[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 24, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6549-H6556]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            WAGING THE PEACE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Akin). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, how we wage peace should be the agenda 
priority as we close out the 107th Congress. To attack or not to attack 
Iraq should not be the issue which dominates the final work of this 
Congress. To attack or not to attack should not be the question which 
overwhelms the minds of America at this critical hour as we move toward 
very important elections on November 5.
  If September 11, 2001, has made the American people preoccupied with 
security and safety from terrorism, then let us examine all of the 
components and elements of a program to make our Nation more secure and 
more safe: Action involving Iraq, whether it is United Nations 
inspections or military offensive, at the conclusion of either one, we 
will still face major questions of security and safety from terrorism.
  Only serious attention to the full agenda of the Congress can 
accomplish our continuing mission to make this Nation secure and safe. 
Our Nation is most secure not when we wage war but when we mount a 
sustained peace offensive. We must pass laws, we must appropriate money 
which supports the increase of prosperity and peace. Security and 
safety are enhanced when we have a foreign policy and a foreign aid 
program which promotes peace.
  Our Nation's security is threatened when we conduct silly and 
wasteful sessions of Congress like the present session. The present 
session includes days like today when we voted on three resolutions. 
One was Recognizing the 100th Anniversary of the 4-H Youth Development 
Program, another was on the Sense of Congress Regarding American Gold 
Star Mothers, and another was Welcoming Madame Chen Wu Sue-Jen, the 
First Lady of Taiwan, three resolutions that got all 435 votes, three 
resolutions which could have been handled with a voice vote of no 
substance, and we have been doing this for the last 3 or 4 weeks as we 
close out this Congress.

                              {time}  2230

  We need to focus on vital programs, such as senior prescription drug 
benefits, an increase in the minimum wage, minimum funding for school 
repairs, pension reform which stops corporate stealing and retrieves 
the millions of dollars swindled from ordinary workers. If we spend the 
remaining weeks and days of this Congress with a total focus on Iraq 
instead, we will engage in a major betrayal of our constituents.

[[Page H6550]]

  I think the Iraq question is very important. I think we cannot escape 
a conclusion on the matter as soon as possible. But to attack or not to 
attack Iraq should not be the issue which obliterates all other 
discussion of all other issues, all of the other issues all very much 
related to the question of security and safety from terrorism.
  We should have learned from the past the lessons of the Vietnam War 
and previous wars. We should understand certain important matters that 
need to be put back on the table. We cannot have too much discussion. 
People have chosen to forget that there was a Marshall Plan which waged 
the peace where we took the initiative against forces that were 
gathering after World War II, forces that would have made for chaos and 
a lot of conflict between nations, forces that might have paved the way 
for a Communist takeover of bankrupt economies in Europe; and we waged 
peace and we won. If we wage the peace instead of waging war at this 
particular time, we might find we are more secure and we are more safe 
from terrorism.
  Let us just take two examples. If we focus instead of on the nation 
of Iraq and the need to attack Iraq because some say it poses some kind 
of danger to us, and I will come back to that later, if we focus 
instead on Pakistan, another Muslim nation, and looked at the fact that 
Pakistan, the leadership there, has taken a great chance in agreeing to 
serve as our allies in the fight against terrorism. Instead of spending 
60 billion or more dollars in a war with Iraq, why do we not spend more 
money to improve the democracy in Pakistan? Pakistan already has 
nuclear weapons. Pakistan has, by the most conservative estimate, 150 
million people, some say 180 million people. Pakistan has already 
declared as our allies in the war against terrorism as they were our 
allies in the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, as they have 
been in the Cold War over the years.
  So why not approach the present problem with an overwhelming embrace 
of a Muslim nation like Pakistan; and by doing great things for 
Pakistan, improving the education and a number of other things, we 
would do far more to secure the world against Islamic fanaticism than 
we will by attacking Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
  I have gotten quite a number of letters, as most of us have, 
communications from various constituents; and I want to read some of 
those tonight as well as talk about the need to wage the peace as an 
answer to those who want to wage war. I want to talk a little bit about 
who is going to fight the war if the war has to be fought. It is the 
young men and women out there who need the minimum-wage increase. Wars 
in America have always been fought by people in the low-income 
brackets. They are the ones who go out and die. We ought to take care 
of their minimum-wage needs. We ought to take care of their needs for 
safe places to work in. We ought to deal with the corporate empires 
that have been cheating them out of their pension funds. We ought to 
deal with the fact that many of our veterans are now suffering greatly 
because they do not have adequate health care. And among the items they 
need is some help with their prescription drugs. I am going to come 
back to that and talk about how we wage the peace, how we deal with 
making ourselves safe and secure from terrorism by waging that peace.
  I have no illusions about the menace that Saddam Hussein represents. 
I think Saddam Hussein has a lot in common with Hitler. Since he does 
not possess a German war machine behind him, however, he does not pose 
an overt military threat to America as Hitler did. But the same brutal 
egomaniacal mind-set is at work in Saddam Hussein and we can see that, 
so I think we need to find ways to deal with Saddam Hussein, but I do 
not think that going to war as is being proposed by our President is 
the way to do it. I think we run the risk of making matters worse. We 
could cause the evil that this tyrant represents to actually mushroom. 
An action against Saddam Hussein might unleash the dogs of chaos in a 
new world order of disorder. Any well-armed nation could target a 
weaker nation and charge them with menacing action before launching a 
preemptive preventive military attack. That would be the worst kind of 
world to live in.
  Before I go on, I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding, and I thank him for this opportunity to have an exchange with 
him on some very vital issues and engage our colleagues in a debate 
that I think is enormously important. You mentioned something as I was 
coming to the floor and was listening to why are we here and why are we 
here in this Congress and what are the important issues. And 
particularly on the issue of going to war with Iraq, you captured the 
sentiment of many of my constituents.

  This weekend I held a citizens forum on Iraq with an enormous amount 
of participation from my district but more importantly very wise and 
informed experts that we had from a number of our academic 
institutions, Texas Southern University, the University of Houston and 
St. Thomas University; but one of the things that came out of the 
audience is the fact that the young men and women that will go to war 
are our children and that in large numbers, a war with Iraq as it seems 
to be intended by this administration will be a bloody war with a great 
deal of loss of life, of American lives. At the same time, of course, 
it will compound the loss of lives of women and children and men, 
families, in Iraq. The question becomes, how do we deal with the 
prominence that the United States has gotten as the only and singular 
world power? Does it in any way diminish the United States to engage in 
diplomacy?
  And so the question has to go to the administration as to why we are 
rushing so fast to war. What is the entrance and exit strategy that we 
would have if we engaged in a war in Iraq? What is the answer to the 
question the American public will ask, is it 75,000 or 300,000 men and 
women on the ground in Iraq? We are already paying $12 billion a month 
in Afghanistan. Many of us joined with the President to support going 
after the terrorists and I stand by that resolve because we were 
attacked on our soil. The representation that we need to go to war with 
Iraq because there is an imminent danger has not been proven. Even 
today in Prime Minister Blair's remarks, and it is a long document, 
which I have read and reviewed, and he spoke before the Parliament and 
he gives the case made by the British Joint Intelligence group, the 
BJI, who for over 60 years has worked on behalf of the British 
Government. There is a long list of statements about weapons of mass 
destruction and having to go back in. I agree with that. We need United 
Nations inspectors to go in unfettered.
  But the one thing that the Prime Minister said is that I think we 
should listen. Our case, he says, is simply this, not that we take 
military action come what may, but that the cause for ensuring Iraqi 
disarmament as the U.N. has stipulated is overwhelming.
  And to utilize the position of Britain and the Prime Minister as war-
war-war seems to be incorrect based upon his remarks. He documents that 
he believes that there are weapons of mass destruction, but at the same 
time he also acknowledges that intelligence is often open to question. 
And so what we really need to have happen is that the United Nations 
inspectors need to go in unfettered, and the better route for the 
United States to take is the diplomatic route which is the route of 
saying, let us join in with the United Nations, let us adhere to the 
provision 51 in the charter that says that striking first preemptively, 
making the first strike, is illegal; and let us not violate, if you 
will, the international law.
  Mr. OWENS. Is my colleague implying that the British Prime Minister 
does not agree with the President? I think the Chancellor of Germany 
has gotten into serious trouble by not agreeing. Is it likely that 
there is going to be a falling out between the British Prime Minister 
and the President?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I appreciate the distinguished gentleman's 
question. I hope that the President will listen and actually read the 
text of the remarks made by the Prime Minister. He lays out a case. But 
in two simple lines, he says our case is simply this, not that we take 
military action.
  So I believe that where the Prime Minister now stands is almost where

[[Page H6551]]

we have just heard former Vice President Al Gore stand. Multilateral 
actions, working with your allies, and working with the United Nations, 
which many in this Congress, we do not all agree, Democrats and 
Republicans, but we heard a collective voice of suggesting that if we 
are going to be part of the world family, then we need to not undermine 
the United Nations, we need to shore it up and to be part of it.
  Some people have argued, we don't have the United Nations telling us 
what to do. You are absolutely right. If there was a cause that we felt 
that we were about to be imminently attacked, then obviously we have a 
right to defend ourselves and provision 51 under the U.N. charter 
provides that leeway. But we are using individuals who are saying one 
thing, but in fact I believe the Prime Minister has probably heard a 
lot from his party members to realize that we need to be deliberate, 
not that we have not acknowledged and the distinguished gentleman from 
New York said it very eloquently. You described who Saddam Hussein is. 
We do not make the point of putting him up as a saint, but the real 
question is disarmament, avoiding destabilization of the world in the 
region because we have Syria and Turkey and Iran and Saudi Arabia 
surrounding Iraq. We have no response, if you will, to what happens if 
we destabilize that area.

  Let me pose a question to you, as I indicated. We are already 
spending $1 billion a month in Afghanistan. That is to fight the war. 
That is not necessarily to rebuild the country. Afghanistan some 20 
years ago was maybe not the most prosperous and technologically, if you 
will, competent nation; but it certainly was a nation that was standing 
on its feet, I would say more than 20 years ago, in its own way. It is 
now a mere semblance of a nation which we have to rebuild. The question 
is, who will rebuild Iraq? What is the upcoming government that will 
take over if we are talking about, one, an attack; two, a destruction 
of the government and destruction of the infrastructure and destruction 
of the country itself? I believe it would be just foolish to suggest 
that in fact we are talking about Iraq rebuilding itself. We would have 
to be engaged in rebuilding it.
  Mr. OWENS. I think my colleague has made a very good comparison of 
Afghanistan versus Iraq. Afghanistan, versus Iraq, you might say, is a 
rather primitive country. It was when the Soviet Union attacked 
Afghanistan. But the Soviet Union found after 9 years that it could not 
subdue the people of Afghanistan. It had to give up. It lost a lot of 
lives. It brought the government down in the Soviet Union, also. Iraq 
has far more sophistication, is far more densely populated, will be 
impossible to occupy. The problem is not can you wipe out Saddam 
Hussein, can you wipe out his Republican Guard, his immediate military 
machine. That could be accomplished fairly quickly. But what do you do 
after that? Occupying the country is where you would have to draft 
thousands of American men to go in there. You are talking about 
hundreds of thousands who would be there for a long time and who would 
face guerilla warfare and all kinds of menacing situations from some of 
the governments and populations around Iraq as well as in Iraq itself. 
So you have no choice after fighting the war and losing lives but to 
try to finish it. Whether you are talking about nation-building or just 
occupying the territory, either way it will drain resources and it will 
drain lives away for a long, long time. It is going to be no easy 
matter.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I think you have captured it well. You are 
absolutely right. First of all, if we look at our maps, we realize that 
Iraq is huge. It would require massive occupation by either U.S. troops 
or allies. That is one of the reasons that it would certainly be 
misdirected and wrongheaded to talk about any kind of unilateral 
effort. As you well know, I think to this point the administration has 
not moved from its position that if the U.N. does not act, we will act. 
I think I would say to my colleagues and certainly what I said to my 
constituents, is that we are no wimps here, that I call everyone a 
patriot, because we have all rallied to unify behind the administration 
on the fighting of terrorism and we have been grateful for the fact 
that our allies have joined us as well.

                              {time}  2245

  They realize the new wars of the 21st century will be fought 
differently from World War II. In fact, there will be probably more 
wars of terrorism. The question is, have we finished the job on 
fighting terrorism with our allies? Have we found Osama bin Laden? Have 
we stabilized Afghanistan with the jeopardy the new President is in in 
Afghanistan every day?
  Then we turn our attention to Iraq, $100 billion to be spent 
immediately if we begin a war, with no case being made on the imminence 
of their attacking the United States, with evidence suggesting that 
they do not have any missiles that would reach the continental area of 
the United States, and that the United Nations is prepared under the 
present resolutions to go in and Iraq has suggested that they can come 
in unfettered.
  I just want to offer, you mentioned the Soviet Union. It is 
interesting for those of us who either read it in the history books or 
were here to talk about the Cold War, many of the young people today do 
not know about that. But just imagine if everybody at that time said 
let us just do a preemptive unilateral strike on the Soviet Union.
  Mr. OWENS. There were people that counseled that, I am sure.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. There were people who I understand advised 
that. But I guess cooler heads prevailed, as we heard our good 
colleague and friend, former Member Dellums, give us a really detailed 
explanation on some of these issues, and we have a situation now that 
we did not go to war and in essence we saved ourselves from the 
immediacy of a third world war at that time.
  Why not now have disarmament and containment, getting allies? 
Diplomacy and dealing with the United Nations seems to be the better 
direction of the day. Because I do not see with respect to the 
President's position any way that we can be victorious in winning this 
war in a limited short period of time with a minimal loss of life. I 
just truly believe that with better study, we would have a resolution 
of this question.
  Mr. OWENS. You offer very strong and glaring examples. If we 
outlasted the Soviet Union and we outlasted China, all of these evil 
empires that it appeared we were going to inevitably have military 
conflict with are now, if not our allies, then certainly civil partners 
or neighbors. If we outlasted the threats that they posed, then surely 
we can outlast the threat that Iraq poses also.
  Yes, we are going to have to learn in this world to live with a new 
kind of threat, a new kind of risk. And getting rid of Saddam Hussein 
and Iraq will not free us from having to live with that risk, because 
there are nations like Pakistan, a friendly nation at this point, 
possessing nuclear weapons, and on very shaky grounds in terms of the 
turmoil in that nation could lead to an overthrow of the government. It 
could be in unfriendly hands tomorrow, so you could have the 
possibility of nuclear weapons being stolen from there or transmitted 
from there.
  Even if a nation does not have nuclear weapons, the possibility of a 
rogue nation selling it to them that we do not even know about, or the 
possibility of being stolen. The Soviet Union has lost a lot of nuclear 
materials through theft, or Russia, since the Soviet Union was 
dismantled. All these things exist. We have some threats and some risks 
that we are going to have to live with. So why do we suddenly consider 
Saddam Hussein an imminent threat that must be taken care of in an 
unlawful use of force?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Immediately. If the gentleman would yield, 
you raise several very important points that could be part of the 
solution, and that is whether they are rogue nations or others, how is 
Saddam Hussein getting some of this so-called material for a so-called 
creation of a nuclear bomb on the black market?
  Would it not be better for us to address some of these issues, of 
countries that may be our allies or we are engaged with who are 
actually providing this material to Iraq for them to function with 
materials from the black market?
  Mr. OWENS. I thank the gentlewoman for making part of my speech 
unnecessary. I was going to deal with

[[Page H6552]]

the question of have we done enough to confront diplomatically our 
allies and the people in the world who are furnishing Saddam Hussein 
with what he needs? The sanctions have not been carried out. We should 
have confronted France, the Russians and a number of other nations for 
not cooperating with the United Nations imposed sanctions. Iraq has 
continued to sell oil on the black market. Everybody knows it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Absolutely.
  Mr. OWENS. Somebody is buying it. It is not just small countries, it 
is large countries. We have not confronted them. The rule of law, which 
we think is so important, the rule of international law is just 
as important as any other rule of law, but they are just thumbing their 
noses at the rule of law as far as the United Nations is concerned. We 
have not confronted these nations and demanded that they stop doing 
what they are doing.

  There is a lot of talk about children dying in Iraq because of the 
U.S.-imposed or UN-imposed sanctions. That is a lot of nonsense. Saddam 
Hussein is selling oil. He has billions of dollars to spend as he 
wishes to spend. He is spending it on trying to acquire weapons 
materials. He could buy medicine, he could buy food. If children are 
dying in Iraq, people are dying for lack of medicine, it is Saddam 
Hussein's fault, nobody else's, because he certainly has the money and 
resources, because the rest of the world has not bothered to enforce 
the law or to try to enforce the law as they should, the sanctions and 
the conditions that Iraq agreed to that were imposed on Iraq.
  Why is Iraq special and not different from any other nation with an 
evil regime, with a dictator? Because they agreed in order to save 
themselves to certain items and signed an agreement with the United 
Nations, and they have proceeded not to abide by that agreement. That 
makes them different and a special case. But the case has not been made 
for a military attack on Iraq.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentleman would yield, you are 
absolutely right, and that is where we have faltered and made great 
mistakes diplomatically, is we have not insisted that our allies 
enforce the sanctions. We have not insisted that the United Nations 
remain strong on some of the resolutions that they have passed.
  You can contain and isolate Saddam Hussein, and, frankly, we have not 
done that. We have given him great latitude. Of course, with everyone's 
eyes on his oil reserves, he has had a certain degree of freedom.
  Our unilateral attack is not going to help the situation. In fact, it 
is going to make the region more volatile. It is going to again take 
away from us the high moral ground. So who are we to stop any incursion 
or any sort of conflict between India and Pakistan, between China and 
Taiwan? Who are we to say to Israel if they are attacked during the 
time we start a unilateral war, if they are attacked by Iraq, who are 
we to say, even though we were successful in doing that in 1991, 
because we asked in advance and had the allies, and by the way, let me 
distinguish in the 1991 resolution, I was not here, but obviously 
everyone knows Iraq attacked Kuwait.
  On the limited premise that an ally was attacked, you could argue 
that we went in to aid our ally, Kuwait. We have no such circumstance 
here.
  Mr. OWENS. We did not go in alone. That was a resolution of the 
United Nations.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The gentleman is absolutely right. We had 
the allies. Who are we to begin this whole new metamorphical change or 
180 degree change, if you will, to suggest now that our policy is 
totally regime change, and that we can go anywhere as the United States 
and say we do not like our neighbor and we want them to change? I 
believe that is a path that we do not want to take.
  We did not take it under Democratic or Republican Presidents, to 
suggest that we, the most powerful Nation in the world, can now go 
around and attack any regime we so desire, even those that are ugly, 
that we do not like, and that should be moving toward a path of change. 
But we must follow international law and begin to look ahead as to what 
will happen, and people, other nations, allies, foes and friends, will 
begin to say, you did it, why can we not do it?
  That is, I think, the deliberations that I have not heard debated 
here, that I have not heard the administration make its case. And I 
might simply say, though I hear of pending resolutions coming, that is 
why it would be more appropriate for us to hold a special session and 
for this debate to be carried on singularly with nothing else on the 
Congress' agenda. It is so crucial, it is wrapped with so many major 
changes for this Nation, that I frankly believe the American people are 
done a disservice if we do not give them all of the facts.
  I have heard, as the gentleman has heard, not only e-mails and 
letters, but I am hearing there is a growing sense of opposition, 
irrespective of political party or political philosophy or region, as 
people begin to understand the facts. And they see what the gentleman 
stated earlier, what I have joined in to say, that thousands upon 
thousands of young lives will be lost, and might I say young men and 
women who will go anywhere to defend this Nation. It is not them. Our 
military men and women are superb, as our veterans are. They will go 
anywhere to defend our freedoms. But the question is, have we thought 
about the thousands upon thousands of lives, young men and women, our 
children, whose lives will be lost, and who by our vote, the singular 
vote that any Member makes, can cast them into harm's way, and for what 
reason? What imminency? What international law will they be abiding by? 
What solution will they provide, if you will? How will they bring 
closure to this?

  We had closure in World War II. We went on to the Marshall Plan and 
we had the moral high ground. Many think we should have started earlier 
with the allies. Out of that came NATO.
  But what do we have now that would suggest that this is the right 
direction to take, rather than, as the gentleman indicated, and I have 
totally agreed, the enforcing of the UN sanctions, the going in with 
the inspectors, the building up of allies, the containing and disarming 
of him? That is the approach to do, and then we will find our way on 
the moral ground and also with our allies making an actual difference 
as opposed to, I believe, doing what we are intending to do at this 
point.
  Mr. OWENS. I thank my colleague from Texas for joining me and 
emphasizing again that we cannot have too much debate on this subject.
  When we talk about going to war, we say we are going to war, we mean 
not just the decisionmakers in the White House or decisionmakers here 
in Congress. We mean all of America is going to war. So we cannot take 
too much time to discuss this issue and look at all the ramifications. 
We cannot take too much time and review history, because some obvious 
lessons of history are being forgotten right now.
  We seem to have forgotten the lessons of Vietnam. We seem to have 
forgotten a lot of lessons of all the wars fought in America in terms 
of who fights them, who goes to war, who are the ones who die.
  Perhaps we should stimulate the discussion by making a whole new set 
of rules related to Selective Service, because inevitably there is 
going to have to be a draft. If you occupy Iraq, thousands and 
thousands of men and women will be needed. There will have to be a 
draft.
  We should make rules that nobody gets exempted from the draft except 
people who physically are disabled. Everybody else has to go. We should 
make a rule that everybody who is in the military must do a year in the 
combat zone. We should learn from the past lessons and not drop the 
burden of a war that is questionable on the backs of the people who 
have the least amount to say about it or do anything. We should not 
drop the war on the backs of people that we will not get passed the 
minimum wage increase for.
  If you look at the Vietnam Wall, and among the war monuments in the 
world there is none nothing greater than the Wall of the Vietnam 
Memorial. That wall lists every person who died, every soldier who died 
in Vietnam. There are no more unknown soldiers. You talk about the Tomb 
of the Unknown Soldier, wondering who the soldier is. Everyone gets 
listed. Let us name them one by one. They deserve to be listed, in 
order to develop habits which do not encourage war. If we have

[[Page H6553]]

to see them named one by one, we understand that this is what war 
means. 57,000 almost are listed on that wall.
  In the Civil War we lost 600,000, more or less, on both sides. More 
lives were lost in the Civil War in America than any other. We lost 
enormous amounts of lives in World War II and World War I. All of the 
statistics will show when you break them out that the overwhelming 
majority of the lives lost were poor, rural, big city, young men who 
had to be the cannon fodder for the war. They deserve more than to have 
us callously make decisions about how their lives are going to be lost, 
and they deserve us to pay more attention to their needs right now on 
the domestic agenda of the Congress.

                              {time}  2300

  We should deal with working conditions, we should deal with the 
economy, we should deal with the fact that the pension funds are 
cheating workers out of their rights.
  But let us get back to the war for a moment and hear the voices of 
some of my constituents. I think it is very important that, like many 
others who have received communications, mail, e-mail, and telephone 
calls is becoming overwhelming about this matter, and they will 
continue. But I like the quality of some of the communications that I 
received so much that I thought I would share a couple of them tonight. 
Here is one that is very simple. It is handwritten, but it gets right 
to the point, and I am going to read it and submit it for the Record 
when I finish.

       Dear Congressman Owens: As a constituent of your district, 
     I urge you to oppose the war on Iraq. A strike on Baghdad is 
     unjustified, illegal, and immoral. The issue of weapons 
     inspectors can be handled by the U.N. in a peaceful and 
     lawful manner. With a sinking economy, the American people 
     cannot bear the burden of another war. Please focus on 
     investing in people, not war.

  This is written by Michael Feldman and Jeanette Feldman, who are 
constituents in my district. A very simple statement, and I will enter 
the entire letter for the Record.
  One other letter which is not so simple, but written by one of my 
constituents and obviously she has given a great deal of thought to 
this letter, and I appreciate the thinking here; and I want my 
colleagues to hear the connection here with September 11 and how she 
weaves all of this together and understands very clearly the mood of 
America. The mood of America is anger; the mood of America is hurt; the 
mood of America is fear. But we should not let the mood of anger, hurt, 
and fear drive us into reckless actions that will make matters worse.

       Dear Representative Owens: I am writing to you because I 
     feel so helpless to stop what seems to be inevitable: war 
     with Iraq. Like you and every New Yorker, I tasted war on 
     September 11. It wasn't pleasant, and I am not eager to 
     experience it again. For hours I could not find my husband 
     who worked across the street from One World Trade Center. 
     Fortunately, he returned home safely after witnessing 
     unspeakable carnage. But many of our friends and neighbors 
     weren't so lucky. That evening I walked down 7th Avenue in 
     Park Slope, Brooklyn, to get a handle on the losses. The 
     stench from burning buildings, computers and bodies was 
     pervasive and the smoke cast an erie haze over our little 
     community. Everywhere I went I learned of more losses. Twelve 
     firemen from squad one on my block, loved ones of students, 
     and a teacher at the Park Slope Dance Studio, parents with 
     kids at 321, Berkeley Carol, and St. Ann's School, members 
     from church, a former colleague, and many of our neighbors 
     were all among the missing. At 7 p.m. that day, we foolishly 
     held out hope that some would be found in area hospitals, but 
     unfortunately, they weren't.
       Weeks later I attended the memorial service for my friend 
     Jeff Hardy, who was killed because he happened to be working 
     on the 101st floor of Tower 1. Hours after I attended Jeff's 
     service, a woman at 7th Avenue and Carroll approached me and 
     asked me to sign a petition opposing the war in Afghanistan. 
     I refused. I supported the war in Afghanistan and have been 
     grateful that our allies have worked with us to round up 
     terrorists worldwide.
       However, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Iraq had 
     anything to do with this attack. The rumor that Mohamed Atta 
     met with an Iraqi intelligence agent has been denied by the 
     Czech government. I am not aware of one Iraqi who fought with 
     the Taliban, although I know the citizens of many of our 
     allies fought with the Taliban or members of al Qaeda and 
     were on those planes on September 11, and continue to 
     threaten America and other foreigners every day, particularly 
     in Pakistan.
       My hope is to destroy al Qaeda and stop the spread of 
     Islamic religious fundamentalism and hatred for the United 
     States, for Christians, for Jews. To fight the Islamists, we 
     need the cooperation of all of our allies and all countries 
     in the Middle East. I am afraid that this fragile alliance 
     will dissolve if we attack Iraq without provocation and we 
     may not get the help we need. Invading Iraq will only inflame 
     anti-American rhetoric and could even jeopardize our friends 
     in the Middle East. I am deeply worried about the welfare of 
     President Musharraf and concerned that if anything happens to 
     him, religious fanatics could take control of Pakistan, which 
     we know has both nuclear weapons and al Qaeda members. 
     Musharraf is already under attack in his country because of 
     his support of the U.S., and the New Yorker reported this 
     week that a recent car bomb that killed 12 people was 
     intended for him. I truly think declaring war on Iraq will 
     put more U.S. citizen in harm's way.

  This is a letter from a constituent of mine.
  I would like to conclude the letter which I think is very thorough 
and thoughtful.

       Following the tragedies of September 11, we were a city in 
     mourning. We spent months going to funerals in neighborhoods 
     completely shut down when funerals for firefighters were 
     held. The physical and emotional damage contributed to the 
     economic downturn here. I run a small but successful public 
     relations firm and I booked 93 percent of my revenues in 2001 
     on projects that were completed before September 11, and only 
     7 percent after September 11. My situation was not unusual. 
     Small businesses, graphic designers, contractors, 
     beauticians, photographers, everywhere in the metropolitan 
     area, they suffered from the same fate. Large companies like 
     my husband's were evacuated from lower Manhattan, never to 
     return. His company had to rebuild complete systems within 
     days to be able to compete with the markets open the 
     following Monday and use AOL and other carriers to 
     communicate by e-mail because the company's service was 
     destroyed. We all limped along. Our woeful city tax revenues 
     are enduring evidence of the economic damage we experienced. 
     This country and especially this city have not yet digested 
     the economic and emotional fallout from September 11. New 
     York City is still struggling to get back on its feet and 
     continues to get hammered by low tax revenues, the recession, 
     stock market volatility and corporate scandals. The economy 
     cannot take another shot like a war with Iraq and its unknown 
     consequences. We have so much unfinished international 
     business that to go forward with a war with Iraq right now 
     would be irresponsible. I share the same concerns that King 
     Abdullah of Jordan has that invading Iraq will lead to a 
     further destabilization of the Middle East, including 
     possibly a civil war, at a time when we need to be rebuilding 
     Afghanistan and seeking a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian 
     war. Even the Kurds are begging us not to invade. We still 
     haven't found Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar yet. How are we 
     going to round up Saddam Hussein and his secret weapons, 
     particularly without the support of our allies? It's 
     suicidal. I'm reminded of our many unsuccessful attempts to 
     oust Fidel Castro. Besides the economic and diplomatic 
     problems of a war with Iraq, I have a serious moral problem 
     with killing innocent people in that country. I know what it 
     feels like when innocent lives are lost. Even Representative 
     Dick Armey was quoted today in the times as saying that an 
     unprovoked attack would violate international law. However, 
     this administration will not listen to its allies and is only 
     fueling anti-Americanism worldwide.

  Mr. Speaker, I will place the entire letter from Gail Donovan in the 
Record.
  Mr. Speaker, my message is that we should wage peace instead of being 
overwhelmed by concerns with war. In this country we have a lot of 
mechanisms of war. We have West Point, we have several military 
universities, we have the Naval War College and the Army War College 
and several mechanisms for preparing the best minds in the world to 
wage war, and maybe that is as it should be. A great Nation leading the 
world should have the best minds and the best equipment, the best Armed 
Forces. But on the other hand, we do very little to prepare our 
population to wage peace. We have no equivalent to West Point where we 
train people in diplomacy and in ways in which to wage peace.

                              {time}  2310

  We do not even bother to look closely at our successes in the world, 
like the Marshall Plan. With the expenditure of money that could have 
been spent fighting wars, we were able to stop the spread of communism 
in Europe and to rebuild prosperous economies in the nations of Europe.
  If we had a peace college or a peace university, peace universities, 
maybe they would look at questions like the relationship between war 
and those who make the decisions about war and those who fight the 
wars. It is worth examining. I have studied it and I have made speeches 
on this floor before offering the statistics related to the Civil

[[Page H6554]]

War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War in 
terms of the number of people who died and where they came from.
  The pattern is clear. In the Civil War, if one was drafted or 
scheduled to be drafted, one could buy one's way out and somebody else, 
a poorer person, would take your place and die for you in that war. We 
lost the largest number of Americans in the Civil War, approximately 
600,000. Modern weapons were not invented at that time, so more people 
got killed as cannon fodder in face-to-face, bayonet-to-bayonet 
contact, so on.
  In World War I, the same pattern: The people who died came from the 
rural areas and the big cities, the poorest populations in the big 
cities. In World War II, the same as in World War I; and in Korea, and 
in Vietnam. The names on that wall over there, two-thirds of them are 
from low-income communities. A disproportionate number on the Vietnam 
Wall are also minorities.
  The people who are going to die deserve to be included in this 
debate. If we attack Iraq, if we are successful, as we will be, in 
destroying their military forces, we will have to occupy Iraq. That is 
where large numbers of men and women will be needed to carry out such 
an occupation. We will have to have a draft, eventually.
  Let us take a look at that and see in a democracy how we might 
improve upon the process of making war by examining the process by 
which we draft people to go off and fight the wars. Maybe we should 
start talking, now, about changes in the Selective Service approach. If 
we reinstitute the draft, maybe there should be a definite 
qualification that nobody gets exempted, except only those who are 
physically disabled. Everybody who is eligible, who is in the category 
to be drafted, should be drafted. They all should serve the same amount 
of time in a combat zone.
  In Vietnam, the latter part of the Vietnam War, a man had to spend 
only a year, and after a year he was allowed to go home out of the 
combat zone. There should be some kind of understanding that one's life 
is at risk, and those kinds of rules and practices maybe should be made 
up ahead of time. Congress should take a close look at it. Everybody 
goes. The grandsons and great-grandsons of the people who make 
decisions to go to war must be on the front lines as well as the rest 
of the population.
  Also, the way we treat our population: If we are going to have a 
draft, then certainly the issues that are not being dealt with in this 
Congress are important for consideration. If we are going to have a 
draft, we have no right to draft men and women that we do not want to 
provide job opportunities for.
  Our minimum wage is such now that, at $5.15 an hour, one can work a 
40-hour week all year long and make less than $12,000. No family of 
four or even three, barely two, can live off of that small amount of 
money. Yet, large amounts of Americans make only the minimum wage. This 
Congress has refused to address any consideration of raising the 
minimum wage.
  If we cannot raise the minimum wage for those young men and women who 
are going to have to go to war, if we cannot provide decent working 
conditions in their places of work, instead of attacking OSHA as the 
first act of a the new administration, and eliminating the ergonomics 
regulations, we should have been bolstering the safety and health 
conditions of the workplace, because those are the men and women who 
are, in the ultimate defense of the country, going to be the ones on 
the front lines.
  We should pay homage to them. We should at least guarantee that when 
they grow old, as veterans of World War II and Vietnam are now old, 
they should not have to worry about prescription drugs. Why should a 
veteran who risked his life in Vietnam or Korea or World War II, why 
should they have to worry about having to not eat, to forgo a meal, in 
order to get the prescription they need to stay alive?
  A great nation should address the full agenda of items. We should not 
shut down this Congress and fail to address that agenda because we are 
considering a war that might secure us against terrorism and make the 
Nation safe. We are safe only when we do all of these things. We have 
to walk, chew gum, dance, and do a lot of other things at the same 
time. We are not secure unless we mount a sustained peace offensive. 
Our peace offensive must consist of passing laws and appropriating 
money which supports the increase of prosperity and peace.
  Let us just take the Muslim nation of Iraq versus the Muslim nation 
of Pakistan for a moment. Pakistan has always been our ally, always 
been our ally. In the Cold War, in the Afghanistan war against the 
Soviet Union, always Pakistan has been there. Again, in this very 
controversial and dangerous situation, the Pakistan administration has 
chosen to ally itself with the United States.
  We have given Musharraf and the government of Pakistan I think 
something like $800 million, not even $1 billion, but $800 million in 
aid. Pakistan has a population of no less than 150 million people, some 
say up to 180 million, but no less than 150 million people. If we were 
to make Pakistan a firm ally and make certain that everything is done 
that can be done to prop up that administration, to help our ally, to 
make sure that Musharraf and his government will survive, to make 
certain that a communication goes out to the whole Muslim world that we 
are not into fighting a religious war, we are not anti-anybody because 
they are Muslim. We can have strong Muslim allies as we have Muslim 
enemies, those who chose to make themselves our enemies.
  But instead, we are going to expend billions of dollars in the war 
against Iraq, instead of billions to help Pakistan. For very tiny 
amounts of money, more aid to Pakistan to help it get its economy on 
the feet, to help it provide a more legitimate education system, a lot 
of their youngsters were drained off into the al-Qaeda movement. They 
went off to Afghanistan and became part of the terrorist movement 
because they were hungry, and they were given three meals a day and fed 
hate and taught how to fight, and given some purpose in life. They 
should not have that as the only alternative.
  I happen to have a large Pakistani community in my district, so I am 
personally familiar with Pakistan. I went there and visited 2 years 
ago. Pakistan is not at all a backward Nation, backward-thinking Nation 
in any way. The fact that it is Muslim does not mean that it does not 
appreciate its women. I saw or visited several girls' schools. In one 
class, girls were taking a math exam. They were not just learning minor 
matters, they were learning science and engineering, just as the men 
were. It is a nation that needs more schools, and they need more help 
with their education system.
  So let us wage peace by getting closer to Pakistan, by embracing 
Pakistan. We have given the Pakistani-American population a very 
difficult time here in this country. They have rounded them up. A lot 
of Pakistanis have been put in detention as a result of immigration 
problems, and they have been treated as if they are enemies of the 
people.
  Not a single Pakistani has been identified at this point as a 
terrorist. They have not found a single Pakistani terrorist. They have 
found some al-Qaeda people in Pakistan, but they are not Pakistani. 
They have found no Pakistani-American who was involved in any way with 
money laundering or any aspect of terrorism; yet, the Pakistani 
community in America is under great pressure right now.
  We should embrace them, instead. We should wage peace by 
understanding who our allies are and by rewarding our allies, by 
appreciating our allies. I think we ought to have some kind of amnesty 
for the Pakistani-Americans who have problems with immigration.

                              {time}  2320

  I think we ought to show some sort of special concern with respect to 
exchange students from Pakistan. We ought to go all out. Pakistan is 
not the largest Muslim nation; Indonesia is. Indonesia has more Muslims 
than Pakistan. Pakistan is in a transitional situation where it is 
receptive. Their graduate students, students of science and 
engineering, come here. I am certain the nuclear scientists who created 
the nuclear bomb in Pakistan went to American universities. We know who 
some of them are. They have the nuclear weapons capability now, 
Pakistan.
  The great danger is that if we do not embrace them, if we do not prop 
them up, if we are not capable of waging the

[[Page H6555]]

peace by making them special allies, we may lose control of Pakistan, 
and the nuclear weapons that they have would fall into the hands of 
unfriendly people. We would have a clear and imminent danger then that 
we would have to deal with.
  So I want to conclude by saying that this debate deserves to continue 
and to include as many people as possible. The American people, those 
who lived through the war in Vietnam, some are still around from World 
War I, certainly World War II, the Korean war, we should not take their 
wisdom lightly. We should look at their contributions and listen to 
their voices. A war in Iraq would not be fought in the quagmires and 
jungles like a war in Vietnam, but it would be the worst human quagmire 
that we could possibly contemplate.
  We would not be going to war against Iraq. It would eventually be a 
war against the entire Muslim world. Through the gates that are open in 
Pakistan we could become allies, have allies and friends from the 
entire Muslim world. Why close that gate down and suffer from excessive 
preoccupation for the use of military force in Iraq? We have the United 
Nations. We have deliberations going on there. There is no great hurry. 
There is no imminent threat from Saddam Hussein. However monstrous 
Saddam Hussein might be, he does not have the capacity to inflict any 
great hurt on America at this point. We have time. We have time to wage 
peace instead of rushing into war. I hope we will listen to the wiser 
voices among us and not rush into a war with Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, the letters mentioned previously are as follows:

                                                 Brooklyn, NY,

                                                September 3, 2002.
       Dear Congressman Owen: As a constituent of your district, I 
     urge you to oppose a war on Iraq. A strike on Baghdad is 
     unjustified, illegal, and immoral. The issue of weapons 
     inspectors can be handled by the U.N. in a peaceful and 
     lawful manner. With a sinking economy, the American people 
     cannot bear the burden of another war. Please focus on 
     investing in people, not war.
           Sincerely,
     Michael Feldman.
     Jeanette Feldman.
                                  ____



                                                 Brooklyn, NY,

                                                   August 9, 2002.
     Rep. Major Owens,
     House of Representatives,
     Brooklyn, NY.
       Dear Rep. Owens: I am writing to you, because I feel so 
     helpless to stop what seems to be inevitable--War with Iraq.
       Like you and every New Yorker, I tasted war on September 
     11. It wasn't pleasant and I'm not eager to experience it 
     again. For hours I couldn't find my husband who worked across 
     the street from 1 World Trade Center. Fortunately he returned 
     home safely after witnessing unspeakable carnage, but many of 
     our friends and neighbors weren't so lucky. That evening, I 
     walked down 7th Avenue in Park Slope, Brooklyn, to get a 
     handle on the losses. The stench from burning buildings, 
     computers, and bodies was pervasive and the smoke cast an 
     eerie haze over our little community. Everywhere I went I 
     learned of more losses--12 firemen from Squad 1 on my block, 
     loved ones of students and a teacher at the Park Slope Dance 
     Studio, parents with kids at 321, Berkeley Carroll, and St. 
     Ann's, members from church, a former colleague, and many of 
     our neighbors were all among the missing. At 7 p.m. that day, 
     we foolishly held out hope that some would be found in area 
     hospitals, but unfortunately there weren't.
       Weeks later I attended the memorial service for my friend, 
     Jeff Hardy, who was killed because he happened to be working 
     on the 101st Floor of Tower 1. Hours after I attended Jeff's 
     service, a woman at 7th Avenue and Carroll approached me and 
     asked me to sign a petition opposing the war in Afghanistan. 
     I refused. I supported the war in Afghanistan and have been 
     grateful that our allies have worked with us to round up 
     terrorists worldwide
       However, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Iraq had 
     anything to do with this attack. The rumor that Mohamed Atta 
     met with an Iraqi intelligence agent has been denied by the 
     Czech government. I am not aware of one Iraqi who fought with 
     the Taliban, although I know the citizens of many of our 
     allies fought with the Taliban, are members of Al Qaeda, were 
     on those planes September 11, and continue to threaten 
     Americans and other foreigners every day, particularly in 
     Pakistan.
       My hope is to destroy Al Qaeda and stop the spread of 
     Islamic religious fundamentalism and hatred for the United 
     States, Christians, and Jews. To fight the Islamists, we need 
     the cooperation of all of our allies and all countries in the 
     Middle East. I am afraid that this fragile alliance will 
     dissolve if we attack Iraq without provocation and we may not 
     get the help we need. Invading Iraq will only inflame anti-
     American rhetoric and could even jeopardize our allies in the 
     Middle East. I'm deeply worried about the welfare of 
     President Musharraf and concerned that if anything happens to 
     him, religious fanatics could take control of Pakistan, which 
     we know has both nuclear weapons and Al Qaeda members. 
     Musharraf is already under attack in his country because of 
     his support of the U.S. and the New Yorker reported this week 
     that a recent car bomb that killed 12 people was intended for 
     him. I truly think declaring war on Iraq will put more U.S. 
     citizens in harm's way than containment.
       To me this administration's warmongering is further 
     evidence of the ``Kremlinization'' of Washington under Bush. 
     This administration thrives on secrecy. In the beginning of 
     the term we saw cronyism and secret agreements among the 
     elites in government and business. Now there is lavish 
     federal spending in Florida where the president's brother 
     happens to be running for re-election. According to a recent 
     New Republic article, even questionable SBA loans are being 
     made in Florida at a time when several businesses with which 
     I have worked that were located at or near ground zero have 
     been denied SBA assistance.
       After September 11, we had secret arrests and detentions of 
     more than 1,000 individuals. Even Reagan-appointed, federal 
     judges have been appalled by this. We have seen civil rights 
     being applied arbitrarily with some American citizens who 
     happen to be poor and of color like Jose Padilla being denied 
     the right to legal counsel and the American justice system, 
     while prosperous Americans like John Walker Lingh, who 
     actually fought American soldiers, received them. No 
     investigation has been allowed into the intelligence failures 
     before September 11. Time magazine this week has a scathing 
     article about how this administration ignored terrorist 
     threats prior to the attacks, but we can't examine this. Free 
     speech has been chilled because any elected official who 
     dares criticize or stand in the way of the administration has 
     been called unpatriotic and obstructionist and in some cases 
     compared to Saddam Hussein in newspaper ads. The government 
     is asking ordinary citizens to spy on one another, 
     reminiscent of something out of a Solzhenitsyn novel. The 
     attorney general has ignored the Supreme Court's 1939 opinion 
     on the Second Amendment and has decided to apply his own, 
     wildly different interpretation and also won't allow gun 
     checks on suspected terrorists. I won't even get into what 
     started all of this, the election of 2000 and how the voter 
     registration lists were ``scrubbed'' and the failure of the 
     Supreme Court to honor a presidential candidate's request to 
     count votes as allowed under Florida law. Now this 
     administration is invading countries without adequate 
     discussion or support.
       Following the tragedies of September 11, we were a city in 
     mourning. We spent months going to funerals and neighborhoods 
     completely shut down when funerals for firefighters were 
     held. The physical and emotional damage contributed to 
     economic downturn here. I run a small, but successful public 
     relations firm and I booked 93 percent of my revenues in 2001 
     on projects completed before September 11 and only 7 percent 
     after September 11. My situation was not unusual. Small 
     businesses--graphic designers, contractors, beauticians, 
     photographers, etc.--everywhere in the metropolitan area 
     suffered the same fate. Large companies like my husband's 
     were evacuated from lower Manhattan never to return. His 
     company had to rebuild complete systems within days to be 
     able to compete when the markets opened the following Monday 
     and use AOL or other carriers to communicate by email because 
     the company's servers were destroyed. We all limped along. 
     Our woeful city tax revenues are enduring evidence of the 
     economic damage we experienced.
       This country and especially this city have not yet digested 
     the economic and emotional fallout from September 11. New 
     York City is still struggling to get back on its feet and 
     continues to get hammered by low tax revenues, the recession, 
     stock market volatility, and corporate scandals. The economy 
     can't take another shock like a war with Iraq and its unknown 
     consequences.
       We have so much unfinished international business that to 
     go forward with a war with Iraq right now would be 
     irresponsible. I share the same concerns that King Abdullah 
     of Jordan has that invading Iraq could lead to a further 
     destabilization of the Middle East, including possibly a 
     civil war, at a time when we need to be rebuilding 
     Afghanistan and seeking a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian 
     War. Even the Kurds are begging us not to invade. We still 
     haven't found Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar yet, how are we 
     going to round up Saddam Hussein and his secret weapons, 
     particularly without the support of our allies? It's 
     suicidal. I'm reminded of our many unsuccessful attempts to 
     oust Fidel Castro. Besides the economic and diplomatic 
     problems of a war with Iraq, I have a serious moral problem 
     with killing innocent people in the country. I know what it 
     feels like when innocent lives are lost. Even Rep. Dick Armey 
     was quoted today in the Times as saying that an unprovoked 
     attack would violate international law. However, this 
     administration will not listen to its allies and is only 
     fueling anti-Americanism worldwide.
       I am a conservative Democrat and was highly supportive of 
     President Clinton and particularly his economic policies 
     because he gave everyone a seat at the table of opportunity, 
     cut budget deficits, and supported free trade. (Unlike Bush 
     who has caved to

[[Page H6556]]

     special political interests on steel, the farm bill, tax 
     cuts, energy, the environment, etc.) I don't trust these 
     people in the White House now. Unfortunately, they seem to be 
     unstoppable. Please help stop them.
           Sincerely,
     Gail Donovan.

                          ____________________