled An Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key
Issue. I think it is important for the American people to know that
even though technically the President wants to go to war with Iraq,
today 8 percent of the oil we consume here in the United States is from
Iraq. That may sound like a paradox. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq presents
the largest oil fields in the world and in fact has proven reserves of
112 billion barrels of crude oil. This article talks about the
reshuffling of the world petroleum markets related to any change of
regime in Iraq, and I think it is important to follow the business
pages which today showed that with the possibility of Iraq's regime
changing, oil prices in the world were beginning to actually drop
because, as this article states, five permanent members of the Security
Council, the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and China, have
international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership
in Bagdad; and without question, it says, the United States would
almost certainly be the dominant foreign power in Iraq after the
aftermath of Saddam Hussein's fall.
The leader of a group called the Iraqi National Congress, based in
London, an umbrella organization of opposition groups backed by our
country, among others, the leader of that group, Ahmed Chalabi, says
that American oil companies would have a big shot at Iraqi oil. I think
it is really important for the American people to distinguish between
our war with the al Qaeda terrorist network and Islamic fundamentalist
network, with no real home country but with deep roots in Saudi Arabia,
and Iraq, which actually had been an ally of the United States prior to
the Persian Gulf war, and we should be insisting as a country on the
evidence for any invasion.
I know that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) would like to add
to what I have said and I again thank him so much for his international
leadership on this important question.
The article referred to is as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2002]
In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue
(By Dan Morgan and David B. Ottaway)
A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could
open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from
Iraq, scuttling oil ldeals between Baghdad and Russia, France
and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets,
according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi
opposition.
Although senior Bush administration officials say they have
not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq,
American and foreign oil companies have already begun
maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves
of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world
outside Saudi Arabia.
The importance of Iraq's oil has made it potentially one of
the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations
to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western
allies for President Bush's call for tough international
action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the
Security Council--the United States, Britain, France, Russia
and China--have international oil companies with major stakes
in a change of leadership in Baghdad.
``It's pretty straightforward,'' said former CIA director
R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates
of forcing Hussein from power. ``France and Russia have oil
companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if
they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent
government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new
government and American companies work closely with them.''
But he added: ``If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it
will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the
new Iraqi government to work with them.''
Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has
fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will
be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly
would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath
of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil
concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi
opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound
them out about their intentions.
Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies from more
than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India,
Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to
reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields,
refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts.
Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N.
sanctions.
But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews
last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals.
``We will review all these agreements, definitely,'' said
Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London
office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella
organization of opposition groups that is backed by the
United States. ``Our oil policies should be decided by a
government in Iraq elected by the people.''
Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he
favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop
Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a
decade of sanctions. ``American companies will have a big
shot at Iraqi oil,'' Chalabi said.
The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position
on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change
of leadership.
While the Bush Administration's campaign against Hussein is
presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants,
it poses
[[Page H6361]]
major risks and uncertainties for the global oil markets,
according to industry analysts.
Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature
and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a
member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries,
for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC
cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the
flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela
and Angola.
While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major
financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices
that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world
markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract
foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is
because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to
unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing.
Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil
business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But
despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil
companies, the administration, preoccupied with military
planning and making the case about Hussein's potential
threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way,
according to U.S. officials.
The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State
Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a
department spokesman said last week. An official with the
National Security Council declined to say whether oil had
been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush had had
over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Western leaders.
On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three-
day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early
October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy
summit in Houston at which more than 100 Russian and American
energy companies are expected.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) said Bush is keenly aware of
Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7
billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow
before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to
Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the
Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get
private assurances from Bush that Russia ``will be made
whole'' financially.
Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week
that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met
with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged
Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's
government.
But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy
transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival
ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the
giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority
Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall.
Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the
United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi
oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil
companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq
since the late 1980s, when relations soured between
Washington and Baghdad.
Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to
repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war
against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S.
government studies say the results have been disappointment.
While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997
to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern
Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N.
sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless
work began immediately.
Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft
reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at
the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion
Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes
opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in
Iraq's western desert.
The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights
to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border,
which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in
July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French
firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its
decision to abide by the sanctions.
Officials of several major firms said they were taking care
to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over
how to proceed on Iraq. ``There's no real upside for American
oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage.
There'll be plenty of time in the future,'' said James
Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities.
But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with
Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and
ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry
officials said. ``There's not an oil company out there that
wouldn't be interested in Iraq,'' one analyst said.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) and again repeat what an honor it is to serve with her in this
House and I thank her for enabling me to be in this House because she
assisted in that effort.
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise this question, and that is why is war
with Iraq being presented as inevitable? Is it not time to insist that
our leaders suspect this incessant talk of preemptive war, of assumed
right to unilateral action, and is it not time for insistence upon
preventative diplomacy and our obligations to work with the world
community on matters of global security? Why is this war being
presented as inevitable?
The headlines from the New York Times of September 12, 2002, read:
Bush to Warn UN, Act on Iraq or U.S. Will. He Leads Nation in Mourning
at Terror Sites. Mr. Speaker, there is no credible evidence linking
Iraq with 9-11. There is no evidence linking Iraq with al Qaeda. There
is no evidence linking Iraq with the anthrax attacks on this Nation.
There is no credible evidence that Iraq has usable weapons of mass
destruction, the ability to deliver those weapons or the intention to
do so. When Iraq used such weapons, sad to say, they did it with the
knowledge and sometimes with materials from the United States.
During the administration of Ronald Reagan, 60 helicopters were sold
to Iraq. Later reports said Iraq used U.S. helicopters to spray Kurds
with chemical weapons. We have heard about that. We have heard about
the Kurds being attacked by Iraq with chemical weapons, but what we
have not heard is that U.S. helicopters were used.
According to the Washington Post, Iraq used mustard gas against Iran
with the help of intelligence from the CIA. Now, we heard that Iraq
used mustard gas against Iran, but we did not hear that they did it
with the help of intelligence from the CIA. Intelligence reports cited
the use of nerve gas by Iraq against Iran. What was Iraq's punishment?
At that time, the United States reestablished full diplomatic ties,
believe it or not, around Thanksgiving of the year 1984, for the fans
of George Orwell.
Throughout 1989 and 1990, U.S. companies, with the permission of the
administration of the first President Bush, sent the government of
Saddam Hussein tons of mustard gas precursors, live cultures for
bacteriological research, helped to build a chemical weapons factory,
supplied West Nile virus, supplied fuel air explosive technology and
computers for weapons technology, and hydrogen cyanide precursors, and
computers for weapons research and development, and vacuum pumps and
bellows for nuclear weapons plants.
Now, we have to recognize that our country made a mistake in its past
dealings with Iraq; that America made a mistake giving biological
weapon capability and chemical weapon capability and nuclear weapon
capability to Saddam Hussein. That was a mistake.
But we also have to recognize that the Gulf War destroyed most of
that capability; that through 7 years of work, Scott Ritter, an arms
inspector, determined that 95 percent of what they were able to track
down in terms of Iraq's weapons have been eliminated through that
weapons inspection process, and anything else was obliterated during
the war. So there is a good reason to believe that Iraq does not have
any usable weapons of mass destruction.
I want to conclude this part, and then go to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and then back to the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Kaptur).
There is a way out of this. We do not have to go to war. It is
important that we get those inspectors in there on a timely basis.
There is a comprehensive solution to the crisis in Iraq. It
appropriately involves the United Nations.
Inspections for weapons of mass destruction should begin immediately,
and inspectors should have free and unfettered access to all sites;
but, also, we need new negotiations concerning the counterproductive
policies of regime change and sanctions. Emergency relief should be
expedited; free trade, except in arms, must be permitted; foreign
investments must be allowed; and the assets of Iraq abroad must be
stored.
So, in conclusion, on this segment, Mr. Speaker, this whole idea
about war being inevitable is wrong. War is not inevitable. We do not
have to send America's sons and daughters to perish in the streets of
Baghdad. We do not have to do that. There is a way out of this, and the
American people have a right to expect that we solve this without going
to war. They have a right to expect it.
[[Page H6362]]
I want to thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee), who has been articulate and passionate and learned in her
explication of this issue, as she is in her explication of all issues;
who serves honorably and with great integrity on the Committee on the
Judiciary.
I want to say what a pleasure it is to have the participation of the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) in this discussion. I thank
the gentlewoman for her presence, and I yield to her.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and the distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur).
May I remind those who are here today that this could almost be the
debate, if you will, since yesterday was the celebration or
commemoration of the signing of the Constitution, we could almost drift
back to how seriously the Founding Fathers, though some of the mothers
were missing, took the debate in establishing this country.
As I recall, if we would read some of the history books on this, this
was not a short-lived debate. The writing of the Constitution was not
short-lived. So I want to say to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich), my applause to him for being the curdles, if you will,
and it sounds like I am saying ``kernel'' because I have a cold, but
curdles in the milk to cause this to rise to the level of hearing of
the United States.
I think it is important before I begin my remarks, and I will try to
be concise, to let my colleagues who are listening to this debate
realize that most of us have been in Iraq meetings all day long, and in
fact, all week long.
I think part of our difficulty is to convey to the American people
that there is percolating in a broad spectrum of thought across party
lines and body lines, House and Senate, there are voices who are
raising the thought processes of what we believe the American people
would like to us to engage in, raising questions of either skepticism
or reason around this very monumental decision.
I do not wish to call colleagues' names who are probably in meetings
as we speak, but I remember a meeting this morning where a colleague
brought to our attention his service in Vietnam. What rings in my mind
is his recounting of 56,000 body bags. This colleague did not mention
that to suggest he was fearful of war, or that he would not stand for
his Nation again if he was called to do so. But I think he wanted to
remind us of the sanctity of our obligation, our moral obligation, as
well as the high responsibility that we have as the articulators of
foreign policy and the constitutional holders of the responsibility of
declaring war.
So I think it is important to know that all around the Congress there
are meetings. There are closed-door meetings, there are open meetings,
and Members are in discussion about the question of war. It saddens us,
of course, that this very active and vigorous questioning does not get
shared with the American people.
So this conversation, this debate today, I say to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), is so vital. I know we will be making this point
clear.
Might I say that part of what we are trying to do, I say to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), we have gotten some suggestions we
are going to take from meetings that we have been in all day long to
bring in the American people, to hear from them, by opening up our
various web sites.
I think, even though this is sort of an instruction comment I am
making, I think that will be very important.
{time} 1845
Might I say to you that I will be flying home to hold a citizen forum
on Iraq with experts on the issues in the area, in Houston. The
question will be simple. Should we go to war? And we will open it up at
the University of Houston. We will have the opportunity there to hear
presentations with questions and answers.
I only say this publicly because I ask my colleagues as we are in
meetings here in Washington, because no one is reporting that we are in
meetings, that we are having intense discussions, that we go home and
do the same.
Now, getting aside those as my issues, let me turn now very briefly
again to why I joined my colleagues in saying we have options. The
gentlewoman has already eloquently given us a historical perspective
about how we have treated Iraq, what we gave to Iraq as the gentleman
has said. Let me bring it forward to suggest two themes.
During our recesses we were hearing something that disturbed many of
us, the question of regime change. For the life of me, I could not
remember in any way where we had adopted a policy on behalf of the
United States that I did not like my neighbor and I would simply knock
on their door and say, It is time to get out of your house. We all made
the point that we, not a one in this Congress would claim that Saddam
Hussein is a friend to any of us including his own people. But the
United States has never functioned as an offender, has never functioned
as a perpetrator, if you will, of violence. We have always been
victorious as a defender.
The times we have stepped over the line, we have questioned that
policy. And I raise Vietnam because I remember very clearly the domino
theory. That is why we went in allegedly. We were fearful of communism
spreading, but in the end we lost 56,000. And I am not sure the final
conclusion of that, though we never, never, never in any way condemned
the young men and women, the men who lost their lives and the valor of
our heroes who served us in Vietnam. I will never undermine their
services. They are my heroes.
But I took from that a greater responsibility whenever I made a
decision as a Member of this body to go to war. And so the point that
should be made is that we have an alternative and there is an
alternative voice. I believe that voice is free of politics. I, in
fact, believe that there are voices and we have heard voices on both
sides of the aisle, Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
For that reason, I believe a very pronounced statement by one of our
distinguished colleagues, one of the ranking members of an important
committee, the Committee on International Relations, should be heard,
that we should have a special session in order to let everyone have the
time to deliberate as the Founding Fathers did, so that the members of
this Nation can listen to deliberative thought on what the next step
should be.
I believe, further, that we have heard a response and we should claim
victory where victory has been gained. One, Congress is now engaged
based upon the voices that were raised a few weeks ago; and, of course,
I think we as Members raised our voices, many of us, even before the
recess; and so it was heard and Congress has now actively engaged.
The second victory is that the President of the United States, who I
will give applause to, did go to the United Nations. We gave, if you
will, the world body the understanding that we do play on the world
stage in a unified manner because we will only stand together or fall
together. We must give credibility to that decision where the United
Nations joined us in saying to Saddam Hussein, we must have unfettered
entry into your country. And then what do we get in the last 24 hours?
A response back, yes, you can.
Now, we can always reject the bride, the fiance, I do not know what
we wish to call him, on the basis of I have heard this before. But how
unfortunate it would be if peace looks us in the eye or some
reconciliation looks us in the eye and we do not accept it. I believe
it is important that we go with a thousand U.N. inspectors unfettered
and immediately respond to Iraq's invitation, get there now and begin
to challenge him on his own soil. Let us look.
I do not believe we should spin it, that he is not serious, that this
is worthless in terms of his offer and we are now headed towards war.
And the reason why I say that, as I try to conclude on some elements of
where many of us are thinking, is because another colleague today in a
long meeting on Iraq mentioned his constituents who traveled a mighty
long way to plead with him of the desperate need of prescription drug
benefits through Medicare guarantee, of nursing homes that are closing,
of hospitals that may be closing, of Social Security issues that are
falling around our knees, of people who have lost millions of dollars
in stocks and 401(k)s that we have not responded to, and they asked us
to put a
[[Page H6363]]
reasonable restraint on going to war because they asked us about the
money.
I believe he might have responded, I am not putting words in his
mouth, that we are already spending a billion dollars a month in
Afghanistan. And then he had to confront the article and the statement
from Lawrence Lindsey, Bush economic aid says on September 17 that the
cost of the Iraq war may top $100 billion.
That is why this debate is so vital, and that is why the voice of
those who have been in meetings all day long for fear that nobody is
reporting the seriousness of these discussions. I have said this two or
three times, this is why we have got to be able to get the attention of
the American public and as well the President, that we have an action
item, U.N. inspectors, and we do not need to take it to the next level
of a war.
I believe if we can engage the American people, we will find the
respect of the world because there is no doubt of this Nation's
military power. We have to make no excuses for what we have the ability
to accomplish.
Our greater, our greater results will be our ability to coalesce in
the world arena, to be successful in the agenda of ridding Iraq of
these weapons of mass destruction in the manner of the world family and
the United Nations, and saying to this country, we will send no son and
no daughter into harm's way, into the evils of war without deliberative
thought and all manner of diplomacy tried, and all efforts of each and
every one of us and the administration working together.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman because
when she spoke of sons and daughters, that is what this is really
about. This is about the sons and daughters of American people. It is
about the sons and daughters of the Iraqi people who have to suffer
this dictator, Saddam Hussein; and it is also about future generations.
And so I thank the gentlewoman for participating in this discourse and
she is welcome to stay if she can.
I want to go back to our good friend and my colleague, the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who has ended the last discussion.
We were talking about the impact on oil as an issue here, and I thought
she raised some good points; and I wanted to thank her and if the
gentlewoman would continue.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to join the
gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), and commend her
highly for the forum that will be held in Houston on Iraq and should
America go to war. As always she is in the forefront of the leadership
in this institution and in our country.
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to follow up on something that the
gentlewoman had stated regarding reasons of war and to point out to
those who are listening that there is in this post-Cold War world that
there is a shifting of relationships, and nations are trying to find
their way forward with new alliances; and the United States in that
context has to be careful in order to not be perceived as, one, a
Nation that would commit naked aggression. That is something the United
States fought for the entirety of the 20th century. Rather, a Nation
that always engages for justified wars, justifiable purposes. And there
is a distinction, and we should not abrogate our heritage. It is what
has gained us the stature that we do have internally and externally.
Mr. Speaker, I also wanted to follow on something the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) talked about when we were discussing the internal
state of Iraq, their economy and their military. I think it is
important to put on the record that two-thirds of Saddam Hussein's
forces were leveled in the Persian Gulf War. In other words, the force
is one-third of what it used to be.
The American people should not have the illusion that over the 10
years during which we and other countries have maintained the no-fly
zone over Iraq that there has not been constant bombing and constant
economic sanctions that have made life difficult for people inside that
country, and, indeed, children dying, not enough food, extraordinary
poverty among so many people. The conditions inside Iraq are abysmal.
In addition to that, Iraq essentially is an oil state. And as I
mentioned earlier, it has the largest reserves outside of Saudi Arabia.
Prior to the Persian Gulf War, Iraq had been pumping 3.5 million
barrels a day. Today she pumps but 1.7 million barrels a day. That says
that not only are the sanctions hurting her, but the lack of production
is hurting her as well.
And Iraq does not operate in a vacuum. She operates in a part of the
world where not everyone is her friend. And certainly she has had
historic rivalries with Iran, and we all know about the invasion of
Kuwait. Iraq is a secular nation in that part of the world that also
has tried to defend herself from fears relating to relations with
surrounding countries. So I think it is important to be realistic about
what is going on there.
Therefore, we read in the Wall Street Journal, September 17, Lawrence
Lindsey, the President's head of the White House National Economic
Council, making the following statement, `` `When there is a regime
change in Iraq, you could add 3 million to 5 million barrels of
production to world supply each day,' Mr. Lindsey estimated. `The
successful prosecution of the war would be good for the U.S. economy.'
''
Mr. Speaker, the entire article is as follows:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 17, 2002]
Bush Economic Aide Says Cost of Iraq War May Top $100 Billion
(By Bob Davis)
Washington.--President Bush's chief economic adviser
estimates that the U.S. may have to spend between $100
billion and $200 billion to wage a war in Iraq, but doubts
that the hostilities would push the nation into recession or
a sustained period of inflation.
Lawrence Lindsey, head of the White House's National
Economic Council, projected the ``upper bound'' of war costs
at between 1% and 2% of U.S. gross domestic product. With the
U.S. GDP at about $10 trillion per year, that translates into
a one-time cost of $100 billion to $200 billion. That is
considerably higher than a preliminary, private Pentagon
estimate of about $50 billion.
In an interview in his White House office. Mr. Lindsey
dismissed the economic consequences of such spending, saying
it wouldn't have an appreciable effect on interest rates or
add much to the federal debt, which is already about $3.6
trillion. ``One year'' of additional spending? he said.
``That's nothing.''
At the same time, he doubted that the additional spending
would give the economy much of a lift. ``Government spending
tends not to be that stimulative,'' he said. ``Building
weapons and expending them isn't the basis of sustained
economic growth.''
Administration officials have been unwilling to talk about
the specific costs of a war, preferring to discuss the
removal of Mr. Hussein in foreign-policy or even moral terms.
Discussing the economics of the war could make it seem as if
the U.S. were going to war over oil. That could sap support
domestically and abroad, especially in the Mideast where
critics suspect the U.S. of wanting to seize Arab oil fields.
Mr. Lindsey, who didn't provide a detailed analysis of the
costs, drew an analogy between the potential war expenditures
with an investment in the removal of a threat to the economy.
``It's hard for me to see how we have sustained economic
growth in a world where terrorists with weapons of mass
destruction are running around,'' he said. If you weigh the
cost of the war against the removal of a ``huge drag on
global economic growth for a foreseeable time in the future,
there's no comparison.''
Other administration economists say that their main fear is
that an Iraq war could lead to a sustained spike in prices.
The past four recessions have been preceded by the price of
oil jumping to higher than $30 a barrel, according to BCA
Research.com in Montreal. But the White House believes that
removing Iraqi oil from production during a war--which would
likely lead to a short-term rise in prices--would be
insufficient to tip the economy into recession. What is
worrisome, economists say, is if the war widens and another
large Middle East supplier stops selling to the U.S., either
because of an Iraqi attack or out of solidarity with Saddam
Hussein's regime.
Mr. Lindsey said that Mr. Hussein's ouster could actually
ease the oil problem by increasing supplies. Iraqi production
has been constrained somewhat because of its limited
investment and political factors. ``When there is a regime
change in Iraq, you could add three million to five million
barrels of production to world supply'' each day. Mr. Lindsey
estimated. ``The successful prosecution of the war would be
good for the economy.''
Currently, Iraq produces 1.7 million barrels of oil daily,
according to OPEC figures. Before the Gulf War, Iraq produced
around 3.5 million barrels a day.
Mr. Lindsey's cost estimate is higher than the $50 billion
number offered privately by the pentagon in its conversations
with Congress. The difference shows the pitfalls of
predicting the cost of a military conflict when nobody is
sure how difficult or long it will be. Whatever the bottom
line, the war's costs would be significant enough to make it
[[Page H6364]]
harder for the Bush administration to climb out of the
budget-deficit hole it faces because of the economic slowdown
and expense of the war on terrorism.
Mr. Lindsey didn't spell out the specifics of the spending
and didn't make clear whether he was including in his
estimate the cost of rebuilding Iraq or installing a new
regime. His estimate is roughly in line with the $58 billion
cost of the gulf War, which equaled about 1 percent of GDP in
1991. During that war, U.S. allies paid $48 billion of the
cost, says William Hoagland, chief Republican staffer of the
Senate Budget Committee.
This time it is far from clear how much of the cost--if
any--America's allies would be willing to bear. Most European
allies, apart form Britain, have been trying to dissuade Mr.
Bush from launching an attack, at least without a United
Nations resolution of approval. But if the U.S. decides to
invade, it may be able to get the allies to pick up some of
the tab if only to help their companies cash in on the bounty
from a post-Saddam Iraq.
Toppling Mr. Hussein could be more expensive than the
Persian Gulf War if the U.S. has to keep a large number of
troops in the country to stabilize it once Mr. Hussein is
removed from power. Despite the Bush administration's
aversion to nation building, Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of
U.S. troops in the Middle East and Central Asia, recently
said that the U.S. troops in Afghanistan likely would remain
for years to come. The same is almost certain to be true in
Iraq. Keeping the peace among Iraq's fractious ethnic groups
almost certainly will require a long-term commitment of U.S.
troops.
During the Gulf War, the U.S. fielded 500,000 troops. A far
smaller force is anticipated in a new attack on Iraq. But the
GOP's Mr. Hoagland said the costs could be higher because of
the expense of a new generation of smart missiles and bombs.
In addition, the nature of the assault this time is expected
to be different. During the Gulf War, U.S. troops bombed from
above and sent tank-led troops in for a lighting sweep
through the Iraqi desert. A new Iraq war could involve
prolonged fighting in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities--even
including house-to-house combat.
The Gulf War started with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in
August 1990, which prompted a brief recession. The U.S.
started bombing Iraq on Jan. 16, 1991, and called a halt to
the ground offensive at the end of February.
With Iraq's invasion, oil prices spiked and consumer
confidence in the U.S. plunged. But Mr. Lindsey said the
chance of that happening again is ``small.'' U.S. diplomats
have been trying to get assurances from Saudi Arabia, Russia
and other oil-producing states that they would make up for
any lost Iraqi oil production. In addition, Mr. Lindsey said
that the pumping equipment at the nation's Strategic
Petroleum Reserve has been improved so oil is easier to tap,
if necessary. Both the Bush and Clinton administrations, he
said, wanted to ``make sure you can pump oil out quickly.''
On Thursday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said
he doubted a war would lead to recession because of the
reduced dependence of the U.S. economy on oil. ``I don't
think that . . . the effect of oil as it stands at this
particular stage, is large enough to impact the economy
unless the hostilities are prolonged.'' Mr. Greenspan told
the House Budget Committee. ``If we go through a time frame
such as the Gulf War, it is unlikely to have a significant
impact on us.''
The U.S. economy also has become less dependent on oil than
it was in 1990, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at
Economy.com, an economic consulting group in West Chester,
Pa. A larger percentage of economic activity comes from
services, as compared with energy-intensive manufacturers, he
said. Many of those manufacturers also use more energy-
efficient machinery.
We have to begin to connect the dots here with the President's
advisers and with what is really going on, knowing the internals of
Iraq, the nations that she relates to, her internal economic situation,
and keeping our eye on when the enemy is, who was responsible for the
World Trade Center, for the Pentagon and for the disaster over
Pennsylvania. It is al Qaeda. They do not have roots in Iraq.
We have persistently asked the administration for any ties that they
can see there; and I would just urge, as I know my colleagues are, the
American people to distinguish between hearsay and evidence regarding
what al Qaeda has done and what Iraq's record might be.
Now, is Iraq a perfect country? I daresay not. It is not my favorite
form of government. No repressive state is. But in that part of the
world there is not a single democracy or functioning democratic
republic. It simply does not exist. This is the challenge for the new
generation, to embrace this part of the world in ways that builds more
open societies. But, certainly, naked aggression by a superpower with
no evidence presented to this Congress is not a way to make friends in
that part of the world where, frankly, America needs to make friends.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to put on the record tonight if there
are any officials who may be listening, and I am sure my colleague, the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), would agree with this, from the
government of Iraq. I, as one Member of Congress, and I know some of my
colleagues would join me in this, would certainly entertain a request
from the government of Iraq from Saddam Hussein to meet with Members of
this Congress to negotiate the terms of inspection, respecting the role
of the United Nations, having members of the United Nations team join
us for that; but to extend an open arm to the people of Iraq as we move
into this 21st century, to write a new page in history.
We know we do not have a great deal of trust, but one has to confront
one's enemies. One has to be able to talk. Only with that kind of
negotiation does one avoid war. Whether it is through third parties
first and then we move to that step, as I as one Member of Congress
would certainly be open to it. And I think that a number of my
colleagues would join me in that effort.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman is correct in suggesting
that we should open up discussions and negotiations. I mean, is that
not our purpose as a Nation to find a way to communicate with other
nations and with the community of nations bring about global security?
Certainly when any one nation in that community of nations wants to
stand apart and threaten the safety and the peace of the community of
nations, that needs to be regarded. That is why we need arms inspectors
in Iraq.
But I want to go back to something I said initially, and that is that
Iraq has not been connected to 9-11. There is no connection at all.
There is no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
{time} 1900
Even the CIA had to admit that. There is no connection between Iraq
and the anthrax attacks. Americans are still grieving about 9-11, but I
do not think there is a single person in this country who believes that
we should attack a Nation as a payback for 9-11 when they did not have
anything to do with it, and yet some people in this confusion are
turning around and connecting Iraq with 9-11.
We need the inspectors, but we already know from the work that Scott
Ritter did that there are not any usable weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq. They do not have the ability to deliver such weapons to attack
the United States. If Israel thought they had the ability to deliver
such weapons to Israel, Israel has the military force to destroy that
Iraqi capability if they had it.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KUCINICH. I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to mention during the Persian
Gulf War when I served here and Iraq was able to launch some SCUD
missiles into Israel, at that time, she could have equipped them with
chemical weapons, with biological weapons, but it was not done, and why
would that be? I think because Saddam Hussein, as military leader in
his own country, recognized that he and his Nation would face
annihilation if that happened. So there is a rational military mind
working there.
Mr. KUCINICH. The gentlewoman is correct, and we go back to this,
that there is a way out of this mess that we are in. We need a
comprehensive solution to the crisis in Iraq, and that solution
appropriately involves the world community through the United Nations.
Those inspections ought to begin immediately, and we should work
cooperatively with all nations to rid Iraq of any weapons of mass
destruction or any capability they may have if such weapons exist, and
we should come up with a comprehensive solution which includes
negotiations over sanctions because we know that hundreds of thousands
of innocent Iraqi children have perished because of those sanctions,
and we should include negotiations over the no-fly zone. We need to
create a framework in the region for a zone free of weapons of mass
destruction to ensure we do not come back to the situation at another
time.
The thing that gets me is we want Iraq to give up weapons of mass
destruction if they have them, but why
[[Page H6365]]
would Saddam Hussein want to cooperate with the United States if we
have a policy of regime change which also includes a policy of wanting
to assassinate him? If you have inspectors in your country and they are
measuring you for a box, you might think twice about showing them
around because sooner or later something might happen to you.
So if we truly want to get rid of weapons of mass destruction, we
should set aside the regime change policy which defeats the goal of
assuring compliance. We should rescind our policy which permits
assassination of foreign leaders. I think there is a comprehensive
solution which can avoid the war, and if the administration truly
desires a solution without war, it must explain how that squares with
its stated policy of regime change.
The goal of the United Nations is weapons inspections with these
competing goals of, on one hand, weapons inspections and then regime
change is going to make it very difficult to have peaceful resolution.
I think that war is not inevitable here. Except if the administration's
goal, if the irreducible goal is the overthrow of the Iraqi government,
then we are going to have difficulty completing the inspections in
which we place so much hope.
So one of the things that we have been told over the last few weeks
is that Iraq presents an imminent threat. A number of us have had
discussions across the country, and we have talked to people who are
really learned on these arms issues, and they say Iraq really is not an
imminent threat. So what is the rush to war? In my district, which is
similar to the gentlewoman from Ohio's (Ms. Kaptur), in Toledo, in
Cleveland, people talk about an imminent threat, but they do not talk
about Iraq. They talk about the threat of not having health insurance.
There are 41 million people in this country without health insurance.
That is imminent threat. Senior citizens talk about not having access
to a plan which can reduce the cost of prescription drugs for them. The
high cost of prescription drugs, that is an imminent threat to the
American people.
The corruption in Wall Street which took hundreds of billions of
dollars away from investors over a period of time, that is an imminent
threat. So many people lost their 401(k)s. That is imminent threat.
People in our manufacturing industries losing their job, that is
imminent threat to the American people and a long-term threat to our
economy. I get calls in my office in Cleveland from people who are
right on the edge of losing their homes. They have an imminent threat
of losing their homes. People who need a job, retirees who lost their
health insurance because their company went bankrupt, they are an
imminent threat because they cannot get decent health care and they are
in their senior years, not yet eligible for Medicare, though.
American people have a right to expect that we do something about
these issues that affect their domestic economy, but because of all
this war talk, because of this talk of an imminent threat from Iraq,
which does not have usable weapons of mass destruction, which does not
have the ability to deliver those weapons, which has not indicated an
intent to do so, which did not have anything to do with 9-11, which did
not have anything to do with al Qaeda, which did not have anything to
do with the anthrax attacks, because of this imminent threat by Iraq,
we somehow are supposed to forget all of the concerns of the American
people who are suffering in this economy and an economy which is
slowing down. We are supposed to forget all that because Iraq is an
imminent threat.
Iraq is not an imminent threat, but the destruction of the American
economy, the destruction of people's 401(k)s, the destruction of a
family when someone has a serious illness and they cannot pay for it,
that is an imminent threat, and we in this country have an obligation.
We should demand that this country start focusing on the real problems
which affect the daily lives of the American people. I did not come
here to have to cast a vote on a bogus war against Iraq to let the real
human concerns of my people in my district go wanting.
As the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) said, $100 billion
and more will be spent on this war and my senior citizens in my
district are splitting their pills so they can make their prescriptions
last because they cannot afford the cost of a prescription drug.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his passionate
statement and the people of the Cleveland area are indeed fortunate to
have him here.
I would only add, when the gentleman talks about imminent threat,
that if one looks at why we are in the current recession and what
triggered it, it was rising oil prices, as happened during the 1970s,
when the Arab oil embargo twice delivered body blows to this economy
and we had prices skyrocket. The price of oil doubled per barrel until
the OPEC nations said, gosh, this is not so good if we make America
fall to its knees because of imported oil. Then it started to control
prices from places like Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, United Arab
Emirates, all those countries, and then we moved into the Persian Gulf
War in the early 1990s when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and again, why?
Because of the threat to the world economy, especially our own, and the
instability inherent in these oil economies.
Then just 2 years ago next month, the suicide bombing of the USS Cole
in Yemen harbor, our destroyer. What was she doing there? Guarding the
lanes of commerce as those oil tankers come out of the Persian Gulf
into the West here, unload, and then it is refined here. Now, with Iraq
and all these statements being made by the Bush administration, which
has enormous ties to oil, it is no secret that Kenneth Lay and Enron
were the largest contributors to the Bush campaign, we have this
drumbeat for more U.S. involvement in that part of the world where oil
props up every single one of those countries, whether it is Saudi
Arabia, whether it is Iraq, whether it is Kuwait.
We really start looking around and saying, oh, and even Afghanistan,
where the pipeline has to run from the Caspian Sea through Afghanistan
in order for that crude oil to reach its destination, one of the
imminent threats to the United States where over half of our oil is now
imported, 25 percent of it from that part of the world, about 28
percent actually, we have to become energy self-sufficient here at
home.
So I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) thanks for
all the efforts he has made with us to move into renewable energy
supplies from a hydrocarbon economy to a carbohydrate, a photovoltaic
economy, moving into fuel cells and new forms of power for this country
so we can cut the umbilical cord to so many of these places in the
world that have undemocratic regimes, and every time a consumer in our
country goes to the gas pump, half the money they pay for that fuel
goes to Saudi Arabia, Iraq. It goes to Venezuela, Nigeria. Not a single
democratic republic among them.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I have a report here that was done by
Miriam Pemberton, who is with the Institute for Policy Studies. She
delivered this to a congressional briefing. She said that fears that
the U.S. might go ahead with an attack on Iraq have already begun to
affect oil prices. When people are going around to the pumps, just the
talk of war is starting to affect oil prices. Oil is already trading
close to an 18-month high of $30 a barrel. Ten months ago, according to
this report, we forget, but 10 months ago, the price was half that. So
within 10 months, oil has doubled in the price per barrel.
As the war fever keeps going, in effect what we have, the war fever
has created a premium. So the oil companies are making more money on
the war talk, and each time a U.S. official comes out and says
something, she says in this report, that suggests an attack is actually
imminent or is likely to happen, oil prices spike.
Vice President Cheney made the first of two such speeches on August
26, for example, and by the end of the day the price of each barrel
sold on the U.S. market had jumped 65 cents. Think about that, what war
talk does.
What does a real war do? The last invasion of Iraq, right after it,
oil prices doubled. They stayed high, according to this report, for the
better part of a year. A repeat would create ripple effects throughout
our economy. Miriam Pemberton says that estimates by Wall Street
analysts indicate that a $10 per
[[Page H6366]]
barrel rise in oil prices, that would be half the amount of the last
Gulf War, would over a year's time reduce U.S. GDP growth by about half
a percent and add nearly 1 percent to inflation.
She goes on to say the economic drag from this oil price shock is
being felt most strongly across the transportation sectors, and she
also says that most analysts expect that a U.S. attack on Iraq would
send the price of oil beyond $50 a barrel. In other words, more than
three times what it was 10 months ago.
So I think that we need to understand that the cost of war is not
only in our tax dollars, not only in this horrible cost of the lives of
the young men and women we send over there, but also when we combine it
with the tax cuts and the large increases in military spending, we are
looking at a disaster for our economy. Slower growth, a recession. So
we should be very concerned about the economic impact, the immediate
impact of this war, and we should be concerned about the long-term
economic impact of this war.
This is still about the economy, and remember, all of these debates
get swept aside with the war talk. Each time the administration stands
up and talks about war, we pay for it at the gas pump.
{time} 1915
If we go to war, the prices are going to go up three times what they
were 10 months ago. These are the concerns I have.
Mr. Speaker, in the closing few minutes I would like to, with my
colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), talk about what I am
hearing from my constituents in Cleveland. When they ask me what can we
do, what can anyone do about this rush towards war, talk about a few
things that are possible. I hear from the people in my district; they
do not want a war. They expect us to solve this without going to war.
They expect that we have the talent and the ability to solve these very
difficult problems with other nations, particularly with a nation that
used to be a good friend over in the gulf and to whom we sold chemical
and biological and nuclear weapons capabilities; and if we could do
that a few years ago, why not solve this. Look at the battlefields of
World War II. We were at war with Japan and Germany, and they are our
good friends now.
We need to work with the international community now. Let us suppose
this effort, despite all of our work, just keeps moving along. What can
people do, they ask me. Here is what can be done. There needs to be
meetings all over this Nation in city councils, town halls, in labor
halls and community centers. People need to come together, and they
need to talk about how they feel about this. They need to organize.
When I was elected to city council in Cleveland many years ago, I got
elected by knocking on doors. I did not have any money. I just went
door to door and talked to people. We need to talk to each other again.
We need an up-lifting of our civic consciousness. We need to recreate
our civic soul in this country. We need to recreate our national sense
of conscience; and we do it by talking to each other, by organizing
door to door. Go to your neighbors, create a place for a meeting. Take
the information door to door about the meeting. Let people know where
they can come to talk about it and then talk about gathering more and
more people. Gather by the thousands in your town squares. This is what
I tell my constituents.
We need a national revival of this concept of government of the
people. Government of the people works because people stay involved.
Lincoln's prayer, the prayer that he gave at Gettysburg, a government
of the people, by the people, and for the people, the way it is
realized is when people get involved. So knock on doors. Put a piece of
literature in people's hands, I tell my constituents. Tell them how
they can come to a meeting. Tell them that they are needed. Bring
people together, set an agenda, invite your Member of Congress or other
government officials. Invite church leaders to moderate it. We need it
talk to each other about this. We can avoid this war. It is not
inevitable. We need to connect again with each other.
Each of us is an architect of the world, and our thoughts and words
and our deeds are part of that structure of the world. We can recreate
the world right now. War is not inevitable. Peace is inevitable if we
begin talking to each other and organize at a community level.
There are polling lists available. You can go to a board of elections
and find out who the voters are in your precinct, and you can get a
list of phone numbers and call people and go back to contacting people,
hold those meetings and hold those rallies. I believe, as I tell my
constituents about this, that we can turn this around, that we are not
stuck with war; but we need to hear from the American people. And my
constituents, I tell them, if you talk to your neighbors about it, we
can catalyze a change in this country. And I know that the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) works closely with her constituents and tells
them how they can make a difference.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, some of the best forums that we have
involved a combination of universities, church leaders, community
activists, citizens, just inviting ordinary citizens to learn. Many
people feel powerless. They feel this is foreign policy, what can I do
about that. I think they underestimate their own power.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentlewoman is right. Today we
have this new structure of the Web. They say I do not know how to use
it. I say ask your kids. They have computers. They can get you on a
site and you can start to talk to people.
We need to use the available technology that we have; but the best
technology in a democracy is the human heart because across this
country people can feel in their hearts that this war is wrong. Across
this country, people know that America has a higher destiny, that it is
not our destiny to be the policeman of the world. It is not our destiny
to choose who should be the ruler or leader of another nation. It is
our destiny to fulfill the democracy here and to defend freedom when we
must.
I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) and the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) for participating here and for
starting this discussion that war is not inevitable, that Iraq was not
connected to 9-11, that there is a chance that we can move forward with
our intelligence, that we can some day evolve to a place where what
President Franklin Roosevelt called the science of human relationships
can be used to resolve our problems, not weapons technology which
destroy, but our own capability to evolve in heart and soul, to become
more than we are so we fulfill this dream of our founders of a
government which is enlightened and a government which has a special
connection to its people.
____________________