[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 128 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7010-H7016]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   VOTE ``NO'' ON IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Speaker and the 
leadership for providing me with this opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, it was just a few moments ago that 25 Members of 
Congress, in temperatures that outside

[[Page H7011]]

were over 90 degrees, stood one after another to announce their 
opposition to the war resolution that has been presented to this 
Congress.

                              {time}  1515

  As the vote on whether or not this Nation goes to war approaches in 
this Chamber, a vote which most surely will come within a few days, I 
think it is important, Mr. Speaker, for us to be able to make the case 
to the American people as to why it is not appropriate for this country 
to go to war and to encourage the American people to call their Members 
to make sure that government of the people, by the people, and for the 
people does prevail.
  The Members who joined me today, Members for whom I have the greatest 
gratitude, include the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Capuano), the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton), the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Davis), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett), the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), 
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the 
gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers), the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. 
Sanders), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Solis), the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), 
and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  One after another they came before the national press to make their 
case as to why this Congress should vote against any resolution which 
would put us on a path towards war. And one after another, in front of 
the National Press Corps, they called out to the American people to 
tell the American people to make sure that they called their Members of 
Congress; that if they did not want war, these Members told the 
National Press Corps, that if the American people do not want war, to 
call their Congressman.
  So, Mr. Speaker, today, I intend to do a number of things. I intend 
to present to this Congress an analysis of the joint resolution which 
was offered to this Congress; and, after presenting that analysis, I 
want to put in perspective where we are in this moment in history.
  The resolution which this Congress is facing says: ``Whereas in 1990 
in response to Iraq's war of aggression against an illegal occupation 
of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate 
Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the 
United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions 
relating to Iraq.''
  The American people need to know that the key issue here is that in 
the Persian Gulf War there was an international coalition. World 
support was for protecting Kuwait. There is no world support for 
invading Iraq.
  The resolution goes on to say: ``Whereas after the liberation of 
Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire 
agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other 
things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons 
programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its 
support for international terrorism;
  ``Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United 
States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery 
that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale 
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear 
weapons program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than 
intelligence reporting had previously indicated.''
  But the key issue here that the American people need to know is that 
U.N. inspection teams identified and destroyed nearly all such weapons. 
A lead inspector, Scott Ritter, said that he believes that nearly all 
other weapons not found were destroyed in the Gulf War. Furthermore, 
according to a published report in The Washington Post, the Central 
Intelligence Agency, yes, the Central Intelligence Agency, has no up-
to-date accurate report on Iraq's capabilities of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  The resolution that is presented to this Congress says: ``Whereas 
Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to 
thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's 
weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, 
which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on 
October 31, 1998.''
  What the American people need to know, and the key issue here, is 
that the Iraqi deceptions always failed. The inspectors always figured 
out what Iraq was doing. It was the United States that withdrew from 
the inspections in 1998, and the United States then launched a cruise 
missile attack against Iraq 48 hours after the inspectors left. And it 
is the United States, in advance of a military strike, the U.S. 
continues to thwart, and this is the administration's word, weapons 
inspections.

  Now, this resolutions, and what I am doing here obviously is stating 
the resolution as a point and then making the counterpoint so the 
American people can understand that this is a capsule summary of the 
debate that is going to take place in this House next week.
  In the resolution the administration contends: ``Whereas, in 1998 
Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction 
programs threatened U.S. vital interests and international peace and 
security, declared Iraq to be in material and unacceptable breach of 
its international obligations and urged the President to take 
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant 
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its 
international obligations.''
  The resolution says: ``Whereas Iraq both possesses a continuing 
threat to the national security of the United States and international 
peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material 
and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among 
other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical 
and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons 
capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.''
  The American people deserve to know that the key issue here is that 
there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat 
to the United States of America. I will repeat: there is no proof that 
Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A 
continuing threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The 
administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible 
evidence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States 
and that it is continuing to possess and develop chemical and 
biological and nuclear weapons.
  Furthermore, there is no credible evidence connecting Iraq to al 
Qaeda and 9-11, and yet there are people who want to bomb Iraq in 
reprisal for 9-11. Imagine, if you will, as Cleveland columnist Dick 
Feagler wrote last week, if after this country was attacked by Japan at 
Pearl Harbor in 1941, if instead of retaliating by bombing Japan, we 
would have retaliated by bombing Peru. Iraq is not connected by any 
credible evidence to 9-11, nor is it connected by any credible evidence 
to the activities of al Qaeda on 9-11.
  The resolution says, and I quote, continuing in this comparison point 
by point, the resolution says, that we will be voting on the 
administration's resolution: ``Whereas Iraq persists in violating 
resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to 
engage in brutal repression of its population thereby threatening 
international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, 
repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by 
Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return 
property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait.''
  The counterpoint, and what the American people deserve to know, the 
key issue here, is that this language is so broad that it would allow 
the President to order an attack against Iraq even though there is no 
material

[[Page H7012]]

threat to the United States. Since this resolution authorizes the use 
of force for all Iraq-related violations of U.N. Security Council 
directives, and since the resolution cites Iraq's imprisonment of non-
Iraqi prisoners, this resolution could be seen by some to authorize the 
President to attack Iraq in order to liberate Kuwaiti citizens, who may 
or may not be in Iraqi prisons, even if Iraq met compliance with all 
requests to destroy any weapons of mass destruction.
  The resolution goes on to say: ``Whereas the current Iraqi regime has 
demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass 
destruction against any other nations and its own people;
  ``Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing 
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, 
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush 
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and 
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the 
United Nations Security Council.''
  The counterpoint of this, Mr. Speaker, and the key issue here, is 
that the Iraqi regime has never attacked, nor does it have the 
capability to attack, the United States. The no-fly zone was not the 
result of a U.N. Security Council directive. Now, many people do not 
know that. They think the U.N. Security Council established the no-fly 
zone. It did not. The no-fly zone was illegally imposed by the United 
States, Great Britain, and France, and is not specifically sanctioned 
by any Security Council resolution.
  The resolution goes on to say, and I quote from the resolution: 
``Whereas members of al Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility 
for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, 
including the attacks that occurred on September 11, are known to be in 
Iraq.''

  Well, the American people need to know there is no credible evidence 
that connects Iraq to the events of 9-11 or to participation in those 
events by assisting al Qaeda.
  The resolution states, and I quote: ``Whereas Iraq continues to aid 
and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including 
organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American 
citizens.''
  The key issue here, and the counterpoint that the American people 
need to know, is that any connection between Iraq's support of 
terrorist groups in the Middle East, Mr. Speaker, is an argument for 
focusing great resources on resolving the conflict between Israel and 
the Palestinians. It is not a sufficient cause for the United States to 
launch a unilateral preemptive strike against Iraq. Indeed, an argument 
could be made that such an attack would exacerbate the condition in the 
Middle East and destabilize the region.
  The resolution states: ``Whereas the attacks on the United States of 
America of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat 
posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by 
international terrorist organizations.''
  And, again, and I stress, the American people need to know that there 
is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9-11. However, this 
resolution attempts to make the connection over and over and over. And 
just saying that there is a connection does not make it so, because the 
Central Intelligence Agency has not presented this Congress with any 
credible information that indicates that there is in fact a tie between 
Iraq and 9-11, between Iraq and al Qaeda, or Iraq and the anthrax 
attacks on this Capitol.
  And if we are to go to war against any Nation, and I oppose us doing 
this in this case, we ought not be taking such action in retaliation, 
and ought not put it in a document like this in retaliation, attacking 
a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11.

                              {time}  1530

  The resolution goes on to say, ``Whereas Iraq's demonstrated 
capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk 
that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to 
launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces 
or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the 
extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and 
its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the 
United States to defend itself''; that is the assertion.
  The key issue here is that there is no credible evidence that Iraq 
possesses weapons of mass destruction. If Iraq had successfully 
concealed the production of such weapons since 1998, and let us assume 
that somebody has information they have never told Congress, they have 
never been able to back up, but they have this information and it is 
secret, and they secretly know Iraq has such weapons, there is no 
credible evidence that Iraq has the capability to reach the United 
States with such weapons, if they have them, and many of us believe no 
evidence has been presented that they do.
  In 1991, the Gulf War, Iraq had a demonstrated capability of 
biological and chemical weapons, but they obviously did not have the 
willingness to use them against the Armed Forces of the United States. 
Congress has not been provided any credible information which proves 
that Iraq has provided international terrorists with weapons of mass 
destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution will be presented to this Congress to 
vote on as a cause of war. I am reading the exact quote from the 
resolution, and then I am making the counterpoint. In effect, this is 
the first step towards a debate on this issue on this floor.
  The resolution says, ``Whereas United Nations Security Council 
Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant 
resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that 
threaten international peace and security, including the development of 
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United 
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security 
Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in 
violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and 
threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in 
violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949.''
  The counterpoint and what the American people need to know is that 
the U.N. Charter, and we participate in the United Nations, we helped 
form the United Nations, we helped set up this international framework 
of law that is represented by the United Nations, that the United 
Nations Charter forbids all Member nations, including the United 
States, from unilaterally enforcing U.N. resolutions.
  We cannot do this on our own. We cannot decide that some nation is in 
violation of U.N. resolutions and we take it upon ourselves to render 
justice.
  The resolution states, that will be before this House as a cause of 
war, ``Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force 
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President 
to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security 
Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of 
Security Council Resolutions 660, 612, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 
674, 677''; and the point is the same.
  If those Security Council resolutions are not being implemented, that 
is up to the United Nations and the Security Council to take up the 
matter. It is not up to the United States to initiate unilateral action 
enforcing U.N. resolutions with military force.
  The resolution which is being presented to this House next week says, 
``Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it 
supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United 
Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the 
Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public 
Law 102-1), that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates 
United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and constitutes a 
continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian 
Gulf region, and that Congress supports the use of all necessary means 
to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 
688.''
  Well, the counterpoint here is this, and what we are going to be 
asserting on the floor of this House is that this clause demonstrates 
the proper chronology of international process in contrast to the 
current march to war. In

[[Page H7013]]

1991, the United Nations Security Council passed the resolution asking 
for enforcement of its resolution. Member countries authorized their 
troops to participate in a U.N.-led coalition to enforce the U.N. 
resolutions. Now the President is asking Congress to authorize 
a unilateral first strike before the U.N. Security Council has asked 
its member states to enforce U.N. resolutions.

  If we believe in international law, then we ought to look to what 
this country did in 1991 when it joined the United Nations' effort on 
this matter on global security and not go it alone, not initiate a 
unilateral action or attack or preemptive strike.
  The resolution here says, ``Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public 
Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the 
policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the 
current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic 
government to replace that regime.''
  Well, the counterpoint is this, and the American people should know 
this, this sense of Congress resolution which is referred to in that 
paragraph was not binding. Furthermore, while Congress supported 
democratic means of removing Saddam Hussein, and I voted for that, we 
clearly did not endorse the use of force contemplated in this 
resolution.
  Where does it end? Is there some other leader we do not like that we 
are going to use force to take out? Nor did Congress endorse 
assassination as a policy. It is absolutely horrific that a Nation 
which has prided itself as celebrating the rule of law, as believing in 
the rights of all people, that we would have any document in our 
government, have any public official in our government, have anybody 
working for this government implying or openly advocating that we would 
use assassination as a policy. This country has suffered from 
assassination of some of our greatest leaders, some of our greatest 
Presidents, and we know that once that principle goes out there, that 
it can only go against the highest principles this country stands on.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution says, ``Whereas on September 12, 2002, 
President Bush committed the United States to work with the United 
Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge posed by Iraq and 
to work for the necessary resolutions, while also making it clear that 
the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and that the just 
demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be 
unavoidable.''
  It goes on to say, ``Whereas the United States is determined to 
prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for 
international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons 
of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 
1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions 
make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United 
States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant 
United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including 
through the use of force if necessary.''
  That is their cause of war. Now what the American people need to 
know, and the other side of that key issue is, unilateral actions 
against Iraq will cost the United States the support of the world 
community, adversely affecting the war on terrorism. No credible 
intelligence exists which connects Iraq to the events of 9/11 or to 
those terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. And under international law, the 
United States does not have the authority to unilaterally order 
military action to enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions.
  The point that the administration is trying to make, and it is in 
this resolution, that it is a cause of war is that, ``Whereas Congress 
has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the 
provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take 
the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist 
organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who 
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that 
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or 
organizations.''
  The key issue here and what the American people need to know and what 
will be in debate on this floor next week is that the administration 
has not provided Congress with any proof that Iraq is in any way 
connected to the events of 9/11. The American people are fair people. 
They do not believe in hitting someone who did not hit them. They 
believe in self-defense, but they do not believe that we should bomb 
Iraq if Iraq is not connected to 9/11.
  The administration in the resolution that we will be voting on next 
week, their cause of war says, ``Whereas the President and Congress are 
determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against 
international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those 
nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or 
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or 
harbored such persons or organizations.''
  Again, I repeat, the answer to that is obvious. By now people need to 
understand, the American people need to know, the counterpoint is the 
administration has not provided Congress with any proof that Iraq is in 
any way connected to the events of 9/11. Furthermore, there is no 
credible evidence that Iraq has harbored those who are responsible for 
planning the attacks.

  The resolution says, ``Whereas the President has the authority under 
the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of 
international terrorism against the United States, as Congress 
recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military 
Force (Public Law 107-40);'' and what the American people need to know 
and the key point here, the counterpoint is that this resolution that 
we passed, the one we passed last year, that was specific to 9/11. It 
was a limited response to 9/11. It did not authorize war without end. 
We did not vote for that. We did not vote to conduct war against Iraq a 
year ago.
  The resolution states, ``Whereas it is in the national security of 
the United States to restore international peace and security to the 
Persian Gulf region.''
  The key issue here, Mr. Speaker, what do we mean by national security 
interests? If by national security interests of the United States the 
administration means oil, it ought to communicate such to the Congress. 
A unilateral attack on Iraq by the United States will cause instability 
and chaos in the region, and it will sow the seeds of future conflict 
all over the world.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an enactment clause in all laws which is 
effectively the stuff of which the law is made. All of the things that 
I have cited before are substantially prefatory clauses, even hortatory 
language, but the real guts of the law comes in the enactment clause.

                              {time}  1545

  The short title is the Authorization for the use of Military Force 
Against Iraq.
  Section 2. Support for United States Diplomatic Efforts.
  The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the 
President to strictly enforce through the United Nations Security 
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq 
and encourages him in those efforts; and, B, obtain prompt and decisive 
action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its 
strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly 
complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress can and Congress should support this clause. 
However, the section I am about to read, which is section 3, undermines 
the effectiveness of this section 2. Any peaceful settlement requires 
Iraq compliance. The totality of this resolution, however, indicates 
the administration will wage war against Iraq no matter what. This 
approach, of course, would undermine negotiations.
  I am going to cite from section 3 which is the section that all 
Americans are going to want to know about:
  Section 3. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces.
  Authorization. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of 
the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in 
order to, 1, defend the national security of the United States against 
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and, 2, enforce all relevant 
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

[[Page H7014]]

  Mr. Speaker, the key issue here and the counterpoint and what will be 
the focus of debate in this House next week is this fact: this clause 
is substantially similar to the authorization that the President 
originally sought. It gives authority to the President to act prior to 
and even without a U.N. resolution, and it authorizes the President to 
use U.S. troops to enforce U.N. resolutions, even without United 
Nations' request for it. So what we are talking about here is 
unilateralism. Go it alone. Policeman of the world. Strike first. Send 
a signal to every other nation; strike first. This is a violation of 
chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which reserves the ability to authorize 
force for that purpose to the Security Council alone.
  Under chapter 7 of the charter of the United Nations, it says that 
the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to 
peace and shall make recommendations to maintain or restore 
international peace and security. That is from article 39. It says that 
only the Security Council can decide that military force would be 
necessary. The Security Council may decide what measures are to be 
employed, to give effect to its decisions. Article 41. And it may take 
such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain 
or restore international peace and security. That is article 43.
  Furthermore, the resolution that will be before us authorizes use of 
force illegally since the U.N. Security Council has not requested it. 
According to the U.N. charter, members of the U.N. such as the U.S. are 
required to make available to the Security Council on its call and in 
accordance with the special agreement or agreements, armed forces. The 
U.N. Security Council has not called upon its members to use military 
force against Iraq at the current time. Furthermore, changes to the 
language of the previous use of force resolution drafted by Congress 
and objected to by many Members of Congress are cosmetic.
  I want it stated, Mr. Speaker, if I thought for a moment that this 
country was facing a threat and was under attack, I and every Member of 
this Congress would rise in a single voice. By voice we would have a 
unanimous resolution defending this country, because that is our proud 
tradition. As a matter of fact, that is one of the foundational 
principles of this country, to provide for the common defense. We have 
an obligation to provide for the common defense. But we also have an 
obligation not to let that hallowed principle, that sacred principle of 
providing for the common defense be misused.
  It says provide for the common defense, not provide for the common 
offense. It is called the Department of Defense, not the Department of 
Offense. America is not an aggressor Nation, but the resolution that is 
brought in this House next week would for the first time in the history 
of this country make America an aggressor Nation. We have to remember 
that we are heirs to an incredible tradition, a tradition of standing 
up for honesty and decency and human rights in this world, a tradition 
of truth telling, a tradition upon which 226 years rests. In that 
tradition there are no Democrats or Republicans; there are only 
Americans. Before this Congress defames the purpose of this country by 
voting for such a resolution, we owe it to the American people to go 
over every aspect of this resolution to make sure that we are not 
making a grievous mistake that would set this country on a path towards 
destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, many of us remember last month when we left this Chamber 
to join hundreds of Members of Congress in a solemn commemoration of 9-
11 and in solidarity with New Yorkers at Federal Hall in New York City. 
I know the Speaker and other Members of Congress, all of us, could 
sense a special energy at that sacred shrine to democracy where George 
Washington was sworn in, where a Congress of 2 centuries ago received 
the Bill of Rights. As I stood there, Mr. Speaker, in a moment of 
reflection, I could envision the Congress of long ago gathering as a 
galaxy of stars just cascaded from the sky through that circular 
opening above the rotunda of Federal Hall. In my mind's eye, I could 
see this galaxy of stars coming through representing universal 
principles pouring into this venerable site, in forming the pledge that 
Washington made to a new Nation, freedom's holy light illuminating the 
Bill of Rights.
  In that moment, I had a new understanding about our flag. Our flag as 
spangled with stars as a bolt of heaven itself connects the United 
States with eternal principles of unity, of brotherhood and sisterhood. 
Look at that flag. Those stars are not just 50 States. They are 
principles. And the energy of the stars, present at the birth of this 
Nation, is still with us. It is upon that dark blue cloth of our flag. 
One bright star there shines for hope, another star for optimism, 
another for well-being, one for freedom, one star for abundance, one 
star for creativity, one for togetherness, and one for peace. One star 
to wish upon to create our highest aspirations, to make our dreams come 
true.
  This, our country and our very selves are all made of such stars. As 
the popular song goes, ``This is who we are.'' This is what gives 
higher meaning to our being an American. This is what gives higher 
meaning to patriotism. I love our flag. Though some would make it stand 
for chaos and war, I see the field of stars as standing for the highest 
expression of human unity. A higher meaning of the United States is 
that we express wholeness through the unity of 50 States. Out of many, 
we are one. That is the motto up there, Mr. Speaker, e pluribus unum, 
Latin for ``out of many, we are one.'' We present ourselves to the 
world as an exemplification of the principle of oneness, of the 
universality of all, of the confirmation of one in the many. The world. 
Out of many nations we are one. Universality, that is where we come 
from.
  The idea of America emerged from the intellectual energy, the heart 
energy, the spirit energy of the Renaissance, the genesis and a journey 
of lovers marrying their fortunes together, bound for America, looking 
for that lamp lifted beside the golden door of liberty. The quest for 
universal principles, of justice, of human rights, of civil rights, of 
opportunity, of a meaningful future is what caused millions, millions 
to see America as the light of nations. These universal principles are 
the stars by which those who came to our shores sailed. These are the 
stars that can guide us past the shoals of arms dealers and oil 
interests who today would crash our ship of state upon the rocks of 
war.
  America has a higher destiny. As with generations past, our destiny 
can take us to places we have never been before or can only imagine, 
places of peace, places of plenty, places of hope, places of love. We 
have a right to live up to our ideals. That is our birthright. We 
should not trade it for the pretensions of empire, nor for delusions of 
grandeur, nor for all the gold in Fort Knox, all the tea in China, nor 
all the oil in Iraq. America has a higher destiny. Mr. Speaker, I want 
to speak about the America that can be, about reestablishing the 
context of our Nation, about a second renaissance which can begin in 
this Nation with this generation.

  First, let us travel to the place where civilization was born 
thousands of years ago, upon the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates. Let 
us see there, instead of dancing with death and killing untold 
thousands of innocent civilians, we can change directions, pull back 
from war with Iraq, change the outcome, connect with our aspirations 
for peace and reclaim our ingenuity and creativity in human relations.
  Why is this war and why has this war that we are facing with Iraq, 
why has it been presented as inevitable? Is it not time to insist that 
our leaders stop incessant war talk, this assumed right to unilateral 
action? Is it not time that we insist on preventive diplomacy and our 
obligation to work with the world community on matters of global 
security? Why is this war being presented as inevitable?
  The headlines from The New York Times the day after we visited to 
commemorate 9-11 read, ``Bush to Warn U.N., Act on Iraq or U.S. Will. 
He Leads Nation in Mourning at Terrorist Sites.'' There is no credible 
evidence linking Iraq with 9-11, with al Qaeda, or with anthrax 
attacks. There is no credible evidence Iraq has usable weapons of mass 
destruction, the ability to deliver such weapons, or the intention to 
do so.
  When Iraq possessed such weapons, quite sad to say, they did it with 
the knowledge and sometimes with materials from the United States. 
During

[[Page H7015]]

the administration of President Reagan, 60 helicopters were sold to 
Iraq. Later reports said Iraq used U.S. helicopters to spray Kurds with 
chemical weapons. According to The Washington Post, Iraq used mustard 
gas against Iran with the help of intelligence from the CIA. 
Intelligence reports cited the use of nerve gas by Iraq against Iran. 
Iraq's punishment? The U.S. reestablished full diplomatic ties around 
Thanksgiving of 1984. Throughout 1989 and 1990, U.S. companies, with 
the permission of the first Bush government, sent to Iraq, the 
government of Saddam Hussein, tons of mustard gas precursors, live 
cultures for bacteriological research, helped to build a chemical 
weapons factory, supplied West Nile virus, supplied fuel explosive 
technology, computers for weapon technology, hydrogen cyanide 
precursors, computers for weapon research and development, and vacuum 
pumps and bellows for nuclear weapons plants.
  ``We have met the enemy,'' said Walt Kelly's Pogo, ``and he is us.''

                              {time}  1600

  Unilateral action on the part of the United States or in partnership 
with Great Britain would for the first time set our Nation on a blood-
stained path of aggressive war, a sacrilege against the memory of those 
who fought to defend this country. America's moral authority would be 
undermined throughout the world. It would signal for Russia to invade 
Georgia; China, Taiwan; North Korea, South; India, Pakistan; and 
destabilize the entire Gulf and Middle Eastern region.
  There is a way out. We need a comprehensive solution to the crisis in 
Iraq. It must involve the United Nations, and it can be facilitated by 
Russia, which signed a $40 billion trade agreement with Iraq. 
Inspections for weapons of mass destruction must begin immediately. 
Inspectors must have free and unfettered access to all sites. 
Negotiations must begin.
  Concerning the counterproductive policies, a regime change and 
sanctions, emergency relief must be expedited. Free trade except in 
arms should be permitted. Foreign investments should be allowed, and 
the assets of Iraq abroad must be restored. A regional zone free of 
weapons of mass destruction should be established.
  If we could take a new direction in Iraq and the region, we could 
begin a new era of peace. We do not have to go to war. We could refocus 
our effort on the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. 
We could bring new initiatives to help Pakistan and India resolve 
Kashmir.
  Mr. Speaker, in total, the United States can repair its position in 
the world community through cooperation, not confrontation. We can 
change the world for the better, and we can look to the heavens itself 
for guidance. We can begin by banning any research planning or 
deployment of weapons in outer space. Human destiny has always been 
linked with the stars. How grim that America is planning to put weapons 
in outer space, to seize the ultimate high ground, to attempt to gain 
strategic advantage over every nation on Earth.
  We must turn back from such arrogance. We must let the name of peace 
be hallowed on Earth as it is in the heavens. With a space preservation 
treaty, we must direct our efforts towards solving conflicts on this 
planet rather than spreading war and perpetuity throughout the universe 
in a plan paradoxically called Vision 2020.
  I have a vision of nations working together cooperatively, using what 
President Franklin Roosevelt called the science of human relations. 
That is the basis for the creation of a department of peace which seeks 
to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society for domestic 
as well as international policy. War is not inevitable unless we refuse 
to work for peace patiently and tirelessly.
  I envision a U.S. leadership which will end the threat of nuclear 
destruction by realizing the promise of the Nonproliferation Treaty. 
Seventeen nations possess, are pursuing, or are capable of acquiring 
nuclear weapons. Now is the time to stop the drive towards nuclear 
rearmament. Now is the time to provide incentives to stop the nuclear 
arms race, to stop building nuclear weapons, and to stop testing.
  America should restore the ABM Treaty and begin again with Russia 
true arms reductions towards the day when all nuclear weapons are 
abolished, and America can lead those 26 nations which possess or they 
are pursuing or are trying to get chemical weapons of mass destruction. 
We need to move towards participation in the chemical weapons 
convention and agree to have such weapons eliminated worldwide. America 
can lead the way towards the destruction of all biological weapons of 
mass destruction by signing on to the biological weapons convention. 
Twenty nations have designs on such weapons. Let America lead the way 
towards abolishing biological weapons.
  We have much work to do to regain world leadership in ending the 
proliferation of small arms by signing the small arm treaty and to 
eliminate the scourge of land mines. America can help strengthen the 
cause of international justice by agreeing to the International 
Criminal Court. Certainly, certainly a Nation which has an interest in 
bringing to justice those in violation of international law should 
support an international court which would accomplish just that.
  Mr. Speaker, last month I represented the United States at the World 
Summit on Sustainable Development. There with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller), the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer), I called for our Nation to join with the world community 
in solving the challenge of global climate change and working to reduce 
carbon emissions, greenhouse gases. America must lead the way towards 
sustainable and renewable energies. As a first step, I joined with 
Mayor Brown of Oakland, proposing a $50 billion solar initiative in 
cooperation with Mikhail Gorbachev's Global Green.
  It is the United States that lead the way towards a global community 
which is inclusive and sustainable, which promotes democratic values, 
and which enables the growth of potential and the health of each person 
by putting human rights and workers' rights and environmental quality 
principles into each and every trade agreement.
  There is much work to do on the world stage, but we cannot do it by 
creating war when we ought to be working for peace. Iraq is not an 
imminent threat, but an unemployment rate which is reaching 6 percent 
is an imminent threat. Forty-one million Americans without health 
insurance is an imminent threat. The high cost of prescription drugs, 
an imminent threat. Unregulated energy companies which charge 
confiscatory rates for electricity and gas, an imminent threat. Large 
corporations which lie about their value and deprive stockholders of 
their life's savings, an imminent threat. Seniors losing their 
pensions, an imminent threat.
  So, too, is the climate of fear being cycled in this country. Every 
time a civil liberty is rolled back or undermined in America, a little 
bit of our free Nation dies. Each government report which drums terror 
and fear weakens our Nation. When Francis Scott Key wrote ``Oh, say 
does that star-spangled banner yet wave, o'er the land of the free and 
the home of the brave,'' he made the essential connection between 
democracy and courage. Courage will guide our Nation through this 
crisis. Courage will enable us to set our government right. Courage 
will enable us to go to the campuses, to labor halls, to churches and 
to the streets to organize against a war which will undermine our 
Nation, ruin our reputation, kill innocent people, and damage the 
economy of our Nation and the world.
  We are at a critical and creative moment in the human history where 
we have it within our power to change the world. It is about 
evolutionary politics which follows an evolutionary consciousness. We 
can do it by changing the way we look at the world, by contemplating 
and realizing universal brotherhood and sisterhood of all persons. We 
can do it by tapping into our own unlimited potential to think anew.
  Imagine, imagine if we could look at our Nation today with the same 
daring with which our Founders gazed. Imagine if we could regain the 
capacity of spirit which animated freedom of speech, the right to 
assemble, the right to vote, freedom from fear, freedom from want.
  I tell my colleagues that there is another America out there, and it 
is

[[Page H7016]]

ready to be called forward. It is the America of our dreams. It is the 
America of the flag full of stars. It is the America which is in our 
hearts, and we can make it the heart of the world.
  I thank the people of the 10th Congressional District for giving me 
the honor to serve the State of Ohio in this Congress, and I join once 
again in gratitude to all those Members of Congress who today called on 
the people of America to reconfirm the commitment of government of the 
people, by the people, and for the people, to reconfirm the connection 
which you have with this country. And if you do not want war with Iraq, 
then the people have the right to contact their Members of Congress and 
tell them so. That is the essence of representative government; that is 
the process I am proud to be a part of. That is why it is a privilege 
to be a Member of the Congress of the United States.

                          ____________________