[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 123 (Wednesday, September 25, 2002)]
[House]
[Page H6688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      OPTIONS WITH REGARD TO IRAQ

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the rush to war continues here in 
Washington, despite the possibility of the reinstatement of effective, 
unfettered inspections aimed at the destruction of weapons of mass 
destruction that Saddam Hussein may have hidden from past inspections 
or may have developed since that time.
  Now, Prime Minister Tony Blair, as a surrogate for this 
administration, did provide a more concrete and detailed report than 
anything provided by the Bush administration to the United States 
Congress thus far on what is going on in Iraq. But the interesting 
thing is, in reading through the 50-some odd pages of this report and 
perusing the photographs, the actual conclusion is that inspections did 
work, U.N. sanctions did work, and are still working. The containment 
and deterrence doctrine has worked with Saddam Hussein.
  In fact, the previous program before the inspectors left was 
extraordinarily successful, more so than would be admitted by this 
administration, that is very dismissive about the possibility of going 
back in with intrusive, unfettered inspections with a mandate to 
destroy any weapons of mass destruction that this miscreant may have 
managed to develop.
  I will read a few quotes from Prime Minister Blair's report. He talks 
about their attempts to obtain nuclear weapons: ``In August 1990, Iraq 
instigated a crash program to develop a single nuclear weapon within a 
year. By the time of the Gulf War, the crash program had made little 
progress.''
  They go on to say that ``UNSCOM had totally dismantled the physical 
infrastructure of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program, including the 
dedicated facilities and equipment for uranium separation and 
enrichment, and for weapon development and production, and removed the 
remaining highly enriched uranium.''
  It is hard to reconcile that with the assertions that intrusive 
inspections under the auspices of the U.N. will have no impact on 
Saddam Hussein or his attempts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
  In early 2002, the British intelligence judged that while sanctions 
remained effective, Iraq will not be able to produce nuclear weapons. 
That is on page 27 of the justification given by the Prime Minister of 
Britain for a preemptive war against Iraq. He cannot build or obtain 
nuclear weapons, according to British intelligence, as long as the 
sanctions remain in effect, and that is without intrusive inspections 
backed by the full force of the United States and around the world.
  There are many other passages. This is incredibly instructive 
reading. I would recommend it to my colleagues in Congress. It is 
certainly more detailed than anything provided to this Congress, either 
in classified briefings or outside of classified briefings, and 
certainly more detailed than anything provided to the American public, 
NATO or anybody else by the United States, and the British have done us 
a service.
  But the case they make is the opposite of the conclusion of their 
Prime Minister. The case that is strongly made here is that a return to 
the regime of an intrusive, unfettered weapons inspection and 
destruction program would effectively preclude this dictator from ever 
obtaining weapons with which he could threaten other countries in that 
region, and most certainly the United States of America.
  So this, to me, certainly demonstrates that the rush to war, the 
first preemptive war in the history of the United States, the first 
preemptive war since the horrible destruction of World War II and the 
U.N. and the agreements we have reached since then, breaking with all 
precedent, the United States, in some bizarre version of ``Minority 
Report,'' the movie, will decide that we have people in the 
administration who can determine whether or not someone presents a real 
and present threat to the United States, even if they made no threats, 
even if there is no documentation of them having the capabilities on 
carrying out on the threats they have not made; and we, the United 
States of America, should be able, in violation of all international 
law and all precedents of our Nation, be able to preemptively attack 
and destroy that country for the purposes of regime change, because we 
do not like who is running that country.
  Well, there are a lot of brutal dictators around the world running a 
lot of countries I do not like, including Saddam Hussein; and I would 
support democratic efforts and subversion efforts and any other way to 
get those people out of power. But a war that opens the door to 
worldwide conflicts, to Taiwan and China, India and Pakistan and any 
other host of countries, is an incredibly dangerous precedent, and this 
report from the Prime Minister to his Parliament documents that it is 
not necessary. We have an effective option before us.

                          ____________________