[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 131 (Tuesday, October 8, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H7178-H7186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 114, AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF
MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 574
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114)
to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. The joint resolution shall be considered as read for
amendment. The amendment to the preamble and the amendment to
the text recommended by the Committee on International
Relations and now printed in the joint resolution shall be
considered as adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as amended,
and on any further amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) 17 hours of debate on
the joint resolution, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on International Relations, which may be extended
pursuant to section 2; (2) the further amendments printed in
the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution, which may be offered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be in order without intervention of any point
of order or demand for division of the question, shall be
considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for the
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled
by the proponent and an opponent; (3) after the conclusion of
consideration of the amendments printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules, a final period of debate on the joint
resolution, as amended, which shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on International Relations;
and (4) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. It shall be in order for the Majority Leader or his
designee, after consultation with the Minority Leader, to
move to extend debate on the joint resolution, as amended.
Such motion shall not be subject to debate or amendment.
Sec. 3. During consideration of House Joint Resolution 114
pursuant to the first section of this resolution,
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the
Chair may postpone further consideration of the joint
resolution to a time designated by the Speaker either on the
same legislative day or on the next legislative day.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule that provides for
20 hours of debate on the resolution as well as providing for two
Democratic substitutes. The rule also provides that after consultation
with the minority leader, the majority leader may extend debate to
ensure that all Members have an opportunity to speak on this important
issue. Just as in 1991, every single Member will have a chance to be
heard.
The rules makes in order two substitute amendments, two Democratic
substitutes to be offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)
and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), as well as
providing for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, at this moment the people's House begins debate on one
of the most difficult questions we will ever face. I rise today in
strong support of the resolution authorizing the President to take
action to address the very troubling issue of Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
No Member of this body should ever be too eager to send our military
into harm's way. Nor should we ever consider taking such an action
without a strong and vigorous debate. At the end of the day, however, I
am pleased that we have come up with a bipartisan resolution to prove
once again that partisanship ends at the water's edge.
I am a strong supporter of international cooperation, working with
our friends and allies and the United Nations. However, in matters of
national security, multinational cooperation and coalition-building are
tools that help us to achieve our most precious national interests. We
cannot be beholden to any institution whose interests may not coincide
with our own.
Obviously, we would all be gratified to have the full and
unconditional support of the United Nations Security Council. Secretary
of State Colin Powell has been working tirelessly for months to garner
that support up in New York. But as the Government of the United
States, it is our primary responsibility to provide for the safety and
security of our citizens, both at home and abroad. That is why I
support this resolution which will in fact strengthen our hand at the
United Nations and demonstrate that this government is united in its
determination
[[Page H7179]]
to address the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.
Mr. Speaker, Saddam Hussein oppresses his people, flaunts the will of
the international community, has committed genocide, and pursues
weapons of mass destruction that will dramatically alter the status of
his country in the international system.
For 12 years he has blatantly ignored the Security Council
resolutions he previously agreed to. When the inspectors were
conducting their inspections with Iraq, they were constantly impeded.
The time for ineffective inspections, with conditions set by this
Stalinist dictator, has passed. Iraq has received chance after chance,
only to continue to obstruct and deny. The time for chances is over.
Only unconditional and unfettered inspections with total disarmament of
Iraq's cache of weapons of mass destruction are acceptable.
So far, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations has proved unwilling to back
its words with actions. As Saddam's primary enemy, it falls to the
President and this Congress to protect the American people from this
mass murderer. Saddam Hussein presents a clear and immediate threat to
the safety of American citizens and our interests overseas. We know he
has produced such deadly gases as VX and sarin, along with anthrax. We
know he has over 30,000 delivery vehicles for such biological and
chemical agents, and we know he has scuds capable of reaching our
forces stationed in the Gulf and our NATO allies in Turkey.
Perhaps more frightening, we know that Iraq is actively seeking to
reestablish its nuclear weapons program and has reportedly been seeking
uranium to achieve that goal, and the track record shows that his
ability to inflict harm has always been underestimated. Given the level
of technical expertise that Iraq developed prior to the Gulf War, it
would take them months, not years, to develop a nuclear device once
they obtained the proper materials.
There are those who argue that Saddam Hussein, a man who has started
two wars in 2 decades, can be contained and managed. Let me remind the
Nation of Saddam Hussein's record in power. He sponsors terrorist
groups that have killed American citizens. He routinely pays the
families of suicide bombers while he lets his own citizens starve. He
has executed thousands of Iraqis a year and combats dissent by publicly
removing the tongues of his critics. He has engaged in ethnic cleansing
utilizing chemical weapons that have killed over 5,000 Kurds, and he
has completely destroyed entire towns he felt were disloyal. He has
committed genocide and other crimes against humanity and deserves to be
held accountable.
The United States held the moral high ground in ending Slobodan
Milosevic's reign of terror, and Saddam has reigned too long.
Further, I disagree with those who argue that we should not undertake
this action because it is preemptive. Authorizing the President to
effectively address this situation is not preemptive. This is a
response to those heinous acts I have just outlined. With every U.N.
resolution Iraq ignores, it threatens international peace. Unless and
until Iraq complies fully with the inspections, a standard it has never
met, there remains ample justification for taking action to defend the
security of our Nation. Iraq is a nation that publicly states that it
has every intention of cooperating with the international community,
but continues to try to shoot down our brave pilots enforcing the no-
fly zones.
History has not been kind to the governments that have acceded to the
wishes of brutal dictators in the hopes of staving off conflicts. The
security of the future depends on the resolve we show here today. As we
learned on September 11, delaying our response to security threats can
have devastating consequences. It is incumbent upon all of us to
demonstrate to the world's dictators they cannot hide behind false
cooperation and that our Nation will not be cowed from protecting our
citizens for fear of political or military difficulty.
Mr. Speaker, our security comes first. I cannot help but think of
Abraham Lincoln's words 137 years ago when he said: ``The struggle of
today is not altogether for today. It is for a vast future also.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. FROST asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, today we begin a historic debate here in the
House of Representatives. It will continue for 3 days, and every Member
will have the opportunity to be heard. Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, it is
not often that Congress must consider matters of war and peace, so we
have studied the issue seriously. Within the Democratic Caucus, Members
have received numerous briefings from Republicans as well as Democrats
and outside experts as well as those inside the administration and
asked probing questions over the past few weeks and months.
I expect that this debate will be as robust as it is serious. It
should come as no surprise that many sincere people in the
administration, in Congress, and among the public have varying views
about how best to deal with Saddam Hussein; and it should come as no
surprise that there is no party position on an issue of this gravity.
In 1991, I was in the minority of my own party when I voted to
authorize the first President Bush to use force against Saddam Hussein.
Now, 11 years later, the situation is different; and I expect that more
Democrats will authorize the second President Bush to use military
force, if necessary, to end the threat that Saddam Hussein poses.
Mr. Speaker, I disagree with those who assume that the opposition's
part is to automatically oppose the administration. When it comes to
national security, the public expects Democrats and Republicans to lay
down our partisan swords and try to work out a consensus.
{time} 1030
We may differ in some areas, but those differences should be based on
principle, not on party labels. The three resolutions on the House
floor meet that standard. They have the support of thoughtful Members
of both parties who have struggled sincerely to devise what they
believe is the best approach to protecting America and our vital
interests in the world.
Mr. Speaker, our lively and honest discussion this week, and I expect
it will be very lively, should not be mistaken for a lack of resolve.
On both sides of the aisle there is general consensus that Saddam
Hussein is a threat to the security and stability of the world, and
there is an overwhelming bipartisan commitment to ending that threat.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that Saddam's outlaw regime poses a
serious threat to the United States, our allies, and the rest of the
world. Between 1991 and 1998, weapons inspectors found and destroyed
significant amounts of chemical and biological weapons, despite Iraq's
protestations that none existed. Since then, Saddam Hussein has
continued his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction as well as his
hostilities to the United States and our interests.
I am pleased that Democratic and Republican leaders, working with the
administration, have agreed to the compromise resolution H.J. Res. 114
that is on the House floor this week. The President has accepted many
important Democratic changes to his original resolution. As a result,
it has been significantly improved and America's position against
Saddam Hussein has been strengthened.
The compromise resolution strikes a good balance between using a
multilateral approach and preserving America's right to defend our
interests. It strongly supports the efforts of Secretary of State Colin
Powell to build an international coalition through the United Nations
against Saddam Hussein; and if diplomatic efforts fail, it requires the
President to report back to Congress before beginning military action.
There are other important changes. While the original White House
draft would have authorized military action in the region, this
compromise focuses on Iraq specifically. It also requires the President
to comply with the War Powers Act and its regular procedures for
consulting with, and reporting to, Congress. Moreover, this resolution
requires the President to ensure the war
[[Page H7180]]
on terrorism will not be hampered by military action against Iraq.
Since September 11, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to
wage the war on terror, and it is critical that the administration not
forget its commitment to bring Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to justice.
Finally, this resolution forces the administration to report to
Congress on their planning for the reconstruction, peacekeeping, and
other activities that will be necessary after a military conflict with
Iraq. Winning the peace is as important as winning the war, and we
insist that the administration prepare the American people for the
long-term commitment needed to restore peace and stability to Iraq and
the Middle East.
All in all, Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan compromise is a substantial
improvement on the White House's original draft. Just as importantly,
it will help build broad support in the international community as well
as here at home for ending the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. That is
critical because this is not an easy job. I remain hopeful that
international diplomatic pressure will allow a strong, unfettered
inspections regime to disarm Saddam Hussein, and I believe that the
strong signal that Congress sends with this resolution will increase
our diplomatic leverage.
But I am also not naive. Given Saddam's history, we must be prepared
for the possibility of a military confrontation with Iraq. The United
States has the finest fighting force in the world, and I am confident
that if we are forced to fight Saddam Hussein our troops will defeat
him overwhelmingly. But war is not something to be taken lightly, and
it requires the full support of the American people. That is why, Mr.
Speaker, Democrats insisted that the President seek congressional
authorization before taking action against Saddam Hussein; and it is
why Democratic leaders reached out to the White House to craft a
bipartisan resolution.
Mr. Speaker, this is a deadly serious matter, and I have tremendous
respect for many of those who differ with me on it. After all, men and
women who love their country can disagree on the best way to protect
our country. Nonetheless, I believe that the best way to end Saddam
Hussein's threat is to meet it head on, and I believe that the
compromise resolution represents a sensible and responsible approach to
protecting America and the world against Saddam Hussein. I expect it
will pass with the overwhelmingly bipartisan support it deserves.
In closing, let me make one more point. Before this is over we may be
asking families across the Nation to make tremendous sacrifices.
Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops may have to put their lives on the
line.
I have no doubt that the men and women of the military can secure
America's interests abroad, but as these brave Americans do their job,
I hope this Congress will finally do its job and address the deepening
economic uncertainty that threatens our security here at home. After
all, Iraq is not the only issue in America today. As we speak,
unemployment and the poverty rate erupt, while the stock market and
401(K) plans are down. Every day Americans across the country have to
deal with economic security as well as national security. It is time
this Congress followed their example.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the Republican members
of the Committee on Rules are going to be standing today in strong
support of this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Atlanta, Georgia
(Mr. Linder), distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Technology
and the House.
(Mr. LINDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying legislation
which authorizes the use of our Armed Forces by the President of the
United States against Iraq.
In addition, this rule will allow for the consideration of two
amendments in the nature of substitutes, thus allowing the Members of
the House to choose among several measures on this grave and important
issue. I commend the chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier), for his thoughtful deliberation in
bringing this rule to the floor today.
Over the next few days, this body will find itself engaged in a
debate of historic proportions; and, once the debate has concluded, we
must give an answer to our President who has asked the Congress to
unite with him in opposition to the tyrannical regime of Saddam
Hussein. I am proud to stand with President Bush and cast my vote in
support of H.J. Res. 114.
Since 1798, the United States has involved itself in approximately
310 separate military actions worldwide. Of that total, Congress has
authorized the use of force through legislation 11 times and has
declared war on sovereign states five times. Thus, the vote we will
cast on this legislation will be among the most profound of our
careers. Yet a careful review of the evidence that President Bush has
put before the country, the United Nations, and the world makes it
clear that this difficult choice is our only reasonable choice.
Of course, a peaceful resolution to the problems that Saddam Hussein
poses in the world would be ideal, and continued diplomacy should be
our preferred tool. Yet what has been going on for the last 11 years if
not that? The failures of the United Nations' actions are well known.
Shall we continue down that same road and expect to arrive at a
different destination?
The President has made clear that we will continue to work with the
United Nations for a peaceful result, but absent that the United States
must be prepared to take strong action. This resolution makes it clear
to Saddam that, if he fails to immediately comply with a host of United
Nations resolutions, then he must be fully prepared to accept the
consequences of those failures.
The fundamental question before us today is: Will the United States
of America, in coalition with the peace-loving nations of this world,
allow the tyranny of Saddam to continue, or will we take steps to rid
the world of this growing menace?
What is clear today, Mr. Speaker, is that a peaceful world is the end
we seek, a world in which free nations can pursue their own dreams
unthreatened by warring despots whose only pursuit is power. The people
of Iraq should and must be free from the oppressive, tyrannical and
dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein. The peace-loving people of the
Middle East, the European continent, Asia, Africa, and, yes, North
America, too, must be freed from the fear that weapons of mass
destruction visit upon them.
It is indisputable that the United States has been, for over two
centuries, the beacon of freedom and opportunity for the world. Our
military ambitions have been forever leavened by our dream of peace and
freedom in the world. I see no reason now to answer this call with a
message of timidity or caution.
I urge my colleagues to join with me so that Congress can speak with
a clear voice and support the President for peace throughout the world.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of both this rule and the underlying,
H.J. Res. 114, which authorizes the use of our Armed Forces by the
President of the United States against Iraq.
In addition, this rule will allow for the consideration of two
amendments in the nature of substitutes, thus allowing the Members of
the House to choose among several measures on this grave and important
issue. I commend the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, for
his thoughtful deliberation in bringing this rule to the floor today.
Over the next few days, this body will find itself engaged in a
debate of historic proportions. And, once the debate has concluded, we
must give an answer to our President, who has asked the Congress to
untie with him in opposition to the tyrannical regime of Saddam
Hussein. I am proud to stand with President Bush, and cast my vote in
support of H.J. Res. 114.
Since 1798, the United States has involved itself in approximately
310 separate military actions worldwide. Of that total, Congress has
authorized the use of force, through legislation, 11 times, and has
declared war on sovereign states five times. Thus, the vote we will
cast on this legislation will be among the most
[[Page H7181]]
profound of our careers. Yet, a careful review of the evidence that
President Bush has put before our country, the United Nations and the
world makes clear that this difficult choice is our only reasonable
choice.
Of course, a peaceful resolution to the problems that Saddam Hussein
poses to the world would be ideal, and continued diplomacy should be
our preferred tool. Yet, what has been going on for the last 11 years
if not that? The failures of United Nations actions are well known.
Shall we continue down that same road and expect to arrive at a
different destination?
The President has made clear that we will continue to work with the
United Nations for a peaceful result, but absent that the United States
must be prepared to take strong action. This resolution makes clear to
Saddam that, if he fails to immediately comply with a host of
United Nations resolutions, then he must be fully prepared to accept
the consequences of those failures.
The fundamental question before us today is: will the United States
of America, in coalition with the peace-loving nations of this world,
allow the tyranny of Saddam to continue, or will we take steps to rid
the world of this growing menace?
What is clear today, Mr. Speaker, is that a peaceful world is the end
we seek. A world in which free nations can pursue their own dreams
unthreatened by warring despots whose only pursuit is power.
The people of Iraq should and must be free from the oppressive,
tyrannical, and dangerous regime of Saddam Hussein. The peace-loving
people of the Middle East, the European continent, Asia, Africa, and
North America, too, must be freed from the fear that weapons of mass
destruction visit upon them.
It is indisputable that the United States has been, for over two
centuries, the beacon of freedom and opportunity for the world. Our
military ambitions have been forever leavened by our dream of peace and
freedom for the world. I see no reason to now answer this call with a
message of timidity or caution.
Passing this resolution with a broad, bi-partisan majority gives the
U.S. Congress the opportunity to bring a troubled world together under
the flag of freedom, a flag that has been unseen in much of the Middle
East for too many generations.
I ask my colleagues to join with me, so that the Congress may speak
in one clear voice, to answer the President's call for peace throughout
the world, to remove those who seek to harm not only their own people,
but everyone who believes in liberty and justice, and to bring freedom
to the people of Iraq--by any means necessary.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, although I wish more of
the substitute amendments had been made in order.
More importantly, Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to
House Joint Resolution 114, the resolution on Iraq.
I have great respect for the President and for all my colleagues who
disagree with me on this vote of conscience, but I must dissent. Simply
put, the resolution on Iraq grants authority for the United States to
unilaterally attack Iraq. It grants the President the right to go to
war with Iraq tomorrow, without the support of any other nation and
absent the support of the UN Security Council.
A little over a year ago, I voted to support the President when he
asked for authorization to use force against those who attacked us on
September 11. I believe that campaign remains the number one priority
for our foreign, military and intelligence policy.
In Afghanistan we are still engaged militarily, hunting down the
surviving al Qaeda leadership and its network of supporters. That work
is far from over. There is a desperate need for more resources to
rebuild Afghanistan and restore democratic government. The U.S. and the
international community cannot, must not fail Afghanistan again.
Our work to take down al Qaeda's international organization and
financial network is also far from over, and it requires the continuing
assistance of the international community.
Some argue that we have the resources to do it all, to wage a war
against terrorism, to unilaterally invade, occupy, and rebuild Iraq,
and not compromise our troops deployed around the world. But why, when
we can and should work with other nations to disarm Iraq, when our
allies can share the cost?
The President was right to challenge the U.N. Security Council to
carry out its mandate to disarm Iraq and ensure that it can no longer
stockpile, develop, produce or use chemical, biological, or nuclear
weapons. We must now work to ensure that the U.N. Security Council
meets its responsibilities. If we get inspectors back into Iraq, then
once again we will destroy Saddam's weapons. This time we must ensure
that he remains disarmed.
I am not asking that we stand by or stand down. If Iraq continues to
obstruct inspections, then the Security Council must approve coercive
inspections or a broader military intervention. But we are not yet at
that point, and this Congress should not approve immediate and
unilateral U.S. action without the sanction of international law or the
support of our allies.
I have no doubt that we can defeat Iraq, but I have heard nothing,
nothing in the shifting rhetoric and rationale supporting unilateral
action against Iraq to make me confident that the consequences of such
an invasion have been fully considered. There is no genuine plan of who
and what would come after Saddam Hussein, or the requirements of an
occupation force to hold and protect Iraq from internal and external
enemies, or the resources needed to rebuild Iraq and who would provide
them, or the impact of invasion on Iraq's neighbors or on popular
feeling throughout the world, let alone the impact of achieving peace
in the Middle East.
If we take unilateral action outside the authority of the U.N. and
without the direct involvement of our allies, invoking our new policy
of preemptive strike, are we not setting a dangerous precedent for
other nations? More than any other country, the U.S. has spent the past
half century building a body of international law, rules of engagement,
and multilateral institutions to guard against this very thing, nations
taking matters into their own hands and deciding to fix what is wrong
with the world as they see fit.
As the world's greatest military power, it is our first
responsibility to build consensus, create coalitions, and move
international bodies to protect and provide for our collective
security. It should not be ``Plan B.''
People throughout my district have asked me, why are we going to war
in Iraq? Veterans and seniors, students and CEOs have expressed their
deep concern. They hate Saddam and recognize, as I do, that he is a
brutal dictator, but they do not think we should go it alone.
When I vote whether to send our brave young men and women into harm's
way, I must be absolutely sure that I can face their fathers and
mothers, their husbands, wives, and children and tell them we have no
other choice; war is the only option. And I simply cannot do that yet.
Last September, I voted for force. It was necessary. It was right. It
was clearly in defense of our Nation. But today I must dissent.
{time} 1045
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, continuing with our colleagues on the
Committee on Rules, I am happy to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Miami, Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), a true patriot and my great friend.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, we can engage in no more important task than this,
debating whether to authorize the use of the Armed Forces of the United
States. This task is difficult, but the issue before us is
fundamentally clear.
After it was expelled from Kuwait in 1991, Iraq agreed to end its
production forever of weapons of mass destruction. Despite that
requirement set forth by the international community by means of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 687, Iraq has at this time a usable
chemical and biological weapons capability, which has included recent
production of chemical and biological agents.
As recently declassified intelligence reports have made clear, Iraq
can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive rage of
artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles.
Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its
obligations under the nonproliferation treaty and in breach of U.N.
Security Council Resolution 687. Uranium has been sought by Iraq
[[Page H7182]]
that has no civil nuclear application in that country.
Iraq's military forces are able to use chemical and biological
weapons with command, control, and logistical arrangements in place.
The Iraqi military is able to deploy these mobile units within 45
minutes of a decision to do so. Iraq has learned lessons from previous
U.N. weapons inspections and is already taking steps to conceal and
disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the
possible return of inspectors.
Despite having lost the war in 1991 and despite being required by the
U.N. to eliminate his weapons of mass destruction and to acquiesce to
free and open inspections by the U.N. to verify his compliance with the
world community's requirements that he not possess those weapons,
Saddam expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
What seems inconceivable to me is that we did not have this debate in
this forum 4 years ago. But in reality, only the Commander in Chief can
really lead in the field of national security.
Some say we should wait until we find a smoking gun with regard to
nuclear weapons. As my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde),
said last night in the Committee on Rules, that smoking gun would be a
smoking city, and having to mourn 3 million innocent civilians instead
of 3,000.
Regime change in Iraq is a strategic necessity. It cannot be
postponed because time is not on the side of the United States and the
international community. The world community should have removed Saddam
from power when he expelled the U.N. weapons inspectors 4 years ago.
Saddam must be removed before he has a single nuclear bomb and before
he has the means to deliver his other weapons of mass destruction on a
large scale.
The long-term cost in blood and tears of allowing Saddam to
strengthen his position would be much higher than the cost of any
action to remove him now.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives has begun a historic debate
on the most serious topic that we have ever considered by this body,
the question of whether to go to war. The Constitution states
explicitly that Congress shall have the power to declare war. This
great and terrible power is vested not in the individual of the
President, but in the collective will of the electorate as embodied by
its representatives. Members can cast no more weighty vote than this.
That said, Mr. Speaker, every bone in my body is telling me that the
American people do not want this conflict, nor do they believe this
resolution is warranted at this present time. The voices are drowned
out by the drumbeat for war emanating from Washington. These voices are
not confident that the body has asked the tough questions. They are not
confident that the shifting rationales for the invasion are anything
but a war in search of a justification.
In the last 2 months alone, more than 1,100 people have called or
written my office expressing intense disapproval of any U.S. military
action against Iraq. That contrasts with 15 who support it. These
voices are not an anomaly. Members from both sides of the aisle are
hearing them. I believe more and more that they represent the majority
of the Nation.
Like most of my colleagues, I have thought and reflected at length on
this vote. It is never an easy decision for a Member of Congress to
make lightly. I would like to share with my colleagues and constituents
the issues and questions that have led me to oppose this resolution as
written and not to send young Americans into harm's way.
First I want to discuss the source of Iraq's bioweapons. Saddam
Hussein is not a new threat for the United States. Since he took power
in 1979, Hussein has committed a laundry list of human rights abuses,
despotic acts and crimes against the global community. In 1990, this
Chamber voted to empower the President to wage war against Iraq in
order to free Kuwait and in order to preserve stability in the Middle
East. Yet the policy by the United States has not always been clear.
Most people do not know that during the early 1980s the Reagan
administration, followed by the first Bush administration, backed Iraq
in its war against Iran on the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my
friend.
At that time, the Commerce Department of the United States approved a
series of exports to the Iraqi Government of substances that will now
sound familiar to many Americans. The administration allowed Iraq to
receive biological samples of anthrax, the bacteria that makes
botulinum toxin, the germs that cause gas gangrene, and West Nile
virus, among others. Sure, he has biological weapons. We gave them to
him.
Clearly one must address Iraq and its arsenal, but we can go forward
without alienating our friends and allies within the region. Indeed,
our allies are critical to winning the war on terror, on which we have
already embarked, just as they were an important part of the 1991
coalition that led to the expulsion of Iraqi troops from Kuwait.
Moreover, our allies financed that conflict.
I am deeply troubled by the administration's unwillingness to address
the long-term strategy of Iraq. The President has failed to articulate
any plan for dealing with the future of Iraq if and when Saddam Hussein
is removed. Is Saddam's removal the final goal? Or will the United
States be expected to engage in the reconstruction of Iraq?
Will our country be involved in overhauling their political
institutions, the Iraqi economy, or its infrastructure? What if our
invasion sparks more terror and a wider war in the Middle East? Are the
American people ready to make these commitments?
Why do we think that rank-and-file Muslims in the Middle East will
support America in a war with Iraq, as they did in the early '90s? With
millions of Muslims watching death and destruction on television,
blaming the United States, is our strategy really one that will
stabilize that region?
None of these questions have been addressed publicly by the
President, and we should not vote to authorize any President to
initiate an open-ended conflict with so many unanswered questions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have to ask, why now? What has changed?
Saddam Hussein has been a threat in the region since he invaded Kuwait
12 years ago, and yet we left him alone. He has not ever cooperated
basically with the United Nations since shortly after the 1991 cease-
fire when the Security Council demanded that Iraq cooperate with
weapons inspectors. He has not fully cooperated in more than 10 years;
and as President Bush has noted, it has been 4 years since a U.N.
inspector has been allowed inside Iraq.
So if nothing has changed in the past 4 years, why are we going after
Iraq now? If there are new developments and concerns, why does the
administration not share them with us?
The emotional and financial costs of any such action can be felt for
a generation or more. In a time when our economy is reeling, when our
stock market is spiralling, when the safety nets such as Social
Security and Medicaid that have sustained our seniors and our most
vulnerable citizens are threatened, this body needs to take a hard look
at what this Nation's priorities are and why we are undertaking this
and ask again, Why now?
Mr. Speaker, I vote against this resolution with a heavy heart, but I
am fortunate that there will be a resolution we can support by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) which does all the following
things we have talked about, making sure that diplomacy and all other
avenues have been explored before we make this extraordinary decision.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
respond to one comment made by my friend from Rochester.
Mr. Speaker, it is very true that during the 1980s the United States
did in fact provide biological materials to Iraq, but I should say it
was done with the best of intentions, with the goal of trying to help
the Iraqi people through fighting malaria and other diseases.
Now, it is very apparent, we have learned, Mr. Speaker, that
fertilizer request could be utilized to create a bomb, as we found in
Oklahoma City several years ago. The challenge that we have is in
dealing with the intentions of Saddam Hussein, and that is the question
that we face right here.
[[Page H7183]]
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a very hard-working, thoughtful
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Pasco, Washington
(Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, each of us comes to Congress for the first time with
hopes and dreams of what lies ahead while we serve as Members of this
great institution. But surely none of us here today and none who came
before us could possibly have wished for the terrible choice facing us
at the conclusion of this debate. And make no mistake, it is indeed the
most terrible of choices.
For, one way or another, once we vote, lives will be lost. That will
be the case whether military action against Saddam Hussein is
authorized or not. And it goes without saying that none of us takes
such a Hobson's choice lightly.
Whether we like it or not, a choice must be made, and made without
delay. The imminent nature of the threat facing America and the world
means that not to decide is to decide.
We all know too much about the plans that Saddam Hussein has made for
those of us that love freedom and about his ongoing preparations to
carry out those deadly plans.
Simply put, this is a man who must be stopped. To those who oppose
military action in Iraq, we can only ask if we do not stop Saddam, who
will?
Some say the case is yet to be made that military action is
warranted. To them I say, the record is clear and unambiguous, as even
the brief remarks highlighted to the Nation by President Bush last
night made clear. That debate, Mr. Speaker, is over.
Others say we must wait for the United Nations or for the active
support of a broad coalition of nations. To them I say, protecting
American citizens from the likes of Saddam Hussein is America's
responsibility and no one else's. After all, protecting the American
people from foreign enemies is the first and most critical function of
our Federal Government. It is the very reason the Federal Government
was established by our Founding Fathers.
We cannot be the world's police force, but there are times when we
must stand forcefully against threats to peace, both here and abroad.
But far more important, we must never fail to protect the lives of
American citizens, citizens who are at risk today from the attacks by
the agents of Saddam Hussein.
So if we must go it alone, let us not shrink from that duty. We know
our troops will not shrink from theirs.
But we should not assume, Mr. Speaker, that because some nations have
yet to endorse this vital mission that we will be forced to carry this
burden alone. Consider for a moment our experience in Kosovo. For the
record, I voted against that military action. I did so because I was
not convinced that the crisis in the Balkans threatened our American
security, and I opposed military action there because I felt it was
Europe's problem; and if the Europeans were not willing to support our
efforts, it would be wrong to send young American men and women into
harm's way on their behalf. But when my side lost that debate, I
supported the President, because that is what we do in this country.
In hindsight, however, I believe it was correct to undertake that
mission in the Balkans, which is now rightly considered a success.
I believe experience demonstrates that sometimes what the world wants
from America is for America to lead. When the United States did what
was right by moving militarily to stop the genocide in Kosovo, the
Europeans fell into line and stood up for freedom. They continue to do
so today. I believe, Mr. Speaker, the same thing will happen if we act
resolutely to remove the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
Once we act, freedom-loving nations everywhere will welcome the
chance to rid this world of this deadly menace, but only American
leadership will ensure that he is removed once and for all.
Protect American lives, end Saddam's reign of terror and send a
message of hope that will echo around the world by supporting this rule
and the underlying resolution and giving the President the authority he
needs to do what is right.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich).
{time} 1100
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying
resolution. The resolution presented to Congress by the administration
gives authority to the President to act prior to and even without a
U.N. resolution. It authorizes the President to use U.S. troops to
enforce U.N. resolutions, even without the United Nations' request for
it. In other words, America would be going it alone, and we would be
stuck alone.
This is a violation, this resolution, of Chapter VII of the U.N.
charter which reserves the ability to authorize force for that purpose
to the U.N. Security Council alone.
My esteemed colleague, who is the chairman of the committee, quoted
Abraham Lincoln. I, too, would like to quote Abraham Lincoln. ``With
malice towards none, with charity for all; with firmness in the right,
as God gives us to see the right.'' Lincoln spoke of principles of
unity, not only unity in this Nation but unity in the world, and
Lincoln's prayer was for unity.
At the beginning of this new century, our prayer should be for a
world united by international law, for a world as an interconnected
world. That prayer is already being answered. Changes in transportation
and communication and trade have brought the world together.
Wherever the world is divided, let the world community work together
to heal those divisions. Where global security is threatened, let the
global community respond. No nation should be above international law.
All nations must confirm international law. All nations should seek to
bring back into the international community any nation which sets
itself apart.
Inspections should occur in Iraq, through the United Nations, and the
inspections should be unfettered and they should eliminate any weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq to the extent that they exist. But the
argument to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq if they exist
should not be a license to destroy the people of Iraq. Let our concerns
about weapons of mass destruction cause America to lead the way toward
destruction of all weapons of mass destruction anywhere and everywhere
in the world.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that of nations that possess, pursue, or
are capable of acquiring weapons of mass destruction, there are 17
nations pursuing nuclear; 20 nations that have biological weapons
capability or are seeking them; 26 nations that have chemical weapons
capability or are seeking those capabilities; 16 nations that have
missile capabilities or are seeking them. Are we to suddenly declare
war on the world?
Now, we know about Saddam Hussein and that he does not respect the
law. There is no question about that. But the question which the
resolution that we will be voting on in the next few days poses is
whether we, the United States, respect international law and whether we
will act preemptively and whether we will uphold the United Nations,
the Security Council, and the principles of our own Constitution.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Springfield, New York (Mr. Reynolds), my very good
friend.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for
his leadership on the Iraq issue.
Mr. Speaker, today we begin an important and serious debate. The
decision of whether we commit America's military and America's
servicemen and women to a confrontation with a sovereign nation is not
something to be taken lightly. I applaud our President and this
Congress for ensuring that we begin this debate well-informed and well-
prepared.
As the President has said in his radio address to the Nation on
Saturday, ``The United States does not desire military conflict because
we know the awful nature of war.'' But ``If the Iraqi regime persists
in its defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.''
Mr. Speaker, 16 times the world has come together to stop Saddam
Hussein from threatening our peace, stability, and security; and 16
times this madman and murderer has ignored the will
[[Page H7184]]
of that world, continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction that
have no valid defensive purpose. They have only one purpose: to wreak
as much havoc and to murder as many people as possible.
Saddam Hussein has already used such weapons on his own people. Each
day he comes closer to developing even deadlier weapons and more
effective and longer-range delivery systems. Do we really want to see
what these weapons are capable of before we force their destruction?
Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Saddam Hussein to open his borders
for inspection anytime, anywhere. It is time for Iraq and its regime to
destroy those weapons of mass destruction. ``Delay, indecision, and
inaction,'' as President Bush said, ``are not options for America.''
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
resolution.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman).
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time. The rule is a fair rule, and I rise in support of it. I simply
want to address a few of the comments of my friends and colleagues who
have spoken before me.
The gentleman from Massachusetts and others, the gentleman from Ohio,
argue that this is a resolution authorizing the unilateral use of
force, and that is why they are against it. Literally, they are
correct. A strict reading of the resolution makes that clear. However,
it fails to put into context what we are trying to do.
Everyone knows that multilateral is better than unilateral. Everyone
knows that approval by the Security Council for the use of force is
better than not having approval for the use of force by the Security
Council. It is the passage of this resolution, the strong statement by
the Congress of the United States that we stand with the administration
in the effort to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, that
maximizes the diplomatic and political chances of achieving the
broadest possible multilateral support for a meaningful disarming
resolution out of the United Nations, another resolution and, if
necessary, and it may very well be, the right to use force on a
multilateral basis.
We will have allies, and we will go to the U.N. Our effectiveness
there is directly related to the extent to which we here today speak
strongly in favor of this course of action, and that is why I support
the resolution.
I do have to take issue with my very good friend, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. We did
not do what we did in the 1980s up through 1990 because we were trying
to help the Iraqi people. We did not take Iraq off the list of
countries supporting terrorism even though Abu Nidal was based there
and was involved in terrorist activities using Iraqi passports and
diplomatic pouches, bombing and killing civilians all over the Middle
East because we wanted to help the Iraqi people. We did not provide
dual-use equipment which had military as well as nonmilitary uses,
including precursors to biological weapons, because we wanted to help
the Iraqi people. We did not encourage our allies to send arms to Iraq
during the Iraq-Iran War because we wanted to help the Iraqi people.
We made a strategic and foolish decision that Saddam Hussein was
someone we could work with, that we wanted to tilt to Iraq during the
Iraq-Iran war, and President Bush the first acknowledged his error and
many others have acknowledged the errors of those policies during the
1980s.
So I think, as we come to terms with the past and what we have done
wrong, we should acknowledge where our policies were wrong. Now that
does not lead us to the conclusion that, because we had the wrong
policies at one time, we do not take the decisive action we need to
take now, but I think it is very important in the context of what is
going to be a long debate that we stick to the historical record.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply respond to my very good friend with whom I have been pleased to
work on this issue. That is, it is very clear that we need to focus on
the fact that it is the intent of the recipient of this capability, and
it would have been wonderful if the biological capability that had been
transferred to Iraq would have been used to deal with the problem of
malaria and other diseases there. That is my point.
What I am trying to say is that Saddam Hussein is the one who has
posed the threat here. His use of this biological and chemical
capability is what poses a very serious threat to the United States and
to the rest of the civilized world.
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), another hard-working member of the Committee on
Rules and our very good friend.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me
this time and for his strong leadership on this resolution. I rise in
strong support of the rule which will allow this body and the American
people the opportunity to engage in over 20 hours of debate on the
resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq.
I would like also to take a moment to thank the distinguished
Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from
California (Mr. Lantos), for their efforts to put this country ahead of
any other consideration.
Mr. Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart that we begin this debate
on a resolution to authorize the use of force against another nation to
protect freedom, the freedom of all Americans, the freedom of Iraq, the
freedom of people all around the world. This is the freedom to be safe
from fear, to be safe from oppression, and to be safe from hate. It is
a choice that none of us wishes to make, but it is a choice that has
been made for us.
The President made his case to the American people last night and to
anybody able to hear his speech. Unfortunately, the major networks
chose not to carry it, so anyone whose local affiliates carried it or
who have cable were able to hear his impassioned plea. But anyone who
could hear his speech knows that this President does not want to lead
us into war, but little has changed since he identified the threat from
Iraq in his January State of the Union address. Iraq continues to pose
a serious and imminent threat from its development of weapons of mass
destruction and the obvious potential for Iraq to transfer these
weapons to terrorist groups, terrorist groups that, like Saddam
Hussein, hate the United States of America.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man and,
under his leadership, Iraq is a dangerous nation. Our quarrel is not
with the Iraqi people. They are among those who have suffered the most
under this regime; and, like the Afghanistan people when liberated from
al Qaeda, the Iraqi people will rejoice if liberated from Saddam
Hussein and his regime of terror.
By acting today, we move to protect the American people. We do not
abandon diplomacy, and we seek international support. However, we do
serve notice to the Iraqi regime and, indeed, the world that the United
States will defend itself against all threats.
As we move forward, we keep in mind that the goal of any decision
with regard to Iraq must be disarmament. Saddam's arsenal of terror
must be dismantled, and time may not be on our side. Each day we wait,
each day we put off acting, each day we are led astray by idle delays
puts us closer to real risk.
Iraq's claim that they are now suddenly willing to allow inspectors
back in is extremely dubious. We have been down this road before. To
achieve real assurance that Iraq is disarmed and cannot threaten our
national security, more serious action may need to be taken.
For the last year, we have waged a war against extremism, against
hate, and against terror. Today's resolution will give our President
the tools he needs to continue and to win this fight. I urge my
colleagues to support this rule to allow us to enter into this full and
open debate.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my good friend, the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) that one does not have to be a
microbiologist, as I am, to know that we do
[[Page H7185]]
not send a country Anthrax, botulism, and deadly viruses to cure
malaria unless we expect that cure to be death; and I believe that was
precisely what the intent was. It was supposed to be used against Iran.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to offer
my deepest sympathy to the young Marine that lost his life in Kuwait
this morning; and to the brave men and women who serve our United
States military and protect our freedom around the world, I offer my
deepest appreciation.
The debate we begin this week is really a question of life or death.
It is the most serious debate we have had in this Congress since the
Vietnam War which saw 56,000 body bags come home to loved ones in
America, and the Gulf War. That is why I agree with the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost) that this is not a partisan issue, it is not
Democrats or Republicans, it is simply Americans. I hope that those of
us who come to the floor to express a differing opinion will be
respected for being patriots, the same as any of our colleagues.
{time} 1115
The bill of particulars against Mr. Saddam Hussein is not new. It has
been going on for a long period of time. That is why it seems that this
resolution is premature; and in particular, it seems that we should
have allowed 15 of the resolutions offered by thoughtful Members of
Congress who wanted to be able to deliberate so the American people
could know all of the facts. I believe they should have been made in
order, all of our thoughts.
Nothing in the present resolution on the floor prevents a unilateral
preemptive strike, which is in violation of international law.
Finally, as we begin this debate, as I hope to engage in the debate
on a factual basis, nothing in the resolution prevents or allows or
encourages the President of the United States to follow the
Constitution and to come to this Congress for a separate, freestanding
vote to declare war against Iraq.
That should be the question that the American people ask, whether or
not, under the three branches of government and the Constitution, we
are following the law: an actual declaration of war against Iraq.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to our friend,
the gentleman from Dallas, Texas (Mr. Sessions), another hard-working
member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, today the House begins debate on House Joint Resolution
114 to authorize use of the force of the United States Armed Forces
against Iraq. This is a serious debate that needs to take place.
Mr. Speaker, I want Members to know that I support this resolution,
and I support the President of the United States in what he is doing.
But today we are here to debate the rule and to talk about what we are
going to do as we debate the topic. I support this rule, I support what
we are doing.
Mr. Speaker, if we dig deep within this resolution, we will see two
important things.
Number one, August 14, 1998, Public Law 105-235, Congress concluded
that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction program threatened
the United States and its allies; and, point number two, inspectors
were withdrawn from Iraq on October 31, 1998, almost 4 years ago. The
Iraqis have indicated through their administration, through the
constant threat against the United States, that they intend to harm the
United States and its interests around the globe. This is the same
regime that attempted to assassinate former President Bush in 1993.
Mr. Speaker, what we are engaged in now is the support of the United
States against enemies around the globe. Our foreign policy had to
change on September 11 when we were attacked. I believe that what
President Bush is doing now is to make sure that America will no longer
be held hostage, will no longer allow a nation state, any nation state,
to threaten the United States and get away with it.
It is time that we support our President. The process that has been
laid out before the American people and to the United Nations is one
that we can understand, that we can support.
I believe this President is well balanced, is articulate, and last
night spoke with great favor towards the Nation of the United States
that wants peace, not war, but that we will not allow ourselves to be
pushed around.
Mr. Speaker, I support House Joint Resolution 114 and this rule,
which is for peace, but making sure that peace through strength will be
achieved through supporting our President. I intend to vote ``aye'' on
the rule and ``aye'' on the resolution.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I particularly want to
commend the chairman and the ranking member for approving and bringing
to the floor the separate substitute, which is supported by the
following Members as it went to the Committee on Rules: the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen),
the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson), the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from California (Mr.
Matsui), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman
from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn).
Mr. Speaker, the separate substitute reflects four fundamental
principles:
First, our mission should be clear: disarming Iraq of all weapons of
mass destruction;
Second, it includes a sense of Congress supporting tough new,
rigorous U.N. inspections;
Third, it authorizes the use of force if sanctioned by the U.N.
Security Council; and
Fourth, it establishes a separate fast track congressional
authorization of force if U.N. action is insufficient.
In other words, the separate substitute authorizes the use of force
today through the United Nations, but it provides no blank check now
for unilateral military action. Why does it do that? Because if the
U.S. acts unilaterally or with just a few other nations, there is a far
higher risk of fueling resentment in Arab and Muslim nations and
swelling the ranks of the anti-U.S. terrorists. Our fundamental concern
has to be to deal with the terrorist threat represented by al Qaeda and
other international organizations.
Regardless of how Members vote on final passage, voting for the
separate substitute is an important way to voice concern that the U.S.
should work through the U.N. Security Council first and unilaterally
only as a last resort. If unilateral action is necessary, Congress
should have a vote on that issue.
We cannot fulfill our historic role if we end our consideration of
this matter this week. We need to be more than the President's
megaphone. We need additional consideration when the President has
decided to use unilateral force and when he can tell us what it is he
has in mind.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Sherman) is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, last night the President somewhat vaguely
announced the right policy for this country: to invade Iraq only if
unrestricted inspections are not available. This gives us a chance to
disarm Iraq without war; but if war becomes necessary, at least the
fact that we struggled to avoid it will minimize foreign opposition.
Unfortunately, the Resolution before us is far more vague than the
President's speech. It allows for an invasion even if Saddam completely
capitulates on the issue of inspections. Unfortunately, the Rule does
not make in order a resolution limited to the President's rhetoric. So
if we want to authorize force if inspections are not allowed, the Rule
requires us to give the President a blank check.
On a completely different issue, I would like to point out that
during the
[[Page H7186]]
1980s we did provide dual-use material to Iraq that could have been
used to wage conventional war, but there is no evidence that we
knowingly provided material to Iraq that could be used to conduct
biological or chemical warfare.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and obviously the
resolution, as well. It is very clear we were talking about the issue
of biological weapons. The United States of America does not traffic in
biological weapons, and the attack that has been launched by many on
the other side against President Bush No. 41 is an unfair one.
We see much dual-use technology which, unfortunately, has been used
in a wrong way. But the question that we need to address is the intent
of Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein poses a threat to our stability, to
the entire world. None of us is enthused about the prospect of going to
war; but we face one of the most difficult issues we possibly can as
Members of the people's House, that is, are we going to provide this
President of the United States the support that he wants and deserves
to proceed in defending the United States of America and our interests?
Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult time, and I think back to a debate
that took place in the middle of the Civil War. John Stuart Mill wrote:
``War is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The
decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which `thinks
nothing worth a war' is worse.''
Mr. Speaker, it is very important for us to realize how tough this
is; but the United States of America is a very unique Nation, and we
stand for freedom throughout the world. It is important for us to stand
up now. Vote ``yes'' for this rule, and vote in favor of the
resolution.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________