[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.
____________________