[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 119 (Thursday, September 19, 2002)]
[House]
[Page H6411]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NEED FOR WAR WITH IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Platts). Under a previous order of the 
House, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett), to place on the record this evening information 
important to the American people.
  One of the questions I have on this resolution that President Bush 
has sent up to the Congress, the joint resolution to authorize the use 
of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, is the first question of 
why now, 7 weeks before an election?
  Just about a week ago, the President properly appeared before the 
United Nations, and he talked about the grave and gathering danger of 
what was occurring inside Iraq relative to Iraq's development of 
nuclear weapons and biological and chemical weapons. But the President 
did not say an imminent danger. In other words, 7 weeks before an 
election in this country, why does a grave and gathering danger require 
us to take precipitous action against another nation state? I would ask 
the President if action is not imminent, why now? Why now are we faced 
with this resolution, 7 weeks before congressional elections? It is 
very, very curious timing.
  One of the other questions I would ask the President is who is the 
enemy? Now, we know who caused the carnage over New York and 
Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon, and we know al Qaeda is a Middle 
Eastern-based terrorist network, but their base is not Iraq. So I would 
say, what is the connection between al Qaeda, where our attention 
should be focused, and Iraq?
  I have gone to every single briefing here in the Capitol this week 
trying to get the evidence from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence 
Agency, former ambassadors from that region, weapons inspectors that 
have gone into Iraq in prior years. They have established no connection 
between al Qaeda and Iraq. So, who is the enemy? Who is the enemy, Mr. 
President, and why are you trying to pass this resolution at this 
point?
  Our forces are engaged in many places on the globe, certainly keeping 
order in the Balkans. But now we have the Afghanistan situation facing 
us with terrible, terrible disruption inside that country, with 
terrorists coming back, the Taliban, the leftovers, creating 
difficulties in that region of the world. And I think it is very 
important to recognize that moving into Iraq will be a significant 
military undertaking.
  Who is the enemy? Who is the enemy? We are not saying that Saddam 
Hussein and that despotic regime functions in a way that we consider 
acceptable on the face of the Earth. But what is the justification for 
now?
  Let me mention also, is it just a coincidence that in Iraq, which 
holds the second largest supply of the world's oil reserves, is there 
any possibility that in the resolution the President has sent us where 
he talks about defending the national security interests of the United 
States and restoring international peace and security in the region, 
that it might have anything to do with the oil that sits underground in 
that particular country?
  We know that about 2 years ago in October one of our destroyers, the 
U.S.S. Cole, was suicide-bombed in Yemen Harbor, and we know that we 
are extended in that part of the world to protect the oil lanes that 
are supplying this country every day.
  I say to myself when I look at the President's plan for energy that 
he sent up here earlier this year, what a disappointment to me as an 
American, a 21st-century American, that he has us wed to oil as the 
future, a diminishing resource.
  We should be moving to a carbohydrate future, not a hydrocarbon 
future in this country. We should be moving toward a hydrogen future, 
not a petroleum future. We should be moving to a photovoltaic future, 
to a fuel cell future, not a petroleum future. So both domestic policy 
and the flawed energy document released and our foreign policy are 
totally tied together in this wedding of oil and politics that has been 
the heritage of this country for the last 70 years.
  It is time to change. America wants to move on. In fact, if we 
removed oil as a proxy for our foreign policy, what a different world 
this would be.
  I think it is important to remind the American people that the 
current recession that we are in, causing significant damage across 
this country, including in districts like mine, was triggered by rising 
oil prices. Lots has happened since that occurred; but nonetheless, 
look at what you spend at the gas pump and watch international events 
and how they are tied to oil.
  I would just say that it is time for America to change. I look 
forward to future debates on this resolution and the future direction 
for this country that is domestically independent and at peace in the 
world.

                          ____________________