[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.

                          ____________________